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
 Share
sylofox

Maguire to Man Utd / Man City

By sylofox, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

urban fox

urban fox

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, henrik_62 said:

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.

Which is the very reason we actually bought the said two young CBs last summer. For once we had the foresight to recognise that Maguire may eventually be prised away, Morgan is getting on and (as it turned out an astute one) Evans was always a bit of a gamble. We have also shown with some of the older "legends" that we were not prepared to let them go until some of our academy and other prospects proved themselves capable.  Taking into account all the off field investment as well, for the first time in decades the long term future is actually looking very bright in these parts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, nnfox said:

The topic turned hot so I read through the last couple of pages.

 

Nothing.

Excuse us for discussing potential transfers on a football forum.

 

Will ask your permission next time.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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

I'd be happier to keep Harry tbh.

 

As for Dunk, I think he is being quoted at £40m and that seems cheap to me.  £50m doesn't seem excessive, however, I'd rather stick to our apparent m.o. at the moment and bring in someone who is younger, cheaper and outstanding in the Championship, or, trust the two CBs that we bought last year.  Otherwise, what was the point in buying them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Fox

Leeds Fox

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, murphy said:

I'd be happier to keep Harry tbh.

 

As for Dunk, I think he is being quoted at £40m and that seems cheap to me.  £50m doesn't seem excessive, however, I'd rather stick to our apparent m.o. at the moment and bring in someone who is younger, cheaper and outstanding in the Championship, or, trust the two CBs that we bought last year.  Otherwise, what was the point in buying them?

 

For the fees we paid, even if they didn’t turn out to fulfil their potential, they would probably still hold the majority of their value.

 

If one of them turned out to be what we wanted, it would have been a decent buy. If they both did then even better. 

 

They were both gambles, but safe(ish) gamble at that. Not every player we sign with potential will make the grade. Had we been in for these guys for the prices we paid, hadn’t signed them and they had another good season somewhere across Europe, we’d have been talking about it on here. Their value would have doubled and we’d have missed out. If we sell either of them on at the age they’re at, we’ll get back a good chunk of what we paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

For the fees we paid, even if they didn’t turn out to fulfil their potential, they would probably still hold the majority of their value.

 

If one of them turned out to be what we wanted, it would have been a decent buy. If they both did then even better. 

 

They were both gambles, but safe(ish) gamble at that. Not every player we sign with potential will make the grade. Had we been in for these guys for the prices we paid, hadn’t signed them and they had another good season somewhere across Europe, we’d have been talking about it on here. Their value would have doubled and we’d have missed out. If we sell either of them on at the age they’re at, we’ll get back a good chunk of what we paid. 

Those fees were £35m.

 

A lot to pay if your net transfer budget is around £30m as we are led to believe.  I think that they were bought in as succession planning and should be given their chance if Harry goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingsX

KingsX

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, nnfox said:

The topic turned hot so I read through the last couple of pages.

 

Nothing.

 

Maybe the mods could pin a "Readers Digest" thread at the top of the Transfer forum?  To summarize the last 24 hours content.

 

maguire-to-utd-city (8 new pages)

- Five incompatible versions of transfer/sell-on fee arithmetic

- The inevitable return of bitchin about Mahrez into a thread about another player

- Panic from folks who believe in parody-of-a-parody Twitter accounts and the Easter bunny

- Inconclusive statement by a forum ITK

 

Tielemans (3 new pages)

- 100% guarantee he will wind up at LCFC

- 100% guarantee he will wind up elsewhere

- Full page of the worst puns in Christendom

- Inconclusive statement by a forum ITK

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Fox

Leeds Fox

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, murphy said:

Those fees were £35m.

 

A lot to pay if your net transfer budget is around £30m as we are led to believe.  I think that they were bought in as succession planning and should be given their chance if Harry goes.

 

I agree mate. If Harry had left last summer I think we’d have seen a lot more of them. They’re both still young and clearly have potential. The fees weren’t huge in the grand scheme of things really. 

