Kelechi Iheanacho

[los dedos]

1 hour ago, deep blue said:

If you have huge pulling power in the transfer market, then I see no risk. Why would Man City doubt their ability to do this?

How huge is their pulling power though?The sort of players they want will see a good number European teams above them in stature .

[Bert]

37 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Is this a good sign that West Ham are being linked to yet another striker 

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/west-ham-lead-race-for-15m-burnley-striker-andre-gray-as-slaven-bilic-targets-pace-a3580801.html

West Ham lead race for £15m Burnley striker Andre Gray as Slaven Bilic targets pace

West Ham get linked with everyone 

[Tielemans63]

Great news everyone, we've binned off the chase for exciting young talent Kelechi Iheanacho in favour of giving petulant sloth Leo Ulloa a new contract. Happy days.

[brucey]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Is this a good sign that West Ham are being linked to yet another striker 

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/west-ham-lead-race-for-15m-burnley-striker-andre-gray-as-slaven-bilic-targets-pace-a3580801.html

West Ham lead race for £15m Burnley striker Andre Gray as Slaven Bilic targets pace

We've also been linked to another striker (Deeney), so does that make it neutral news 

[jammie82uk]

3 minutes ago, brucey said:

We've also been linked to another striker (Deeney), so does that make it neutral news 

I guess It would if they wasn't also linked to Giroud, Batshuayi, Javier Hernandez, Moussa Dembele, Raul Jimenez

[Nickfosse]

3 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

Man City took him on tour of us, nothing happening at least for a while

They don't go to the US till later this month. They report back for preseason next week.

[HankMarvin]

13 minutes ago, Nickfosse said:

They don't go to the US till later this month. They report back for preseason next week.

Well he was selected for the tour so that's even more of a indicator he isn't moving anytime soon

[Nickfosse]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Well he was selected for the tour so that's even more of a indicator he isn't moving anytime soon

Yes, he is selected, and Pep is saying he won't sell him until he has another striker coming in. As you say, his future could take a while to be sorted. 

[foxinsocks]

18 hours ago, champions 08/09 said:

Not if theres a buy back, it says yeah we'll take your player, develop him for you and then he can go straight back to you when he is any good. It's a small, selling club mindset. 

 

He's a great player but I don't want us to be someone's feeder club. I want us to aspire to be competing alongside the likes of Man City, not below them.

I have been thinking about this; say we can buy him for 25M and they have a buy back clause for say £35m... yet in reality man city do not buy 35M strickers.. they buy 50M or 75M forwards.  So I do not think it likely that they will take it up.  In the end it will be up to him.

 

I would however, insist that if they buy him back than they cannot sell him for 2 years without the proceeds coming to us (to avoid them taking him to sell him on); I would also set a window for the back back - e.g. in the summer window in 2019 and after that it lapses

[NewquayFox]

Photos of a young black kid posing in a City shirt at the training ground doing the rounds on Twitter, he looks a bit too 'dark' to be Iborra.... 

[Nick]

1 minute ago, NewquayFox said:

Photos of a young black kid posing in a City shirt at the training ground doing the rounds on Twitter, he looks a bit too 'dark' to be Iborra.... 

 

 

Black guys tan on holiday too y'know!

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I have been thinking about this; say we can buy him for 25M and they have a buy back clause for say £35m... yet in reality man city do not buy 35M strickers.. they buy 50M or 75M forwards.  So I do not think it likely that they will take it up.  In the end it will be up to him.

 

I would however, insist that if they buy him back than they cannot sell him for 2 years without the proceeds coming to us (to avoid them taking him to sell him on); I would also set a window for the back back - e.g. in the summer window in 2019 and after that it lapses

I think you've missed the point slightly here. If Iheanacho came to us and had an outstanding couple of seasons, pushing his market value up to £50-75m, Man City would have the option to obtain a high value striker for considerably less than market value. Why would they not take it up? They're hardly going to say, "He's worth £70m but our buyback clause allows us to get him for £35m and we don't buy £35m strikers, so we won't bother..."

[Al-aLondon-Foxile]

6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I think you've missed the point slightly here. If Iheanacho came to us and had an outstanding couple of seasons, pushing his market value up to £50-75m, Man City would have the option to obtain a high value striker for considerably less than market value. Why would they not take it up? They're hardly going to say, "He's worth £70m but our buyback clause allows us to get him for £35m and we don't buy £35m strikers, so we won't bother..."

Also, even if they don't want or need him they can buy him back to immediately sell on at the inflated price. 

[Merging Cultures]

4 minutes ago, Al-aLondon-Foxile said:

Also, even if they don't want or need him they can buy him back to immediately sell on at the inflated price. 

If after a couple of seasons he is worth GBP70m (or whatever price) and they buy him back for GBP35m (or whatever price), he'll have been playing well for us, and hopefully that means top 10 finishes at a minimum. That would be a risk I'd be willing to take, he'd move on anyway if he is playing well, and we'd have made enough money from the league etc that who cares? GBP35m is one player these days, it is a lot of money to you and I, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't really and the club wouldn't go under because of it.

