Chilwell to Manchester City

[VIKTOR-LE5]

The Atletico Madrid bid wouldn't surprise me like Borussia Dortmund their a clever club buy a cracking young English Left back for 60 odd million, improve him 2, 3 years down the line sell him for 100m.The two clubs i mentioned are masters of this sell a star an buy a potential star, make him into a star an sell an repeat, proper philosophy in their wheeling and dealing.

[ScouseFox]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

@Ric Flair but why spuff 30m on Tierney?

 

The world is full of perfectly capable full backs, we just need a bloke who is physically fit, has reasonable positional sense and can cross a ball. We don't need him to be one of our most expensive players. 

 

He could be 3m from Sporting Djibouti U23s if he's not a defensive liability and we're able to manoeuvre in the transfer market for midfielders / attackers. 

 

Fuchs cost **** all and filled the whole for a few years. A star left back is a luxury not a necessity. 

but different now though. if we wanted to carry on just using our fullbacks for last ditch back post clearances and punts down the line, we’d never have played chilwell in the first place. 

 

full backs are huge in the modern game. there’s a reason the first step guardiola made to turning man city from a team competing for the title to a team who will win the title every year until he leaves was spend 200 million pounds on full backs. 

[matty98]

If we want to push on and become a top 6 team, we need to sell players when they are overpriced, as good as Chilwell is, he isn't a 70m player. That could get us Tielemans and Telles and probably have some left over. It's a no brainer at that sort of money.

[lcfc sheff]

I think for this to happen we’ll have to buy a lb first, can’t be stupid enough to sell Chilwell for us to then be held to ransom on a replacement. 

 

£60m and he’s sold as far as I’m concerned, and in all honesty would rather be went abroad than sell him to a prem rival as I’d hate to see him against us. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, lcfc sheff said:

I think for this to happen we’ll have to buy a lb first, can’t be stupid enough to sell Chilwell for us to then be held to ransom on a replacement. 

 

£60m and he’s sold as far as I’m concerned, and in all honesty would rather be went abroad than sell him to a prem rival as I’d hate to see him against us. 

I think the genie is already out of the bottle .........

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

but different now though. if we wanted to carry on just using our fullbacks for last ditch back post clearances and punts down the line, we’d never have played chilwell in the first place. 

 

full backs are huge in the modern game. there’s a reason the first step guardiola made to turning man city from a team competing for the title to a team who will win the title every year until he leaves was spend 200 million pounds on full backs. 

 

He spent on full backs because he had a fantastic team elsewhere. 

 

I'm not so much disputing that full backs are important (I'd say less so under Rodgers than Puel mind) just that we've got other priorities. 

 

I'm not eager for Chilwell to go, more just pragmatic in that it's a LOT of money that we could use to improve the squad elsewhere. I'd sell almost anyone except probably Vardy for 70m tbh. I think Coutinho drove the world a bit nuts, yes transfer fees have gone up a lot over the last few years but Foxestalk still has a disproportionate view of what our players are worth. 

 

70m is still bonkers money. 

 

@Ric Flair don't get me wrong, 30 would be a good investment for Tierney. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it's an investment we shouldn't be making. 

 

We need to buy or replace Tielemans, improve on Gray/Albrighton and back up Vardy. All of those are more important than having a 30m full back. 

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

9 minutes ago, matty98 said:

If we want to push on and become a top 6 team, we need to sell players when they are overpriced, as good as Chilwell is, he isn't a 70m player. That could get us Tielemans and Telles and probably have some left over. It's a no brainer at that sort of money.

I disagree with this. Chilwell will be worth more then the 71M within 12 months. There's a reason Liverpool, Man city and a few others have been interested in him for years.

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

He spent on full backs because he had a fantastic team elsewhere. 

 

I'm not so much disputing that full backs are important (I'd say less so under Rodgers than Puel mind) just that we've got other priorities. 

