Kelechi Iheanacho

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, Moksky said:

?

It's bloody happening int it.

[Albert]

7 hours ago, SheppyFox said:

I cannot believe we're waiting to empty out before buying more, horrendous approach, don't believe we're that stupid. Early bird catches the worm, right? 

Do u honestly believe the club is taking this approach bearing in mind we've got £100m more than any of the clubs in the same bracket of transfer targets as us or are u just being impatient?!?! What other club is signing players at this time? Majority of players/managers etc are lying on a beach somewhere!!

Flip the tables and use Mahrez as an example. If u were in charge would u sell him to the first club that makes an offer or would u wait for a bidding war to happen later in the transfer window?

 

 

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

I'm well aware of how the press works, but the club hasn't come out with any "bravado". Clubs can and do, like Swansea have about Sig... but we've said nothing. 

What benefit does the club get from coming out with 'bravado' apart from appeasing impatient "Football manager" fans? 

[chapero82]

 

 

Leicester City is ready to provide an opportunity for this young Manchester City player to develop his career. The move is predicted to occur in the summer of 2017. During the 2016/2017 season, Kelechi Iheanacho contributed seven goals from 29 matches. However, only five appearances since the first minute under the direction of Pep Guardiola. Read Also: Newly Bought Manchester City This Player Has Been Injured Several Premier League clubs such as West Ham United, Crystal Palace and Everton monitored the development of the 20-year-old. Another only with Leicester, The Foxes a step further by exploring the possibility of a transfer. As reported by Sky Sports, Craig Shakespeare is looking for the ideal duet for Jamie Vardy in the 2017/2018 season and assumes Iheanacho can contribute. Read Also: English Premier League Goalkeeper It Wants To Replace De Gea Since entering the main squad Man City, Iheanacho has scored 21 goals from 64 matches. The Nigerian made his debut in late August 2015 while scoring his first goal when Man City won 2-0 at Watford.

[1972 Fox]

6 hours ago, Moksky said:

?

Sorry, was just pointing out that mooted would have been the correct word to used not muted.

 

BTW thanks for the info you post on here. You are one of the few that I trust to come up with new information that is actually genuine.

[SheppyFox]

5 hours ago, Albert said:

Do u honestly believe the club is taking this approach bearing in mind we've got £100m more than any of the clubs in the same bracket of transfer targets as us or are u just being impatient?!?! What other club is signing players at this time? Majority of players/managers etc are lying on a beach somewhere!!

Flip the tables and use Mahrez as an example. If u were in charge would u sell him to the first club that makes an offer or would u wait for a bidding war to happen later in the transfer window?

 

 

I don't believe it, I read that somewhere earlier in the thread.

[RoyFox]

5 hours ago, Albert said:

What benefit does the club get from coming out with 'bravado' apart from appeasing impatient "Football manager" fans? 

Good point West Ham do this, and it's backfired badly.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

8 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

Oh come off it. You're not that naive are you? You think they don't have contacts that they release  info to so that it appears unofficial? How do you think people like @UpTheLeagueFox get their info from? They get told stuff and told not to say certain things until the time is right.

Some fans demand to know sources without realising that's not how journalists work. We get briefed by managers / ex managers / players / ex players / agents / media staff / directors of football etc about situations - some we can publish, some we can't. Sometimes they ask you to keep things quiet but will give you another bit of info as a trade off. Neither Man City or Leicester are going to say anything publicly about whether this deal may or may not happen. Sometimes clubs privately are interested to know what other managers / players / agents have been saying about possible deals. Journalists sometimes get told they can use info but to not attribute it to them. It would be useful if fans understood better how the game works with media speculation but you'll always get those who disregard what they don't like to hear or if they don't like the journalist or the organisation they work for.

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, Albert said:

Do u honestly believe the club is taking this approach bearing in mind we've got £100m more than any of the clubs in the same bracket of transfer targets as us or are u just being impatient?!?! What other club is signing players at this time? Majority of players/managers etc are lying on a beach somewhere!!

Flip the tables and use Mahrez as an example. If u were in charge would u sell him to the first club that makes an offer or would u wait for a bidding war to happen later in the transfer window?

It's a strange position Albert. We have the money for fees but can't spend it on salaries as we are subject to the allowable year on year budget increase as agreed within the PL.  i wonder if we can use s/o fees to get around that restriction or would that be too crude?? 

[sphericalfox]

58 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Some fans demand to know sources without realising that's not how journalists work. We get briefed by managers / ex managers / players / ex players / agents / media staff / directors of football etc about situations - some we can publish, some we can't. Sometimes they ask you to keep things quiet but will give you another bit of info as a trade off. Neither Man City or Leicester are going to say anything publicly about whether this deal may or may not happen. Sometimes clubs privately are interested to know what other managers / players / agents have been saying about possible deals. Journalists sometimes get told they can use info but to not attribute it to them. It would be useful if fans understood better how the game works with media speculation but you'll always get those who disregard what they don't like to hear or if they don't like the journalist or the organisation they work for.

I've been playing Football Media Manager '17 and I've taken Last4LCFC News & IndyKalia to the shortlist and eventual winners at the SJAs, so if anyone wants any tips, advice, or cheats, give me a holler.

