Gylfi Sigurdsson

[Gerard]

Just now, HankMarvin said:

or potentially the owners would pump more money in as opposed to take it out?

 

Well if we had owners who were prepared to pay for success whatever the personal financial cost to themselves then I would show little concern.

 

The truth is the owners aren't that rich in PL terms and probably aren't prepared to flush half a billion quid down the toilet for their amusement.

[hackneyfox]

Love how 90 million becomes 500 million.

[HankMarvin]

3 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Well if we had owners who were prepared to pay for success whatever the personal financial cost to themselves then I would show little concern.

 

The truth is the owners aren't that rich in PL terms and probably aren't prepared to flush half a billion quid down the toilet for their amusement.

500 MILLION?

 

I'm sure their annual growth and forecasts year on year since taking over are miles ahead of what they predicted, (Premier league winners, Champions League run & and how far the brand has been pushed around the world on the back of said success) sure they could push the boat out if needed, its just a question of is it needed at that price?

 

Well once the Neymar transfer goes through i think transfers, could go through the roof. We could look at 50m Sigurdsson as good value 12 months down the line depending on what happens with transfer inflation, much like Keane 12 months ago at 12 and 15 million was sniffed at by a lot of fans. Once the 100 million barrier goes lots of top players values will increase and so will the middle market.

[Gerard]

1 minute ago, HankMarvin said:

500 MILLION?

 

I'm sure their annual growth and forecasts year on year since taking over are miles ahead of what they predicted, (Premier league winners, Champions League run & and how far the brand has been pushed around the world on the back of said success) sure they could push the boat out if needed, its just a question of is it needed at that price?

 

Well once the Neymar transfer goes through i think transfers, could go through the roof. We could look at 50m Sigurdsson as good value 12 months down the line depending on what happens with transfer inflation, much like Keane 12 months ago at 12 and 15 million was sniffed at by a lot of fans. Once the 100 million barrier goes lots of top players values will increase and so will the middle market.

 

Well the figures won't go up unless the income does as most clubs spend the vast majority of their income anyway.

 

The reason the Keane fee went up is because he was an unknown quantity a year a go but after an excellent season his value went up.

 

Sigurdsson will only look cheap this time next year if he performs to a near world class level. If he performs to expectation his value will stay the same at best but probably will be moving on a downward trajectory. For Sigurdsson's value to increase teams like Man Utd will have to think they missed out this time round. It doesn't make sense that only a club of Everton's and Leicester's (to a point) stature thinks he is worth £50m. All the big clubs aren't at all interested in him.

[Gerard]

17 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Love how 90 million becomes 500 million.

 

Well when does it stop when people don't give a damn about value for money?

 

Do you think the owners want to keep making bad value signings and funding it out of their own pockets?

[Wymsey]

Quite convinced Sigurdsson wouldn't replace any of the current starting central midfielders straightaway, even if he had got him.

Ndidi is the same effect going forward, very strong and knows where the goal is, whilst Drinkwater is more defensive-minded.

[HankMarvin]

15 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Well the figures won't go up unless the income does as most clubs spend the vast majority of their income anyway.

 

The reason the Keane fee went up is because he was an unknown quantity a year a go but after an excellent season his value went up.

 

Sigurdsson will only look cheap this time next year if he performs to a near world class level. If he performs to expectation his value will stay the same at best but probably will be moving on a downward trajectory. For Sigurdsson's value to increase teams like Man Utd will have to think they missed out this time round. It doesn't make sense that only a club of Everton's and Leicester's (to a point) stature thinks he is worth £50m. All the big clubs aren't at all interested in him.

Not if there is a significant shift in the Transfer Price Index caused by the 200 million transfer of Neymar, and other top players values increasing.

[Gerard]

Just now, HankMarvin said:

Not if there is a significant shift in the Transfer Price Index caused by the 200 million transfer on Neymar, and other top player values increasing.

