Maguire to Man Utd / Man City

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I hear that but I’m intrigued why our fanbase is always so concerned about how much we spend ...... rudders has his budget and will always try to get best value for money though that doesn’t always work as we have seen. On the other hand, Harry and JM could be sold tomorrow at a v tidy profit. The club never gives the impression that it has bundles of dough for obvious reasons ........,

 

benkovic looks a good prospect but we knew when we signed him that he had injury concerns and he has missed a lot of games in Scotland ..... I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on him nor caglar at the moment which would potentially leave us with Jonny and wes!  

I suppose there's been somewhat of a scaremongering since late last summer that financially we aren't as liberal as we might think especially in wages available for new players. That is being rectified but still when you consider how much we generate in TV money and other money and the wages we pay, plus the repayment of the training ground and potentially what's to come with the ground I do wonder just how much money is available for transfers. If it's £50m per season for new players i'd be surprised and as we desperately need to get Tielemans on a permanent deal, which would wipe out the majority of that. We could go in to next season as is and do well but we could also really strengthen the overall balance of the team and squad with some further additions and if we need to generate the funds for that by selling Maguire then it'll have to be done. Benkovic and Soyuncu must surely have been signed with Maguire and Morgan leaving in mind.

 

Lloyd Kelly at Bristol City is a player I could see us going for if Maguire left, he plays left back but also centre back seems his long term position and there's a gap there should we lose Maguire and/or Fuchs. He wouldn't cost the earth.

[hackneyfox]

22 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I have no problem selling our players for world class transfer fees. 

 

I don't mind being that club who has a bigger club's eyes out for £80m and then replace him with a 21 year old for £30m and rinse and repeat. 

Not always easy to rinse and repeat.

Players like Tielemans are less likely to sign if they see us selling our best players.

[hackneyfox]

Rodgers wouldn't have signed without a promise of being able to spend.

I believe that if we intended to replace Maguire with Soyuncu that he would have played more games.

Seems unlikely that we will  be selling Chilwell and there is no way we are selling Ndidi, Maddison or Ricardo.

Rodgers seems to want Tielmans and has said that he wants his midfielders/wingers to score more and that anybody coming in will be quality.

 

I'm thinking that this close season may involve a one off input of large funds from Top.

[Chrysalis]

I have always said dont sell a proven player just for money, no matter how big the offer.

 

Now what we do know is the club is no longer cash rich, it has had to get a loan.  So I expect any transfer budget provided by the club wont be very big.  Most purchases I expect will need to be funded by sales.

 

We want tielemans, he is proven now.  So if its the case that the only way we can get him is by selling a player then it provides a good reason to sell maguire, however in this case we should buy tielemans first.  Because selling maguire and then failing to get tielemans would be a disaster.  Having 80 million pounds in the bank doesnt win you games.  In my view if you funding buys from sales, do the buys first.

 

Maguire hasnt looked so good this season because he got held back by puel, it seems he was told to stop doing his runs forward, which has always been a great strength of his, he did it again in the man city game and was a joy to watch, clearly a very talented player, but given we do still have decent backup CB's I would be prepared for us to sell maguire to get tielemans as well as to get at least one more striker to help vardy.

 

So its about how the money is used rather then how much we get, maguire been sold to fund good players, is ok, maguire been sold to put 80 million in the bank or to buy unproven duds is not ok.

Edited 8 May 2019 by Chrysalis

[Ric Flair]

43 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Rodgers wouldn't have signed without a promise of being able to spend.

I believe that if we intended to replace Maguire with Soyuncu that he would have played more games.

Seems unlikely that we will  be selling Chilwell and there is no way we are selling Ndidi, Maddison or Ricardo.

Rodgers seems to want Tielmans and has said that he wants his midfielders/wingers to score more and that anybody coming in will be quality.

 

I'm thinking that this close season may involve a one off input of large funds from Top.

Benkovic is likely to be his preferred choice anyway of any Maguire replacement.

[hackneyfox]

23 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Benkovic is likely to be his preferred choice anyway of any Maguire replacement.

