Guest Col city fan Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 1 minute ago, matty98 said: Chelsea need home grown players we don't, if they didn't I'm sure they wouldn't be looking at Drinkwater I'd suggest this is EXACTLY the reason. They have a long season looming up, are in the Champs league and Drinkwater has a great engine on him and is classed as home grown.
Gerard Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 14 minutes ago, foxinsocks said: Money is only useful if you can use it wisely. If we had no money then say 40m would he great ... but if the owners are already minted the incremental utility of 40m may be small. A bit like the value of your 40th cup of tea of the day v your first. We don't need money we need players who can give top six quality... As I've already said on this thread before you won't go too far wrong if you sell players when there value is at it's peak and surely Drinkwater's value is at it's peak? Money is always useful and we should seriously consider any offer for a player that is significantly above our own valuation. If we get offered a huge fee from Chelsea then we obviously don't back our squad or scouting team to be able to fill the void which is a problem in itself.
Detroit Blues Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 Would you rather have Danny Drinkwater or Gylfi Sigurdsson? (assuming we'd use the sale to increase our bid)
LinekersApples Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 We aren't interested in Sigurdson. smoke & mirrors
1972 Fox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 5 hours ago, sylofox said: Am I the only one thinking bpfox has had to much lead free? No you're not the only one thinking that!
ROB-THE-BLUE Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 6 minutes ago, LinekersApples said: We aren't interested in Sigurdson. smoke & mirrors Who are we trying to get in on the quiet then? Or was it Iheanacho?
Lcfccon Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 First post in this thread, but my opinions on this are simple. We should not be selling drinkwater at any price (except a stupid bid), he's been off the ball yes... but think about if he goes, Matty James, Iborra, KING, ndidi and that in my opinion will not cut it. why not keep drinky, a player who is moulded into the Leicester way instead of bringing a newbie with our first game on Friday ??? .
sylofox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 7 minutes ago, LinekersApples said: We aren't interested in Sigurdson. smoke & mirrors You will still be saying that after his everton debut.
lifted*fox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 7 minutes ago, LinekersApples said: We aren't interested in Sigurdson. smoke & mirrors Makes me laugh if what you're saying is true (which I'm inclined to believe it is). Rudders and co. - more clever than we give them credit for; ****ing about with 'smoke and mirrors' shit like Sigurdson to up the Mahrez value (as you suggest) yet actually completely neglecting to look at a player in that creative midfield type we actually do need. Classic Rudkin!
sylofox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 3 minutes ago, ROB-THE-BLUE said: Who are we trying to get in on the quiet then? Or was it Iheanacho? As LA explained yesterday the 40m bid was to back up our valuation of Mahrez.
sylofox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 minutes ago, daz*dsb said: Makes me laugh if what you're saying is true (which I'm inclined to believe it is). Rudders and co. - more clever than we give them credit for; ****ing about with 'smoke and mirrors' shit like Sigurdson to up the Mahrez value (as you suggest) yet actually completely neglecting to look at a player in that creative midfield type we actually do need. Classic Rudkin! Or perhaps rudders is buying the players the manager wants.
desertfox2 Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 34 minutes ago, ROB-THE-BLUE said: Who are we trying to get in on the quiet then? Or was it Iheanacho? We tried to get Elneny on the quiet 10m accepted but he turned us down
Ric Flair Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 6 hours ago, Gerard said: That's not strictly true though. Kante had a release clause to leave for £20m odd to a Champions League club. We only sold to Chelsea for £10m more because if we hadn't then he probably goes elsewhere for £10m less. We just made the best of a bad situation. Sven bidding £30 million for Kante forced Chelsea to go higher to £32 million, it's just a shame Sven didn't carry on going higher as the clause wasn't as simple as us accepting anything over £32 million.
Gerard Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Sven bidding £30 million for Kante forced Chelsea to go higher to £32 million, it's just a shame Sven didn't carry on going higher as the clause wasn't as simple as us accepting anything over £32 million. IIRC Kante had a release clause for a Champions League team at about £20m. Chelsea did not have the qualifications to in invoke that clause. Kante wanted to go to Chelsea so we accepted their higher bid otherwise we're in danger of pissing N'Golo off and he ends up going to a Champions League club for £20m
Ric Flair Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 8 minutes ago, Gerard said: IIRC Kante had a release clause for a Champions League team at about £20m. Chelsea did not have the qualifications to in invoke that clause. Kante wanted to go to Chelsea so we accepted their higher bid otherwise we're in danger of pissing N'Golo off and he ends up going to a Champions League club for £20m I thought it was we had to accept bids over £30 million but if one team bid £35 million then we didn't have to accept £33 million etc from another club. I'm sure that's what we were all pissing ourselves over when Sven got in on the act.
Gerard Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 1 minute ago, Ric Flair said: I thought it was we had to accept bids over £30 million but if one team bid £35 million then we didn't have to accept £33 million etc from another club. I'm sure that's what we were all pissing ourselves over when Sven got in on the act. That rings a bell actually, that might not be too far from the truth.
Leeds Fox Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 4 hours ago, Ric Flair said: I thought it was we had to accept bids over £30 million but if one team bid £35 million then we didn't have to accept £33 million etc from another club. I'm sure that's what we were all pissing ourselves over when Sven got in on the act. Sven probably did us a favour for wasting millions in the Championship. It sounds far fetched but it's plausible especially if there was incentives from our owners.
cc_star Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 1 hour ago, Ric Flair said: I thought it was we had to accept bids over £30 million but if one team bid £35 million then we didn't have to accept £33 million etc from another club. I'm sure that's what we were all pissing ourselves over when Sven got in on the act. I would have thought if a club meets the release clause, they're free to negotiate with the player... If no one else has met the release clause by the time an agreement is signed, then that's it
cc_star Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 hours ago, matty98 said: Chelsea need home grown players we don't, if they didn't I'm sure they wouldn't be looking at Drinkwater Great point
foxinsocks Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 hours ago, Gerard said: As I've already said on this thread before you won't go too far wrong if you sell players when there value is at it's peak and surely Drinkwater's value is at it's peak? Money is always useful and we should seriously consider any offer for a player that is significantly above our own valuation. If we get offered a huge fee from Chelsea then we obviously don't back our squad or scouting team to be able to fill the void which is a problem in itself. I dont back them
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 8 hours ago, Gerard said: That's not strictly true though. Kante had a release clause to leave for £20m odd to a Champions League club. We only sold to Chelsea for £10m more because if we hadn't then he probably goes elsewhere for £10m less. We just made the best of a bad situation. True but how would any of that jeopardised the move to Chelsea, once they bid the most we couldn't do anything, only way he wouldn't have gone was if another club bid more and how would LCFC been able to make another club bid more given everyone knew about the release clause and every big club wanted him? Chelsea weren't going to pull out and jeopardise their own bid. Lewis is chatting shit as ever.
RODNEY FERNIO Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 hours ago, LinekersApples said: We aren't interested in Sigurdson. smoke & mirrors Why did we bid £40 million for him then ?
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 4 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said: Why did we bid £40 million for him then ? We didn't.
RODNEY FERNIO Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said: We didn't. Oh yes we did .. well that's what was reported anyway
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 8 August 2017 Posted 8 August 2017 2 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said: Oh yes we did .. well that's what was reported anyway Don't believe everything you read in The press. clever leak from Swansea, we enquired- yes. They then decided to let it be known we bid 40m, we didn't, we said that's what we'd be prepared to pay. The timing of that was after Everton put out an initial bid, to let them know they rejected 40, so 35 was nowhere near.... It's how it works.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.