[LinekersApples]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Some fans demand to know sources without realising that's not how journalists work. We get briefed by managers / ex managers / players / ex players / agents / media staff / directors of football etc about situations - some we can publish, some we can't. Sometimes they ask you to keep things quiet but will give you another bit of info as a trade off. Neither Man City or Leicester are going to say anything publicly about whether this deal may or may not happen. Sometimes clubs privately are interested to know what other managers / players / agents have been saying about possible deals. Journalists sometimes get told they can use info but to not attribute it to them. It would be useful if fans understood better how the game works with media speculation but you'll always get those who disregard what they don't like to hear or if they don't like the journalist or the organisation they work for.

Totally agree Geoff. People should be more patient and respectful of you're job. Speculation and unfair interpretation didn't help anyone..

 

But if I've read this properly, you are saying he is 100% signing and it will be done today??

[CyprusFox]

3 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Some fans demand to know sources without realising that's not how journalists work. We get briefed by managers / ex managers / players / ex players / agents / media staff / directors of football etc about situations - some we can publish, some we can't. Sometimes they ask you to keep things quiet but will give you another bit of info as a trade off. Neither Man City or Leicester are going to say anything publicly about whether this deal may or may not happen. Sometimes clubs privately are interested to know what other managers / players / agents have been saying about possible deals. Journalists sometimes get told they can use info but to not attribute it to them. It would be useful if fans understood better how the game works with media speculation but you'll always get those who disregard what they don't like to hear or if they don't like the journalist or the organisation they work for.

Any info, however vague, is always welcome. In your position you will obviously be fed info from a variety of sources, some more reliable than others. Whereas I'm sure many of the "itks" on this forum have a far more tenuous link to the club. At the end of the day its down to each of us individually whether or not we take these links seriously. After all, the transfer news topic would be pretty boring, or even non-existent, if the itks decided not to post for risk of abuse or p*sstakes.

[Moksky]

4 hours ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

Sorry, was just pointing out that mooted would have been the correct word to used not muted.

 

BTW thanks for the info you post on here. You are one of the few that I trust to come up with new information that is actually genuine.

No worries pal, bloody spellchecker ha ha

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It's a strange position Albert. We have the money for fees but can't spend it on salaries as we are subject to the allowable year on year budget increase as agreed within the PL.  i wonder if we can use s/o fees to get around that restriction or would that be too crude?? 

I don't think the wages thing is a massive issue, purely because our income streams last season increased dramatically with the champions league. So long as you can prove the extra income (away from the standard TV deal everyone gets) you're not bound by the same rules as say, a Stoke. Also if you sell players that counts in your favour. We sold something like £40m worth last season and we'll probably do the same again this season if not more. Without seeing the full set of rules and being able to speak to someone at the PL it's hard to know for sure, but the shortened version we see in the press certainly seems to indicate there should be ways around it for us for a couple of seasons at least, due to the extra cash from winning the league and then the extra champions league money.

[AmarteyAndChill]

23 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I don't think the wages thing is a massive issue, purely because our income streams last season increased dramatically with the champions league. So long as you can prove the extra income (away from the standard TV deal everyone gets) you're not bound by the same rules as say, a Stoke. Also if you sell players that counts in your favour. We sold something like £40m worth last season and we'll probably do the same again this season if not more. Without seeing the full set of rules and being able to speak to someone at the PL it's hard to know for sure, but the shortened version we see in the press certainly seems to indicate there should be ways around it for us for a couple of seasons at least, due to the extra cash from winning the league and then the extra champions league money.

Any transfers that happen before July 1st go onto this seasons books. After July its they go onto next seasons books. As we spent £80m last summer it would make sense for us to do deals after July 1st to avoid FFP.

[st albans fox]

Income is irrelevant

 

there is a PL agreement whereby the wage bill can only increase by a percentage, year on year 

 

I think we were allowed an exclusion from this last season due to the strange situation  we were in (there is latitude for this in exceptional circumstances) but we won't be able to do it again this season. Can't just take on more big salaries, even though we have the money. 

[mozartfox]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Income is irrelevant

 

there is a PL agreement whereby the wage bill can only increase by a percentage, year on year 

 

I think we were allowed an exclusion from this last season due to the strange situation  we were in (there is latitude for this in exceptional circumstances) but we won't be able to do it again this season. Can't just take on more big salaries, even though we have the money. 

Then I guess we must unload and sign new to balance the books.  How much are we paying Filbert?

[Babylon]

15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Income is irrelevant

 

there is a PL agreement whereby the wage bill can only increase by a percentage, year on year 

 

I think we were allowed an exclusion from this last season due to the strange situation  we were in (there is latitude for this in exceptional circumstances) but we won't be able to do it again this season. Can't just take on more big salaries, even though we have the money. 

Income is very relevant "Clubs can exceed this £7m cap if they generate increased revenue". Increased revenue comes in the form of UEFA prize money (hello £78m this season), players sales, (£40m last year, same this?), match day income, commercial income, sponsorship.

 

There was no exclusion last year, the rules just didn't apply, like they won't this season. Next season is probably a different matter entirely.