Agreed but as he's not available you'd surely be trying to give as much time to Soyuncu as possible just in case.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

Agreed but as he's not available you'd surely be trying to give as much time to Soyuncu as possible just in case.

True but Mahrez was hardly dropped for other wingers last season was he? We might not actively " want " to sell Maguire but if we are offered a silly price then we will as it'll revamp our squad even quicker.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I shall be well and truly gutted if we lose Maguire to Man. U.

[Foxxed]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I hear that but I’m intrigued why our fanbase is always so concerned about how much we spend ...... rudders has his budget and will always try to get best value for money though that doesn’t always work as we have seen. On the other hand, Harry and JM could be sold tomorrow at a v tidy profit. The club never gives the impression that it has bundles of dough for obvious reasons ........,

 

benkovic looks a good prospect but we knew when we signed him that he had injury concerns and he has missed a lot of games in Scotland ..... I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on him nor caglar at the moment which would potentially leave us with Jonny and wes!  

Benkovic has gained high praise from the same fans who watched Van Dijk play. But his injury concerns, that you mentioned, both at his previous club and at Celtic, make me worried.

 

But with our wage bill, albeit thankfully reduced, and Top losing the King Power duty free monopoly in Thailand, make me doubt we can afford Tielemans without the Maguire cash.

 

If a bid of 50mil plus comes I'd risk Benk, Soyuncu, Morgan, Amatrey, Knight and Hughes as replacements.

Edited 8 May 2019 by Foxxed

[Bluearmyfox28]

20 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Out of interest, do you have a source on that? I ask because I have a source that says similar, would like to see if its corroborated with yours because I'm not sure as to its overall reliability.

I’m close friends with someone who is in the squad, He’s very tight lipped but if you say something he will give you a certain look as a yes or no... 

 

I mean you’ll have;

Simpson 40k

Slimani 60k

Kingy 30k 

Silva 50k 

Kelechi 50k

Shinji 40k

 

That’s for just the players stated above let alone if he moves players like Ghezzal.

[Bluearmyfox28]

19 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I suppose there's been somewhat of a scaremongering since late last summer that financially we aren't as liberal as we might think especially in wages available for new players. That is being rectified but still when you consider how much we generate in TV money and other money and the wages we pay, plus the repayment of the training ground and potentially what's to come with the ground I do wonder just how much money is available for transfers. If it's £50m per season for new players i'd be surprised and as we desperately need to get Tielemans on a permanent deal, which would wipe out the majority of that. We could go in to next season as is and do well but we could also really strengthen the overall balance of the team and squad with some further additions and if we need to generate the funds for that by selling Maguire then it'll have to be done. Benkovic and Soyuncu must surely have been signed with Maguire and Morgan leaving in mind.

 

Lloyd Kelly at Bristol City is a player I could see us going for if Maguire left, he plays left back but also centre back seems his long term position and there's a gap there should we lose Maguire and/or Fuchs. He wouldn't cost the earth.

I can see it being James Tarkowski who replaces Maguire if he is to go. He’s 27 this November so you’ve got 5 years of him in his prime, he’s English & I would imagine would cost 30m which would leave you 40m to complete the Tielemans deal.

 

That’s IF Big H does go. 

[mozartfox]

17 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

I can see it being James Tarkowski who replaces Maguire if he is to go. He’s 27 this November so you’ve got 5 years of him in his prime, he’s English & I would imagine would cost 30m which would leave you 40m to complete the Tielemans deal.

 

That’s IF Big H does go. 

Benkovic may be a ready-made replacement. BTW out of any HM fee, we need to wedge up Hull for the sell-on.

[Bluearmyfox28]

21 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Benkovic may be a ready-made replacement. BTW out of any HM fee, we need to wedge up Hull for the sell-on.

Maybe, I feel that if that is the case BR will start with Soyuncu to start off with, to partner Evans at the back. Was really impressed with Soyuncu on his first game under BR.

 

If we are to sign a lad or 2 from Celtic & manage to keep hold of Big H I wouldn’t be surprised to see us use Benko with negotiations for another season.