 

The high end of the market will always have a mind of it's own because you're buying the best money can buy. When you have owners like the PSG one who are the Qatar Royal Family they want the best and I would say Neymar as a true world class player is much worth nearer £200m and a value of only 400% higher than a good player like Sigurdsson worth £50m.

 

People seem to think we have a bottomless pit at Leicester but we don't. Our owners wealth is very modest compared to the real wealthy owners, we have to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

If a football club like ours generates £110m a year and we spend £80m on wages and £10m elsewhere then that leaves a surplus of £20m for transfers each year. We really can't afford to buy a £50m player who possibly walks away on a free and offers us little more than PL stability. Sigurdsson won't take us to the next level. I'd have no problem us buying "the next Messi" as an 18 year old for £50m but not on a player like Sigurdsson who is 28 in a month and deemed not good enough for the bigger clubs.

[Countryfox]

51 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Signing Sigurdsson would make us a slightly better side but to the detriment to the long term health of the club.

But that slightly better bit might  give financial gain ...   more points higher position more cash, attract better players etc ...     swing and roundabouts ...

 

He who dares Rodney !

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

Thats an odd thing to say.

 

Not only do we have a huge amount left from the TV money for last season, we are likely to get about 40m for Mahrez sometime soon...

Perhaps, but I'm very uncomfortable paying that sort of price, particularly as we'd be having our pants pulled down. The CL money was a windfall that is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. The owners have not given any indication that they are prepared to run the club at a loss. Then there's FFP to worry about, wages, etc. 

 

[hackneyfox]

35 minutes ago, Gerard said:

.

 

The reason the Keane fee went up is because he was an unknown quantity a year a go but after an excellent season his value went up.

 

 

That's one reason why his fee went up, the other being the fact that we PL clubs now get 40% more in TV money than they did.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Me gylfi.. me do set pieces.. me 50 million

 

 

Really if a bloody free-kick and corner merchant is now worth that kind of money it's time they introduced 'special teams' to football.

[Gerard]

2 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

That's one reason why his fee went up, the other being the fact that we PL clubs now get 40% more in TV money than they did.

 

His fee went up because instead of buying potential there was further evidence he was a top player after performing in the PL for a season and getting an England cap. Buying him a year a go came with a certain amount of risk, buying him this summer came with much less risk hence the reason his price had gone up also.

[Gerard]

12 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

But that slightly better bit might  give financial gain ...   more points higher position more cash, attract better players etc ...     swing and roundabouts ...

 

He who dares Rodney !

 

It's all about risk assessment, it's easy to say all that when it's not your money. Of course the high end upside is he's the difference between us finishing 6th or 4th and we qualify for the Champions League and never look back.

 

The more likely scenario is he's the difference between us finishing 9th to 8th and he proves to be a bad buy for us financially as our small improvement in league position isn't worth the cost and we don't have the spending power in future transfer windows because of it.

 

I'm much more happier signing Iheanacho for £25m and possibly selling him for £40m three years down the line. It makes much more sense.

[HankMarvin]

23 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

The high end of the market will always have a mind of it's own because you're buying the best money can buy. When you have owners like the PSG one who are the Qatar Royal Family they want the best and I would say Neymar as a true world class player is much worth nearer £200m and a value of only 400% higher than a good player like Sigurdsson worth £50m.

 

People seem to think we have a bottomless pit at Leicester but we don't. Our owners wealth is very modest compared to the real wealthy owners, we have to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

If a football club like ours generates £110m a year and we spend £80m on wages and £10m elsewhere then that leaves a surplus of £20m for transfers each year. We really can't afford to buy a £50m player who possibly walks away on a free and offers us little more than PL stability. Sigurdsson won't take us to the next level. I'd have no problem us buying "the next Messi" as an 18 year old for £50m but not on a player like Sigurdsson who is 28 in a month and deemed not good enough for the bigger clubs.

 

May 2016 Official accounts

 

Turnover £129m (8th highest in the league)

Wages £80m (15th highest, 62% of turnover)

 

Profit(£59m)

 

2017

Champions league money (£66m)

Premier league prize reward (£120.7m)

Wages unknown but likely to increase

£100m??

