Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
sylofox

Maguire to Man Utd / Man City

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, murphy said:

The last thing we need is that cry baby pouting around the place thinking he's slumming it and doing us a favour.

 

No thanks.  Never look back and no more toe-curling 'sweet prince' posts. 

Agree 100%. Amazing player on his day but we've all seen first hand how ineffective he is when he's having a strop. Well we'd be treated to a season-long strop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

It is 15% of any profit we make, if we sell Maguire for £75m, Hull get 15% of the £58m profit = £8.7m.

 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-city-harry-maguire-windfall-2886172

For those who can't be bothered, it means if we sold at £75m, we'd get a shade over £66m of that.

Equally, if we sold at £65m, we would see bout £59m of it.

Edited by Beechey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should run a book on which one of our players Man City buy next season, will probably be chilwell ? 

  

Some reports say his medical is pencilled in for next week, well I’m guessing they have come up with what we want?

Edited by Monsell1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bmt said:

 

I'm just talking from old Football Manager experience but I think unless stated it's on the transfer fee not on profit. It's worth noticing that this gives clubs selling young players for a fee which they believe to be low (but where the player wants to leave to a bigger club) a bit of protection. 

  

Eg. A Club in League One have a decent 22 year old player who was decent in League One but unproven elsewhere, and Man United want to buy him for 10 mil. If they give a sell on fee on transfer fee of 25%, even if the player turns out to only be okay and moves to say Brighton the next season for 10 million, they get a decent extra payout (2.5 million). If it's only on profit they receive nothing. 

 

Example in media:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/627160/Premier-League-transfers-sell-on-clauses-profit-sportgalleries

"The Burnley centre-back moved to the Toffees for a fee of £30m yesterday.

And the Red Devils will pocket £7.5m of the cash after Louis van Gaal negotiated a 25 per cent sell-on clause with the Turf Moor club when he sold Keane." 

 

There are some sell-on fees which are just on profit, but they tend to be stated.

 

 

I can see this on a very low initial transfer fee e.g. your example League 1 player scenario, because in affect the sell on amount is nearly all profit anyway, so it makes no odds. The Keane example from the Daily Star - Burnley paid less than 3 million for him.

 

But on the example you initially commented on, with an initial transfer fee of 30 million? I can't see it. You start getting the daft scenario of selling the player for 20 million and still having to pay a sell on fee of 2 million.

 

The Salah example is the only one I can find with a similar initial fee to Maguire's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

I can see this on a very low initial transfer fee e.g. your example League 1 player scenario, because in affect the sell on amount is nearly all profit anyway, so it makes no odds. The Keane example from the Daily Star - Burnley paid less than 3 million for him.

 

But on the example you initially commented on, with an initial transfer fee of 30 million? I can't see it. You start getting the daft scenario of selling the player for 20 million and still having to pay a sell on fee of 2 million.

 

The Salah example is the only one I can find with a similar initial fee to Maguire's. 

You may well be right, like I said most of it was based on football manager! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He’s not worth that in a month of Sunday’s.

 

We might stick a silly value on him because we aren’t keen to sell and break up the team unless we really really have to. And to push up any fee we eventually get. 

 

But we need to get real, he’s not worth that. His performances don’t warrant it, nothing that’s happened in the market suggests that’s his true market value either. 

He really is.  Well £80m anyway.  £90-£100m s pushing it a bit,

 

Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry.  He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively.

 

£80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka.  It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it.

Edited by murphy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough in my opinion. ESPECIALLY since the Euro under 21's has convinced me that we WOULD need another CB. 

I don't have the trust in Benkovic that alot of you seem to have, especially since he was torn apart in Croatia last game and aggravated his re-occuring injury AGAIN. Soyuncu is untested....  we will end up playing with Wes for another season and although I think he's still got some good games left in him  a season would be too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He’s not worth that in a month of Sunday’s.

 

We might stick a silly value on him because we aren’t keen to sell and break up the team unless we really really have to. And to push up any fee we eventually get. 

 

But we need to get real, he’s not worth that. His performances don’t warrant it, nothing that’s happened in the market suggests that’s his true market value either. 

Spot on. Been nothing better than average this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This only works if we've got another CB lined up. Realistically this transfer has been mooted for, what, six months? 

 

I'd hope the club have had a contingency in place - 2-3 targets to replace him for that time. Brendan will have had his own idea of what kind of player he likes at CB.

 

It is still fairly early in the window as well. If we can get him out, money in and another transfer on the go by mid July then it works. But no more outs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fox_up_north said:

This only works if we've got another CB lined up. Realistically this transfer has been mooted for, what, six months? 