Edited 9 May 2019 by Bluearmyfox28

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

I have always said dont sell a proven player just for money, no matter how big the offer.

 

Now what we do know is the club is no longer cash rich, it has had to get a loan.  So I expect any transfer budget provided by the club wont be very big.  Most purchases I expect will need to be funded by sales.

 

We want tielemans, he is proven now.  So if its the case that the only way we can get him is by selling a player then it provides a good reason to sell maguire, however in this case we should buy tielemans first.  Because selling maguire and then failing to get tielemans would be a disaster.  Having 80 million pounds in the bank doesnt win you games.  In my view if you funding buys from sales, do the buys first.

 

Maguire hasnt looked so good this season because he got held back by puel, it seems he was told to stop doing his runs forward, which has always been a great strength of his, he did it again in the man city game and was a joy to watch, clearly a very talented player, but given we do still have decent backup CB's I would be prepared for us to sell maguire to get tielemans as well as to get at least one more striker to help vardy.

 

So its about how the money is used rather then how much we get, maguire been sold to fund good players, is ok, maguire been sold to put 80 million in the bank or to buy unproven duds is not ok.

I think the first point is a myth. We have rich owners - in King Power - if they wanted to put in a cash injection to get around FPP they could give a crazy shirt deal or something. We are certainly one of the richest clubs in the Premier league, which is the richest league in the world. Getting a loan is simply good financial sense. The repayment deals on loans at the moment are incredible and only a fool or a monry launderer would pay for a building complex in cash.

 

Your second point is simply laughable. Puel introduced the football that Maguire thrives on. CB's that can pass and go forward. Ranieri and Pearson liked their CBs to be able to defend that's why we had Wes and Huth but Puel made Maguire into an England international.

[Bluearmyfox28]

59 minutes ago, FIF said:

I think the first point is a myth. We have rich owners - in King Power - if they wanted to put in a cash injection to get around FPP they could give a crazy shirt deal or something. We are certainly one of the richest clubs in the Premier league, which is the richest league in the world. Getting a loan is simply good financial sense. The repayment deals on loans at the moment are incredible and only a fool or a monry launderer would pay for a building complex in cash.

 

Your second point is simply laughable. Puel introduced the football that Maguire thrives on. CB's that can pass and go forward. Ranieri and Pearson liked their CBs to be able to defend that's why we had Wes and Huth but Puel made Maguire into an England international.

Couldn’t agree more with this, taking a loan rather paying upfront cash is such a brilliant financial move. You give yourself the platform of building one of the top training grounds in Europe whilst also being able to spend in the transfer market without it holding you back. 

 

I would imagine the club will have transfer windows where they won’t need to spend as much, therefore will put the money towards paying off the loan quicker without the added pressure.

[whoareyaaa]

Can see him staying tbh, has looked a lot better in the last couple of games.

 

I think we should try and keep everyone here this season and see what we can achieve.

[Gerard]

1 minute ago, whoareyaaa said:

Can see him staying tbh, has looked a lot better in the last couple of games.

 

I think we should try and keep everyone here this season and see what we can achieve.

 

Put a price on him that makes the buyer uncomfortable like £80m. 

 

You won't go far wrong if you sell players at their absolute peak value in the transfer market. 

[moore_94]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

I think the first point is a myth. We have rich owners - in King Power - if they wanted to put in a cash injection to get around FPP they could give a crazy shirt deal or something. We are certainly one of the richest clubs in the Premier league, which is the richest league in the world. Getting a loan is simply good financial sense. The repayment deals on loans at the moment are incredible and only a fool or a monry launderer would pay for a building complex in cash.

 

Your second point is simply laughable. Puel introduced the football that Maguire thrives on. CB's that can pass and go forward. Ranieri and Pearson liked their CBs to be able to defend that's why we had Wes and Huth but Puel made Maguire into an England international.