 

 

 

 

There are potentially some interesting work arounds, especially in regards player sales. Lets say we are limited to only a £7m increase, yet the prize money we receive goes up substantially more than that, but because it's from the central deal we still can only go up by £7m in wages.

 

If you sell players, you could quite conceivably say that the money you spent on the players fees was from the TV deal extra cash. Whilst the extra wages come from the player sales. There by meaning you can increase above and beyond the £7m. That's something I've wondered about for a while but never really found the answer.

 

[sphericalfox]

34 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Income is very relevant "Clubs can exceed this £7m cap if they generate increased revenue". Increased revenue comes in the form of UEFA prize money (hello £78m this season), players sales, (£40m last year, same this?), match day income, commercial income, sponsorship.

 

There was no exclusion last year, the rules just didn't apply, like they won't this season. Next season is probably a different matter entirely.

 

 

 

 

There are potentially some interesting work arounds, especially in regards player sales. Lets say we are limited to only a £7m increase, yet the prize money we receive goes up substantially more than that, but because it's from the central deal we still can only go up by £7m in wages.

 

If you sell players, you could quite conceivably say that the money you spent on the players fees was from the TV deal extra cash. Whilst the extra wages come from the player sales. There by meaning you can increase above and beyond the £7m. That's something I've wondered about for a while but never really found the answer.

 

So what your saying is that we need to qualify for Europe this year otherwise we'll not be able to afford our wages or afford any transfers next year. ?

[Babylon]

10 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

So what your saying is that we need to qualify for Europe this year otherwise we'll not be able to afford our wages or afford any transfers next year. ?

No... but if we wish to take advantage of it long term, we might pad out our wages this season to keep them higher than they would have been normally. Then when it comes to the next season, you can use this season as your "base" year. Which would mean we could then only increase the wages by £7m more than this season.

 

eg.

This seasons wages £80m - next season we could potentially only raise that to £87m.*

This seasons wages  £110m - next season we could raise it to £117m.*

 

We might never be able to make that sort of jump again, so we could choose to keep them high this year purposely. Giving us an advantage over your stokes and west broms who can only nudge the wages up slightly year on year.

 

I'm sure the devil is in the fine detail, but that's how basics read.

 

*Made up figures just as an example. we need to consider what our income will be after the champions league money etc dries up. It might be, that we're already at the level we want to be at moving forward after bumping contracts last season.

[sphericalfox]

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

No... but if we wish to take advantage of it long term, we might pad out our wages this season to keep them higher than they would have been normally. Then when it comes to the next season, you can use this season as your "base" year. Which would mean we could then only increase the wages by £7m more than this season.

 

eg.

This seasons wages £80m - next season we could potentially only raise that to £87m.*

This seasons wages  £110m - next season we could raise it to £117m.*

 

We might never be able to make that sort of jump again, so we could choose to keep them high this year purposely. Giving us an advantage over your stokes and west broms who can only nudge the wages up slightly year on year.

 

I'm sure the devil is in the fine detail, but that's how basics read.

 

*Made up figures just as an example. we need to consider what our income will be after the champions league money etc dries up. It might be, that we're already at the level we want to be at moving forward after bumping contracts last season.

Shit, no wonder Mr. Gray is fishing for a upgraded contract. ? Every player's agent we talk will have a boner that could dig up the footpath. 

[st albans fox]

44 minutes ago, Babylon said:

No... but if we wish to take advantage of it long term, we might pad out our wages this season to keep them higher than they would have been normally. Then when it comes to the next season, you can use this season as your "base" year. Which would mean we could then only increase the wages by £7m more than this season.

 

eg.

This seasons wages £80m - next season we could potentially only raise that to £87m.*

This seasons wages  £110m - next season we could raise it to £117m.*

 

We might never be able to make that sort of jump again, so we could choose to keep them high this year purposely. Giving us an advantage over your stokes and west broms who can only nudge the wages up slightly year on year.

 

I'm sure the devil is in the fine detail, but that's how basics read.

 

*Made up figures just as an example. we need to consider what our income will be after the champions league money etc dries up. It might be, that we're already at the level we want to be at moving forward after bumping contracts last season.

Thanks for clarifying that babs. However, I know one of the reasons we didn't do more business Jan 2016 was because of the wage constraint - perhaps we will make that up now as per your musings above. 

[Babylon]

11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Thanks for clarifying that babs. However, I know one of the reasons we didn't do more business Jan 2016 was because of the wage constraint - perhaps we will make that up now as per your musings above. 

Yeah at that time I'd say we were probably concerned about it and rightly so. Post winning the league and selling assets I'd imagine it gave us the wiggle room we needed. The champions league money is then the cherry (a massive one at that) on the cake.

 

There are loads and loads of gray areas in the rules. To ever get the answers I think you'd literally need a direct line to the premier league rules makers for clarification.

[Merging Cultures]

a boner that could dig up the footpath. 

I think you need to see a Doctor.

[sphericalfox]

3 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

I think you need to see a Doctor.

Not sure my medical needs have anything to do with an agent's excitement, but if you think it's wise, I'll get an appointment asap