 

I'd hope the club have had a contingency in place - 2-3 targets to replace him for that time. Brendan will have had his own idea of what kind of player he likes at CB.

 

It is still fairly early in the window as well. If we can get him out, money in and another transfer on the go by mid July then it works. But no more outs. 

Dunk and Tarkowski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’s worth what someone is willing to pay the same as if you are selling your house.

 

in today’s market £90 million for a ball playing C/B isn’t ridiculous, just because the two clubs interested don’t want to pay that and get him on the cheap shouldn’t pressure us to sell him for below his market value.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, murphy said:

He really is.  Well £80m anyway.  £90-£100m s pushing it a bit,

 

Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry.  He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively.

 

£80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka.  It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it.

Agreed

His performances this season haven’t warranted the huge increase in value, but the prices being touted for other players has pushed established international players value up.

 

Wan Bissaka 21 

42 career games 

£60m 

 

the landscape is changing, the premier league has followed the NBA in terms of earning.

How long before a player is payed 1m a week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue here of course is that if we do sell for a huge fee, every potential replacement target will have an extra £10M slapped on their price by greedy agents and clubs as they will use the logic 1- we now have a shed load of dosh to spend and 2- we NEED a replacement.  This does not take into account the fact that 1 - we already have plenty of dosh and anything we get for Harry will not be earmarked for  a replacement but in other areas because 2- we are not desperate for another CB (Benkovic injury aside we still have Evans, Soyunku, Morgan and at a push Amarty or even Fuchs can play there)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danizen said:

Agree 100%. Amazing player on his day but we've all seen first hand how ineffective he is when he's having a strop. Well we'd be treated to a season-long strop.

Why would we get a season long strop?

He can't be forced to come back on loan (with a view to a permanent move at the end of the season) so if he agreed to it then he's happy to do so.

We get a player that can the goals and assists we are desperate for. 

Maddison, Tielemans and Mahrez would give us a very good chance of top six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, urban fox said:

The issue here of course is that if we do sell for a huge fee, every potential replacement target will have an extra £10M slapped on their price by greedy agents and clubs as they will use the logic 1- we now have a shed load of dosh to spend and 2- we NEED a replacement.  This does not take into account the fact that 1 - we already have plenty of dosh and anything we get for Harry will not be earmarked for  a replacement but in other areas because 2- we are not desperate for another CB (Benkovic injury aside we still have Evans, Soyunku, Morgan and at a push Amarty or even Fuchs can play there)

This very thing annoys the hell out of me with Celtic, we never go out and replace before we have the money in our hands to spend and as a result it ends up costing us more, albeit on a lesser scale from yourselves.  Poor succession planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mahrez did come back on a loan with permanent option, no doubt if he had a storming season and we ended up top 6, MCFC would no doubt value him at far more than they paid us for him but at the same time refuse to meet our valuation for Chilwell, Madders or whoever else they decided that they wanted to cherry pick from our squad as they will not be "held to ransom" over inflated valuations just because they are who they are and perceived to have all the money.  Hypocrites the lot of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, murphy said:

He really is.  Well £80m anyway.  £90-£100m s pushing it a bit,

 

Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry.  He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively.

 

£80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka.  It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it.

You'll be happy to pay £50m for Dunk then? Or do these stupid valuations only work one way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the whole matter of medicals being pencilled in seems like utter nonsense on the face of it. If the club have agreed a deal (which would be a forerunner to any "medical" ) why are they not making some sort of statement (there would be nothing to lose by that stage) but allowing MC to make all the public statements or leak details to the papers seems an odd way to conduct business. If its an attempt to exert pressure on us I would be inclined to tell them to FOAD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, henrik_62 said:

Surely whatever way you look at it getting Mahrez back either on loan or permanent would be an absolutely superb piece of business?  No disrespect but I couldn't see Leicester attracting a wide player even close to his level.

You are thinking of Mahrez on his day, and on that day, we would agree with you. We would love that Mahrez back but we as Leicester fans know full well that, that Mahrez doesn't always show up. If he's in a huff, he goes missing and what we are worried about is, Mahrez on loan for a year could mean  Mahrez in a huff for a year. 

 

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Why is Mahrez being discussed... it was a fake ITK account attempting to mirror another fake ITK account?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I think many of us are hoping for truth in it because £65m seems low and we are hoping that there is something else to the deal.  Even if it is blatantly fake, as you've said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...