turtmcfly Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 3 hours ago, MC Prussian said: £7m buys us one of Thorgan Hazard's leg already. ...or Jonny Evans whole. first person to strike through the w is an immature twat like me 1
tomtom Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 hour ago, turtmcfly said: ...or Jonny Evans whole. first person to strike through the w is an immature twat like me Which hole? ? 1 1
Buce Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 hour ago, Vince Vega said: They look like they've just taken Michael McIntyre's Rolex! I'm out of reps for today, Vince, but I owe you one!
HighPeakFox Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 For the record, I reckon the Mods are off their Rockers. Sorry, just wanted to use the pun. Totally irrelevant (and probably unfair) too. 1
Vince Vega Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 32 minutes ago, Buce said: I'm out of reps for today, Vince, but I owe you one! Thanks Buce.
Popular Post Gerard Posted 7 June 2018 Popular Post Posted 7 June 2018 (edited) On 31/05/2018 at 21:45, Tuna said: Man City seriously need to fvck off with these buy backs. Greedy fvckers. I hate them, they should be outlawed as it's just protecting the bigger clubs. While we're at it I'd ban loan fees as well as too many clubs use it as a revenue stream rather than player development. It's another way of club's stockpiling young talent with minimal cost rather than being forced to make a decision on whether to keep or sell and let these players filter down the food chain. Apparently we paid £25m for Iheanacho and he has a £37.5m buy back fee. It just means we have all the downside if he flops or gets a really bad injury so we carry a £25m liability but our upside is limited to £12.5m profit. Edited 7 June 2018 by Gerard 10
Leeds Fox Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 1 hour ago, Gerard said: I hate them, they should be outlawed as it's just protecting the bigger clubs. While we're at it I'd ban loan fees as well as too many clubs use it as a revenue stream rather than player development. It's another way of club's stockpiling young talent with minimal cost rather than being forced to make a decision on whether to keep or sell and let these players filter down the food chain. Apparently we paid £25m for Iheanacho and he has a £37.5m buy back fee. It just means we have all the downside if he flops or gets a really bad injury so we carry a £25m liability but our upside is limited to £12.5m profit. Also, £25m last summer could be the equivalent of £35m next summer. In theory if he did become very good we could actually lose potential profit on him if he was to be sold. 2
norwichfox Posted 16 June 2018 Posted 16 June 2018 19 hours ago, urban.spaceman said: Made you look. thanks for that, it was a big help.... I was wondering what to do with the rest of the day
urban.spaceman Posted 16 June 2018 Posted 16 June 2018 59 minutes ago, norwichfox said: thanks for that, it was a big help.... I was wondering what to do with the rest of the day Stick the telly on there's some sort of football competition happening. 1
bald reynard Posted 20 June 2018 Posted 20 June 2018 (edited) City no longer after Roberts. That's what stopped the Mahrez move to Man City:- https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/06/19/l-eicester-city-end-patrick-roberts-pursuit-and-insist-on-cash-only-deal-for-riyad-mahrez/ Edited 20 June 2018 by bald reynard
adamlcfcbevo85 Posted 20 June 2018 Posted 20 June 2018 19 minutes ago, bald reynard said: City no longer after Roberts. That's what stopped the Mahrez move to Man City:- https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/06/19/l-eicester-city-end-patrick-roberts-pursuit-and-insist-on-cash-only-deal-for-riyad-mahrez/ Man City were trying to be cheeky sticking a buy back clause on Roberts, no wonder we curved the deal
Guest Posted 20 June 2018 Posted 20 June 2018 1 minute ago, adamlcfcbevo85 said: Man City were trying to be cheeky sticking a buy back clause on Roberts, no wonder we curved the deal We should just have countered it with one for Mahrez.
Gerard Posted 20 June 2018 Posted 20 June 2018 14 minutes ago, adamlcfcbevo85 said: Man City were trying to be cheeky sticking a buy back clause on Roberts, no wonder we curved the deal Hopefully we've learned our lesson that these deals are terrible after the Iheanacho one. It's great business for the selling club to take a slightly lesser fee but shove all the risk onto the buying club. It would be great for us if we could sell the likes of Choudhury, Barnes and Thomas for about £10m for the three and monitor their progress over the next couple of years with the option to buy them back for £15m if we choose to and they're a bigger success than what we first thought they would be. Someone like Roberts really could be anything from a top PL player to a Championship player so I don't want us having all the downside and limited upside.
Scotch Posted 20 June 2018 Posted 20 June 2018 I was always a bit indifferent to this one. He COULD be a cracking player..... Or he could stay at the level he is. Was never sure about him especially since I think that we need two players to cover the RW when Mahrez goes. A younger prospect (that would have been Roberts) and a more experienced, proven player but of ourse, the latter signing if it works out would hinder the former for playing time. On the other hand, I am 100% convinced that we will end up with Shaqiri, so having another option there would be wise.
OhYesNdidi Posted 3 July 2018 Posted 3 July 2018 (edited) Unless he's able to get ~ 6/7 assists and 6/7 goals i don't see the point in this transfer. Edited 3 July 2018 by OhYesNdidi
coolhandfox Posted 3 July 2018 Posted 3 July 2018 If we pay over 7-10m, Man City have had our pants down again! 1
ian_marshall Posted 3 July 2018 Posted 3 July 2018 Surely if Man City are paying 60m for Mahrez he has to be included in the deal. If not I'd tell Man City where to go and look elsewhere. Having said that only we would agree to sell our best player for a knock down fee only to then give back £15m to the buying club for a player who they are keen to offload and who does not feature in their future plans.
Steve Earle Posted 4 July 2018 Posted 4 July 2018 Just say no. He isn’t better than what we’ve got, nor is he likely to be so in time.
YesNdidi Posted 7 July 2018 Posted 7 July 2018 Out of all of the creative players we’ve been linked to as a Mahrez replacement, this one is by far the most underwhelming to me 3
weller54 Posted 7 July 2018 Posted 7 July 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Mirror says 10m Was that after it told you that you were the ugliest of them all? Edited 7 July 2018 by weller54 4
Recommended Posts