Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
SheppyFox

Kelechi Iheanacho

By SheppyFox, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No, not entirely. It sets a precedent of big clubs snaffling up all the decent young players and then even if they move them on, guaranteeing themselves a slice of the cake. This is one step closer to us not being able to compete with them. It needs to be rejected in principle.

That's for the FA to do though. If these sort of deals are going to become common practice aren't we going to be left behind even more if we reject them on principle? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
Just now, foxfanazer said:

That's for the FA to do though. If these sort of deals are going to become common practice aren't we going to be left behind even more if we reject them on principle? 

No, West Ham have rejected it. If we do the same. Who is left? Man City might have a rethink. It's not like Ihaenacho is the one and only player available. 

Its a bad deal and the FA won't regulate until the game is crippled by them, we can't wait for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Very likely, a lot of players burst into the scene and make impact off the bench and then never kick on. The risk is huge with this transfer fee.

Then we shouldn't be touching him with a barge pole at this fee, irrelevant of any clauses 

 

if you believe he is worth the money then do it

 

he is already an established Nigerian international scoring 6 in 10 apps

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Strokes said:

No, West Ham have rejected it. If we do the same. Who is left? Man City might have a rethink. It's not like Ihaenacho is the one and only player available. 

Its a bad deal and the FA won't regulate until the game is crippled by them, we can't wait for that.

Good point. I still see it as probably the only opportunity to get these kind of players in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
Just now, st albans fox said:

Then we shouldn't be touching him with a barge pole at this fee, irrelevant of any clauses 

 

if you believe he is worth the money then do it

 

he is already an established Nigerian international scoring 6 in 10 apps

 

I do have my doubts about whether we should be touching him at this fee, regardless. But this buyback removes any of the positives, and the risks remain. So I would rather we look elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted
Just now, Strokes said:

Surely a loan would be better?

I might be talking rubbish but what's the difference really? 

 

The only way that benefits us is if he's a dud and doesn't score many goals here so he just goes back to man city and we've saved ourselves £25m.

 

If he does well however then he goes back to Man City anyway but we don't get anything for 'developing' him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weller54

weller54

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Then we shouldn't be touching him with a barge pole at this fee, irrelevant of any clauses 

 

if you believe he is worth the money then do it

 

he is already an established Nigerian international scoring 6 in 10 apps

 

He was a massive influence on them qualifying for AFCON! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, foxfanazer said:

I might be talking rubbish but what's the difference really? 

 

The only way that benefits us is if he's a dud and doesn't score many goals here so he just goes back to man city and we've saved ourselves £25m.

 

If he does well however then he goes back to Man City anyway but we don't get anything for 'developing' him. 

A loan averts the risk if he does turn out to be a flop.

£10 million with the way the pound is dropping and inflated transfers in football could well be a negative on the balance sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Guvnor

The Guvnor

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

Can anyone ever be better than Maynard? :unsure:

 

it it is not possible surely?  :D

Ahh the way Maynard danced around Sean St Ledger to fire the ball into the back of the net was a joy to behold, we lost 3-1 on the night he scored a brace, he was a football genius.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mozartfox

mozartfox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, frany104 said:

Your Rudkin jokes were funny at first. They are now boring. Please stop

Simples mate. Just skip over them. Sorry to see you are having a bad Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marutimon

Marutimon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, weller54 said:

He was a massive influence on them qualifying for AFCON! 

I know its a running joke, but Iheanacho's played just two qualification games - assisted a goal vs Egypt on his competitive debut and scored the winning goal on the final game vs Tanzania (Nigeria were already out by then). So he had no impact on Nigeria missing out. The moment Nigeria failed to qualify was when they drew at home to Egypt (the game Kelechi debuted in and assisted a goal) and away in Tanzania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted

Why are people so wrapped up in the money side of stuff? They talk like it's their own cash they'd be spending on transfer fees.

If we rate Iheanacho so much, and Man City want to sell, then sign him.

We have pots of money so don't worry.

If there is a buy back clause then sobeit. We'd have had the best of the player  (Which is why Man City would want him back) AND we'd make a profit on the deal anyway.

To be honest, Man City by then will probably have Messi up front anyway, so I wouldn't worry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted

Been told we've had put a bid in of £27m and a buy back clause of double that which has been accepted. Well documented we didn't want one in the first place so have settled for thay buy back clause. Original buy back Man City wanted was between £30m-40m. But because the original asking price so high, we weren't going to accept that proposal. 

 

Apparently we offered to loan him last sunmer for a season and have first option on him this summer but that was rejected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SheppyFox

SheppyFox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Been told we've had put a bid in of £27m and a buy back clause of double that which has been accepted. Well documented we didn't want one in the first place so have settled for thay buy back clause. Original buy back Man City wanted was between £30m-40m. But because the original asking price so high, we weren't going to accept that proposal. 

 

Apparently we offered to loan him last sunmer for a reason and have first option on him this summer but that was rejected. 

Great news mate :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Source? Not questioning how genuine you're statement is btw just wondering, hope you are right tho ! :) 

Can't reveal that for reasons which I hope will be obvious but the same source that told me about Maguire, Vardy's new contract and Kasper signing for us. Not saying he's always 100% because it's a volatile industry especially in the transfer window! But I trust him with the info he gives me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...