 

The budget might have been £30m but after selling Mahrez, Musa and Iborra, we brought in some very good players and some average ones (I’m including the January window in this), we didn’t overspend on our budget. This still left us more than enough to bring in two promising CB’s, although they were never guaranteed to become the quality we need. They still have plenty of time. 

 

I’m not being pedantic but to ask ‘what was the point in signing them’ seems a bit short sighted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

Maybe the mods could pin a "Readers Digest" thread at the top of the Transfer forum?  To summarize the last 24 hours content.

 

maguire-to-utd-city (8 new pages)

- Five incompatible versions of transfer/sell-on fee arithmetic

- The inevitable return of bitchin about Mahrez into a thread about another player

- Panic from folks who believe in parody-of-a-parody Twitter accounts and the Easter bunny

- Inconclusive statement by a forum ITK

 

Tielemans (3 new pages)

- 100% guarantee he will wind up at LCFC

- 100% guarantee he will wind up elsewhere

- Full page of the worst puns in Christendom

- Inconclusive statement by a forum ITK

I nominate you to do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jayfox26

jayfox26

Posted
Posted

Im sure the Mahrez talk is all nonsense but either way, we should not be getting loan players in for a season to bring the value down on one of our players. If Man City or United want any of our players we should be telling them to pay the full value we have set or piss off. Why would we want to loan players, absolutely pointless. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours 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's not worth it but who is. Who's worth £1m? Even that is outrageous.

 

That is the point, I made a point in the Premier League thread earlier. The 'big clubs' have caused this, average players, below average players are £30m now.

 

The 'big clubs' caused these stupid fees by throwing their cheque books out when most other teams were 'poor', the transfer market is now out control because of it, now every club in the Premier League doesn't have to sell their players they're biting back, naming a price (A massively over inflated price) and simply saying take it or leave it.

 

Even if players throw their toys out the pram, ultimately it'll end one way in the player leaving but clubs will make it hard for them, demand the asking price and more often than not get close to that asking price.

 

Man Utd, Chelsea have always bought players just so other teams can't have them, 'weaken' the opposition but Man City are taking it to another level, buy all means by all these players, but you're going to have to pay through the nose for it, i'll hold my hands up i've not read up on FFP a great deal but with my little understanding of it I really don't understand how Man City are getting away with it, I just hope all these rumours of them being thrown out the CL for breach of it are true.

 

Suck it up 'big clubs'. I ****ing love it.

 

 

Edited by Matt
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Am I reading things right that someone suggested if wes lasts a few more years he would replace maguire without a problem O_o

 

The reason maguire is in demand is his ball playing ability and ability to run forward with the ball, for top tier teams thats extremely important, wes on the other hand is uncomfortable on the ball, there is no comparison.

 

I suppose from an old school perspective if a defender only has to defend and nothing else ok, but modern football, good defenders are rated on their ball playing ability over their defensive ability.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Am I reading things right that someone suggested if wes lasts a few more years he would replace maguire without a problem O_o

 

The reason maguire is in demand is his ball playing ability and ability to run forward with the ball, for top tier teams thats extremely important, wes on the other hand is uncomfortable on the ball, there is no comparison.

 

I suppose from an old school perspective if a defender only has to defend and nothing else ok, but modern football, good defenders are rated on their ball playing ability over their defensive ability.

This is true and Harry's ability on the ball seems to be an afterthought for some people on here.  It's what every team wants and it is very rare in centre halves, which is why he is in such demand.

 

If we think of Dunk as a replacement, well Harry can do what Dunk does, but Dunk cannot do what Harry does.  Our team will be severely weakened if he goes.

 

£80m or fck off United and Man City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MGLCFC

MGLCFC

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, murphy said:

This is true and Harry's ability on the ball seems to be an afterthought for some people on here.  It's what every team wants and it is very rare in centre halves, which is why he is in such demand.

 

If we think of Dunk as a replacement, well Harry can do what Dunk does, but Dunk cannot do what Harry does.  Our team will be severely weakened if he goes.

 

£80m or fck off United and Man City.

I am not advocating the sale of Maguire, but he is prone to errors. I wouldn't be opposed to Dunk as a replacement. He won't be as dynamic as Maguire, but he is solid and does score a fair number of goals every season, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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