 

I'm not eager for Chilwell to go, more just pragmatic in that it's a LOT of money that we could use to improve the squad elsewhere. I'd sell almost anyone except probably Vardy for 70m tbh. I think Coutinho drove the world a bit nuts, yes transfer fees have gone up a lot over the last few years but Foxestalk still has a disproportionate view of what our players are worth. 

 

70m is still bonkers money. 

 

@Ric Flair don't get me wrong, 30 would be a good investment for Tierney. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it's an investment we shouldn't be making. 

 

We need to buy or replace Tielemans, improve on Gray/Albrighton and back up Vardy. All of those are more important than having a 30m full back. 

 

A big problem is, teams demand so much from PL teams for their players especially when they know you've just sold a player for over £70m to add to the obscene TV money we get. We still ought to be able to operate sensibly but it's becoming harder and harder. It would be a lot of money but the preference would still be to move Maguire on to raise funds as we have 5 centre backs as well as Josh Knight coming through, also Maguire's value surely can't increase much more than it is right now.

[VIKTOR-LE5]

Their's a few clubs Leicester should look at, because we're not dining at the top table the likes of  Atletico, Borussia, Monaco, Sporting Lisbon, Benfica, PSV, Ajax etc, how they deal with it when their top players keep getting cherry picked by bigger clubs.

Edited 30 May 2019 by VIKTOR-LE5

[Dahnsouff]

Think it is bull, but it serves as a valid theoretical question.

If a club turns up and offers an obscene amount of money, at what level does obscene mean you should consider selling?

This is certainly not a question that requires an answer from fans, but interesting topic for manager/board alike.

There must be some level where the value offered makes financial sense and then the manager needs to get on without said player.

As mentioned, the capacity to capture a player long desired (Youri) will at some point mean such an offer should be accepted for the good of the team/squad/club.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Well only 2 seasons ago there were so many Chilwell haters on this FT forum - and now he has a price of 71m which we may turn down. Forgive me when I disparage your views on players. 

Who was it 6 months ago that said Fuchs should still be starting  

[Guest]

Lemar, Montero and 30m for Chillers.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Who was it 6 months ago that said Fuchs should still be starting  

It could have been any one of many. The abuse Chilwell got 2 years ago was embarrassing - it was like Nacho and worse than Gray this season. 

[La-li-lu-le-lo]

It won’t happen. 

[Haywood_6]

I do believe in stability and trying to hold on to your best players, but if a ridiculous offer comes in you need to evaluate. Chilwell has progressed very quickly. In terms of stamina and speed, he's one of the best-left backs you can find, he's also defensively competent. His crossing and finishing remains the weak area of his game. He got 4 assists and 0 goals last season. You'd probably expect more from an England left-back. At 70 million I'd be tempted to sell and look at players like Tierney and Alex Telles who could do a very similar job, we'd probably have around 40 million left over too.

[JamesWelshFox]

If we are serious about breaking into and staying in the top 6 then we need to keep players like Chilwell, and keep the happy. That's hard when someone like Pep whispers in their ear at the end of game. I think Man City will push really hard for Chilwell. Lets face it if they go to £80/85m now, it's £15m cheaper than perhaps buying him 12/18 months down the line when he improves further at somewhere like Atletico. But we then have to shell out a good chunk to replace him if we are serious about bucking the top 6. The money is just mad, but the truth is whether it is £1m or £100m it all just keeps going round in circles and making some agents very very rich.

[matty98]

27 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I disagree with this. Chilwell will be worth more then the 71M within 12 months. There's a reason Liverpool, Man city and a few others have been interested in him for years.

Even if he is worth more than 71m in 12 months time it won't be much more. However, Tielemans at 40m could be worth double in a year or 2's time. If it's a case of one or the other at these valuations, Tielemans wins every time.

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, Koke said:

Ateltico have money to burn after the sales of Griezzman and Hernandez.

But I don’t that was necessarily for transfers. The club have been waded in debt for a while and throw in the costs of the Wanda too

[Grebfromgrebland]

True this is probably close to the top valuation for him. Unless the next TV deal is massive.