 

Profit (£86m)

 

 

 

If we end up selling Mahrez £40 -50m and or drinkwater £30m

 

I think its safe to say over the last 2 years we have a lot more than the 20 million a season you are allowing for transfers.

[MPH]

22 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Perhaps, but I'm very uncomfortable paying that sort of price, particularly as we'd be having our pants pulled down. The CL money was a windfall that is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. The owners have not given any indication that they are prepared to run the club at a loss. Then there's FFP to worry about, wages, etc. 

 

 

 

FFFP- our budget is hugely increased for this season in part to the champions league windfall and the new tv deal  which is going to be continuing of course. I will also add that our owners appear to be very shrewed buisnessmen and i dont think for one second they'd run Leicester City at a loss...

 

 

I think its ok to feel uncomfortable paying that amount though- i remember thinking we were big stuff when we signed Lee Phillpot for 350k!!

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

 

May 2016 Official accounts

 

Turnover £129m (8th highest in the league)

Wages £80m (15th highest, 62% of turnover)

 

Profit(£59m)

 

2017

Champions league money (£66m)

Premier league prize reward (£120.7m)

Wages unknown but likely to increase

£100m??

 

Profit (£86m)

 

 

 

If we end up selling Mahrez £40 -50m and or drinkwater £30m

 

I think its safe to say over the last 2 years we have a lot more than the 20 million a season you are allowing for transfers.

That champions league is a one off.... without it by your figures we're getting £120m in prize money and spending £100m on wages. As I said in the other thread, 4th highest net spend in the league after Iheanacho is announced. It's likely a lot of that cash is already accounted for.

 

 

[Gerard]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

 

May 2016 Official accounts

 

Turnover £129m (8th highest in the league)

Wages £80m (15th highest, 62% of turnover)

 

Profit(£59m)

 

2017

Champions league money (£66m)

Premier league prize reward (£120.7m)

Wages unknown but likely to increase

£100m??

 

Profit (£86m)

 

 

 

If we end up selling Mahrez £40 -50m and or drinkwater £30m

 

I think its safe to say over the last 2 years we have a lot more than the 20 million a season you are allowing for transfers.

 

Unsustainable though as we won't be winning titles and entering the Champions League anytime soon in all probability. That money should be seen as a one off and not something we should be building the foundation of the club on.

 

We should still be able to justify why we're spending on every transfer fee and wage and not acting like a 20 year old lottery winner who won £10m and spending like a billionaire. Mikey Carroll anyone?

 

 

[HankMarvin]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

That champions league is a one off.... without it by your figures we're getting £120m in prize money and spending £100m on wages. As I said in the other thread, 4th highest net spend in the league after Iheanacho is announced. It's likely a lot of that cash is already accounted for.

 

 

Assuming there is a 20 million pound increase on the wage bill,

its a one off but its still has to go somewhere.

The point was replying to that we only have 20 million a season for transfers over the last 2 years thats simply not the case, 

[HankMarvin]

6 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Unsustainable though as we won't be winning titles and entering the Champions League anytime soon in all probability. That money should be seen as a one off and not something we should be building the foundation of the club on.

 

We should still be able to justify why we're spending on every transfer fee and wage and not acting like a 20 year old lottery winner who won £10m and spending like a billionaire. Mikey Carroll anyone?

 

 

It was only £9m pound prize difference for finishing 12th last season the prize money increases every year.

Champions league income sure, but lets not forget about the owners pledge "Leicester City’s owner has targeted breaking into the Premier League’s top five"

Now they must of known it wouldn't have been about breaking even year on year, and significant spending would be needed. So they must be massively ahead financially on what they foretasted just 3 seasons ago.

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, Gerard said:

 

That is the attitude of an animal caring more about it's next meal rather than the sustainability of the food source.

 

Signing Sigurdsson would make us a slightly better side but to the detriment to the long term health of the club.

 

If we spent £50m on Sigurdsson we probably have him for five years and with transfer fees and wages he costs us £90m. In five years time he possibly moves for free as a 33 year old and we don't get £90m of value out of him which means we have to cut costs elsewhere in the squad.