 

It isn't ideal, but just get it done, he is the type of player we need.

[UniFox21]

Surely if Man City have a buy back clause, we have to allow them to activate the buy back but would Iheanacho have a call at if he went or not?

[Buce]

59 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

Black guys tan on holiday too y'know!

 

 

 

Iborra isn't black.

[MPH]

35 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Surely if Man City have a buy back clause, we have to allow them to activate the buy back 

 

And you're at Uni?

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, Al-aLondon-Foxile said:

Also, even if they don't want or need him they can buy him back to immediately sell on at the inflated price. 

I explained a ckause to prevent them taking him back abd selling on

[champions 08/09]

1 hour ago, foxinsocks said:

I have been thinking about this; say we can buy him for 25M and they have a buy back clause for say £35m... yet in reality man city do not buy 35M strickers.. they buy 50M or 75M forwards.  So I do not think it likely that they will take it up.  In the end it will be up to him.

 

I would however, insist that if they buy him back than they cannot sell him for 2 years without the proceeds coming to us (to avoid them taking him to sell him on); I would also set a window for the back back - e.g. in the summer window in 2019 and after that it lapses

I think that the problem I have is if he is ever good enough to go back to Man city e.g bags 20+ for us (which is what we are buying him for right?) then he will be worth a lot more than £35 million or even £40 million, especially with the rate at which the transfer market is currently increasing by. 

I think we would have to either put the buy back extremely high (which they wont have) or it runs out after a certain period of time as you say.

[Rusko187]

21 minutes ago, champions 08/09 said:

I think that the problem I have is if he is ever good enough to go back to Man city e.g bags 20+ for us (which is what we are buying him for right?) then he will be worth a lot more than £35 million or even £40 million, especially with the rate at which the transfer market is currently increasing by. 

I think we would have to either put the buy back extremely high (which they wont have) or it runs out after a certain period of time as you say.

You'd still be in profit on a player who turned out to be successful, like we often say "we don't need the money" so if we don't why are we quibbling over a small buy back clause when what we need is the benefit of his goals.

[thybluefox]

4 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

You'd still be in profit on a player who turned out to be successful, like we often say "we don't need the money" so if we don't why are we quibbling over a small buy back clause when what we need is the benefit of his goals.

 

This is my view. 

 

Would you rather have a player that scores 20 a season for a season or two, and then be forced to sell him at a profit; or not have that player at all?

 

It's not a great deal, but despite what Theresa says, a deal is better than no deal. 

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

And you're at Uni?

Well yeah cutting half of the post off does make me look thick ?

[champions 08/09]

4 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

You'd still be in profit on a player who turned out to be successful, like we often say "we don't need the money" so if we don't why are we quibbling over a small buy back clause when what we need is the benefit of his goals.

I think the buy back clause is in the wrong ball park altogether, should be nearer £80 million otherwise they don't actually want to sell him, they effectively want to loan him out but if it goes wrong then they are £30 million up. 

Also I assume the point of buying young players is to build a team for the future? How can you mould a team around a striker who as soon as he becomes good (the entire point of buying him) will be off elsewhere for a minimal fee - and lets be honest a profit of £10 million is hardly groundbreaking for a player of his quality in todays transfer market.

[Bezzanator89]

2 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

Black guys tan on holiday too y'know!

 

 

Slight off topic, and not proud to admit this but there is one black guy on Love Island, whose skin tone has only seemed to get darker, so it is possible. 

 

Back on topic, I can see this being the same kind of saga as Mahrez-to-Arsenal, lots of talk and rumours, but nothing concrete. There was talk about Sigurdsson for the duration of last summer but nothing materialised, and with a £40 million price tag, I am expecting the same. It's a valuation that probably eclipses the transfer value of the rest of Swansea's starting XI, a very subtle way of saying he isn't for sale, but for an extortionate price, we (Swansea) may change our minds and laugh all the way to the bank and probable relegation.

[Rusko187]

2 minutes ago, champions 08/09 said:

I think the buy back clause is in the wrong ball park altogether, should be nearer £80 million otherwise they don't actually want to sell him, they effectively want to loan him out but if it goes wrong then they are £30 million up. 

Also I assume the point of buying young players is to build a team for the future? How can you mould a team around a striker who as soon as he becomes good (the entire point of buying him) will be off elsewhere for a minimal fee - and lets be honest a profit of £10 million is hardly groundbreaking for a player of his quality in todays transfer market.

It's not.. you are absolutely right, but never in a million years would Man City agree to a buy back clause which means they will break their transfer record by a considerable margin.

 

On the flip side he could still prove to be an immense success and Man City may not take him, they may have the next Messi in their ranks already. And it would be down to the player, stay with Leicester and play or go Man City and play second fiddle. If he does go back we get £10m... not to be sniffed at!