[LinekersApples]

sell

Chillwell 70m

Maguire 60m

 

buy

Teilemans 60m

Benkovic/Soyuncu - already signed

new left back - 30m

 

leaves 40m for clappers.  win/win

[Xen]

Players like Maguire I'd be content with going as he's probably at his peak value right now and we have ready-made (younger) replacements able to slot into that position.

 

With Chilwell, I'd be gutted to see him leave even for a fee like the £71m quoted, for a number of reasons:

1. He's a home-grown player in the England national team, which is a fantastic advertisement for our club/academy
2. We don't have a ready-made replacement already in the squad, so we'd need to spend to bring someone in (Fuchs could do a job, but he shouldn't be first choice)
3. He's young and on a long contract - his value will only go up over the next 12 months
4. Our squad is ridiculously young, and in lieu of a few experienced heads what we really need is to keep the togetherness of our young players. The close bonds between our young English players Chilwell/Maddison/Gray/Barnes, as well as the rest of the youngsters, should not be underestimated and taking one of the key players away from that could have a knock on effect to the others.

 

 

I'd keep him for at least one more season and reassess. If we have true ambitions of getting into Europe and achieve that then Chilwell may be convinced to stay even longer, and if not then we'll find it much easier to bring in a replacement of a similar level.

Edited 30 May 2019 by Xen

[Finnegan]

16 minutes ago, JamesWelshFox said:

If we are serious about breaking into and staying in the top 6 then we need to keep players like Chilwell, and keep the happy. That's hard when someone like Pep whispers in their ear at the end of game. I think Man City will push really hard for Chilwell. Lets face it if they go to £80/85m now, it's £15m cheaper than perhaps buying him 12/18 months down the line when he improves further at somewhere like Atletico. But we then have to shell out a good chunk to replace him if we are serious about bucking the top 6. The money is just mad, but the truth is whether it is £1m or £100m it all just keeps going round in circles and making some agents very very rich.

 

You don't get to be serious about breaking in to the top four without selling your best players, unless you've got substantial investment from your owners. 

 

Even Liverpool had to sell Coutinho to keep financing the squad, Tottenham built a lot on selling Bale, the money has to come from somewhere. 

 

The irony of Atleti coming for Chilwell is that they're the masters of this. They went from Liga Segunda to winning La Liga and got to the CL final by constantly selling their best players for huge profit and reinvesting intelligently. 

 

Torres made way for Aguero who made way for Falcao who made way for Griezmann. 

 

The trick is always being able to replenish more intelligently than you lose. If we keep finding diamonds in the rough, selling them to the top clubs for an absurd mark up then going back and finding more then EVENTUALLY we can be one of the big boys. 

 

But we won't get there ourselves just because we have ambition. You have to actual work and build. Slowly. Over a decade or more. 

Edited 30 May 2019 by Finnegan

[Nicolo Barella]

F*** me I trawled through three pages just to find out the source was the Sun? You guys know that gullible has been spelled out on your ceiling?

[Beliall]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

You don't get to be serious about breaking in to the top four without selling your best players, unless you've got substantial investment from your owners. 

 

Even Liverpool had to sell Coutinho to keep financing the squad, Tottenham built a lot on selling Bale, the money has to come from somewhere. 

 

The irony of Atleti coming for Chilwell is that they're the masters of this. They went from Liga Segunda to winning La Liga and got to the CL final by constantly selling their best players for huge profit and reinvesting intelligently. 

 

Torres made way for Aguero who made way for Falcao who made way for Griezmann. 

 

The trick is always being able to replenish more intelligently than you lose. If we keep finding diamonds in the rough, selling them to the top clubs for an absurd mark up then going back and finding more then EVENTUALLY we can be one of the big boys. 

 

But we won't get there ourselves just because we have ambition. You have to actual work and build. Slowly. Over a decade or more. 

You got to stop posting things that make sense. this is foxestalk, and you have outgrown it. 

[danfox76]