No it isn't. You're talking rubbish. This football club could well afford to pay 50 mill for Sigurdsson (I'm sure I'd read we'd actually offered 40 m already??) and still be perfectly fine financially. Especially if we offloaded some of the mediocrity at the club. Of course, the expectation would be that better players over the longer term would make us more competitive in the market anyway.

We should cut costs elsewhere in the squad. How many times does this need to be said. The problem isn't identifying the players we don't want, it's that no one wants them. 

[Col city fan]

20 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Unsustainable though as we won't be winning titles and entering the Champions League anytime soon in all probability. That money should be seen as a one off and not something we should be building the foundation of the club on.

 

We should still be able to justify why we're spending on every transfer fee and wage and not acting like a 20 year old lottery winner who won £10m and spending like a billionaire. Mikey Carroll anyone?

 

 

I usually like your posts but you're making ridiculous analogies here. And offensive ones. I'm not into spending for the sake of it. But if the going rate for Sigurdsson is 45/50 mill and he's our key identified target, pay the money and let's get on with making a fist of the season.

 The club can afford to.

[foxinsocks]

26 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I usually like your posts but you're making ridiculous analogies here. And offensive ones. I'm not into spending for the sake of it. But if the going rate for Sigurdsson is 45/50 mill and he's our key identified target, pay the money and let's get on with making a fist of the season.

 The club can afford to.

To be clear. .  Its not a question of you or i saying the owners are loaded lets spend spend spend.

If we have ambition we will need to bring in player s of the quality of Siggy. ..and this us what they cost.

Yes needing to justify is important: We should spend where we are filling a gap and bringing in improved quality.

But if we are ambitious... then it will cost

[Gerard]

23 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I usually like your posts but you're making ridiculous analogies here. And offensive ones. I'm not into spending for the sake of it. But if the going rate for Sigurdsson is 45/50 mill and he's our key identified target, pay the money and let's get on with making a fist of the season.

 The club can afford to.

 

I never meant to offend so apologies if you taken any.

 

I just think it's ridiculous that people entertain that Leicester City should:

 

a) Spend more money on one player than Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, AC Milan, etc ever have on a player

b) Make Sigurdsson the 20th most expensive player of all time.

c) Spend that much on a player who the top clubs aren't interested in.

 

This is a player who failed at Tottenham but proved to be a good PL player with Swansea. At 28 years old in a month we already know his limitations. You can almost guarantee that he won't be the difference between finishing top six or not. Outside his set pieces he's been very average in scoring and creating chances.

 

I'm not averse to us spending big by any means but we should choose that moment more carefully.

 

Man City bought Gabriel Jesus for £27m. If we make purchases like that on 19 year old future worldies we get a lot of value out of them on the pitch and no doubt when we sell him on again. Spending £50m on Sigurdsson will not be money well spent when he leaves and we analyse his time at the club.

 

 

[Col city fan]

25 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

I never meant to offend so apologies if you taken any.

 

I just think it's ridiculous that people entertain that Leicester City should:

 

a) Spend more money on one player than Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, AC Milan, etc ever have on a player

b) Make Sigurdsson the 20th most expensive player of all time.

c) Spend that much on a player who the top clubs aren't interested in.

 

This is a player who failed at Tottenham but proved to be a good PL player with Swansea. At 28 years old in a month we already know his limitations. You can almost guarantee that he won't be the difference between finishing top six or not. Outside his set pieces he's been very average in scoring and creating chances.

 

I'm not averse to us spending big by any means but we should choose that moment more carefully.

 

Man City bought Gabriel Jesus for £27m. If we make purchases like that on 19 year old future worldies we get a lot of value out of them on the pitch and no doubt when we sell him on again. Spending £50m on Sigurdsson will not be money well spent when he leaves and we analyse his time at the club.

 

 

I've asked you before...who do you have your mind on? If we need this creative midfielder that most people seem to think we do..who are you suggesting? And are they available and for how much?