Leicester took out 2 loans last year, one for the training ground and one for the Stadium regeneration

 

These loans have been made against the Mahrez money with Man City directly paying the next 2 instalments of £18million directly to the loan company

 

The remaining value of the loans has already been promised against the TV money we will receive at the end of the next 2 seasons (value of the loan does not necessarily take up the full value of the TV money)

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-bank-loans-training-2475803

 

The loans were just taken out so that we have the money now, rather than having to wait for it

[MPH]

23 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I hear that but I’m intrigued why our fanbase is always so concerned about how much we spend ...... rudders has his budget and will always try to get best value for money though that doesn’t always work as we have seen. On the other hand, Harry and JM could be sold tomorrow at a v tidy profit. The club never gives the impression that it has bundles of dough for obvious reasons ........,

 

benkovic looks a good prospect but we knew when we signed him that he had injury concerns and he has missed a lot of games in Scotland ..... I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on him nor caglar at the moment which would potentially leave us with Jonny and wes!  

 

 

If he tries to ‘get value for money’ with Tielemans and someone end up paying 4-5 million more than us it will be infuriating. it’s only because people want to make sure the money is there for the deals we want. your hands are tied if the money isn’t available. if you choose not to spend it, well that’s a different thing altogether.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

If he tries to ‘get value for money’ with Tielemans and someone end up paying 4-5 million more than us it will be infuriating. it’s only because people want to make sure the money is there for the deals we want. your hands are tied if the money isn’t available. if you choose not to spend it, well that’s a different thing altogether.

I don't know of anyone we really wanted that we didn't get because we wouldn't meet the fee.  all i'm saying is that rudkin has a budget and will try and work within it.. YT will have a ceiling with us. if someone comes in with 55m then Monaco wont sell to us unless we pay 45m plus silva. 

[MPH]

44 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I don't know of anyone we really wanted that we didn't get because we wouldn't meet the fee.  all i'm saying is that rudkin has a budget and will try and work within it.. YT will have a ceiling with us. if someone comes in with 55m then Monaco wont sell to us unless we pay 45m plus silva. 

 

 

happens all the time, we just don’t get to hear about it.

[Gubbins]

I agree with those saying we shouldn't sell our best players and I'm therefore delighted that they seem to be going after Maguire rather than the much superior Jonny Evans! If Man utd really do offer 70-80m for Maguire and we turn them down I'll be appalled. That is what Liverpool paid for van dijk about a year ago, the best CB in the league, possibly the world currently. Maguire isn't close to that level and probably won't actually improve man utds defence by much anyway. They don't actually have terrible individual defenders more poor defensive organisation and leadership similar to ourselves when Morgan and Maguire play together. I think the majority of teams in the division have defenders as good if not better than him. All utd would gain for paying close to double what the likes of tarkowski lascelles and Ake are worth Is the occasional run into the opposition half. Anything over 55m we should snap their hands off!

[Bluearmyfox28]

I think it’s clear to see that he stepped up his game against Man City & Arsenal. Whether that’s got anything to do with building interest or just because he wanted us as a team I don’t know.

[Xen]

5 hours ago, FIF said:

I think the first point is a myth. We have rich owners - in King Power - if they wanted to put in a cash injection to get around FPP they could give a crazy shirt deal or something. We are certainly one of the richest clubs in the Premier league, which is the richest league in the world. Getting a loan is simply good financial sense. The repayment deals on loans at the moment are incredible and only a fool or a monry launderer would pay for a building complex in cash.

 

Your second point is simply laughable. Puel introduced the football that Maguire thrives on. CB's that can pass and go forward. Ranieri and Pearson liked their CBs to be able to defend that's why we had Wes and Huth but Puel made Maguire into an England international.

No we can't. There are rules that restrict how much sponsorship deals can be and what is 'fair value' specifically to stop the use of loopholes like this. 

Edited 9 May 2019 by Xen

[Gazza M]

5 hours ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

I think it’s clear to see that he stepped up his game against Man City & Arsenal. Whether that’s got anything to do with building interest or just because he wanted us as a team I don’t know.

I think there is 100% chance he will be looking for a move in the summer. I thought he was putting himself in the shop window the other night v Man City to be honest. From our point of view would be nice to keep him, but I think we should let him move on if a Champions League outfit stump up. Man Utd would be a waste of his time.