Arjen Robben

[Bluearmyfox28]

Think of the amount of marketing money we would make with Robben aswell tho guys, yes his wages will be a lot but you would recoup a lot of it through marketing. 

[Aesc]

If this does happen, I think the combination of Robben and Ricardo could be filthy.

Both obviously got great technique and Ricardo's overlapping runs would open up space for Robben to cut in, or you know he would find Ricardo with a reversed through ball.

The one twos would be a thing of beauty.

[Simoken]

I cant see this happening the more i read about it, sound more like a sneaky marketing attempt from the bookies to get bets in. The only true links were BR reference to Robben.. pathetic and means absolutely nothing.

[Bluearmyfox28]

The best way I look at it from a financial perspective is this....

 

let’s say we sign a back up winger & spend £10m on him, with the wages consisting of £50k a week. Across two years you pay out £10m in wages & £5.2m in wages so gives you a total of £15.2m.

 

If you are to offer Robben £100k a week on a two year contract with a £2.5m signing on fee then you pay out £10.4m in wages & £2.5m signing on fee. Which then gives you a total of £12.9m 

 

So you’ll be saving £2.3m by signing Robben & the likelihood is your getting someone who would be twice the player the back up winger would be.

[kingcarr21]

Bring him in just to help out Barnes and Gray in training. The experience he could pass onto them pair is invaluable. If we had 2 young wingers who can score goals regularly then defenders wont know who to focus on.

[Bert]

7 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

The best way I look at it from a financial perspective is this....

 

let’s say we sign a back up winger & spend £10m on him, with the wages consisting of £50k a week. Across two years you pay out £10m in wages & £5.2m in wages so gives you a total of £15.2m.

 

If you are to offer Robben £100k a week on a two year contract with a £2.5m signing on fee then you pay out £10.4m in wages & £2.5m signing on fee. Which then gives you a total of £12.9m 

 

So you’ll be saving £2.3m by signing Robben & the likelihood is your getting someone who would be twice the player the back up winger would be.

But with a younger winger you’ll have the sell on value and with Robben you won’t. If it was to happen it would only be a one year contract. Don’t know any clubs that give out more than year contracts to players 35+ unless they’re gk’s. Let’s also not forget now that players demand appearance fees, assist and goal bonus etc. 

 

The club also no longer rely on stuff like shirt sales and names on the back of shirts as a major source of income like they used to, so I think for people saying that then maybe think again. 

[fazzyfox]

His trademark of dropping his shoulder and cutting in between the full back and CB, charging at the defence looking for contact and already on the fall whether it comes or not is going to suffer with the introduction of VAR, had it been in place throughout his career he would have had so many retrospective suspensions he would have missed a hell of a lot of games. And yes I know Vardy has been a master of those arts at times too.

 

But just imagine being the opposition waiting to face Robben, Vardy, Barnes, Maddison, Chilwell and Ricardo running at you with Tielemans threading the ball through. Forget the East stand expansion, we'll need to extend the loo's in the away dressing room first! Gerrimin!

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Last season’s kit....

[Xen]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

But with a younger winger you’ll have the sell on value and with Robben you won’t. If it was to happen it would only be a one year contract. Don’t know any clubs that give out more than year contracts to players 35+ unless they’re gk’s. Let’s also not forget now that players demand appearance fees, assist and goal bonus etc. 

 

The club also no longer rely on stuff like shirt sales and names on the back of shirts as a major source of income like they used to, so I think for people saying that then maybe think again. 

I don't think anyone is saying that we rely on shirt sales, just that if he came then shirt sales would go up, and that extra revenue (however slight) would go some way to offset part of his wages. As someone else pointed out we also get an extra fee for each TV game, and the appeal of a transfer like this would add on at least 1 fixture I'd imagine. I'd certainly expect the first Leicester vs Chelsea match to be televised.

 

IF this happens I imagine it'll be a 1 year contract with the club having a 1-year extension option. Probably a gentlemans agreement that if we're in a position to buy a top-quality player long-term then we wont activate the extension and he can go to one of the paycheck leagues or back to Groningen.

[FLAN]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Likely to miss half a season injured and be expensive, on the flip side it doesn’t block the pathway our players like Barnes too much, whilst also giving us another option. So that sort of signing would make sense for a season until he see how good Gray and Barnes can be.

We’ve seen how good Gray can be. Not very 

[Ian Nacho]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Last season’s kit....

To be honest I wouldn't expect him to be celebrating a goal before he's even played a game for a club so that was a bit of a giveaway. 

[urban.spaceman]

10 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

To be honest I wouldn't expect him to be celebrating a goal before he's even played a game for a club so that was a bit of a giveaway. 

[Babylon]

49 minutes ago, FLAN said:

We’ve seen how good Gray can be. Not very 

He... being Rodgers. 

[mozartfox]

With VAR his diving would get him more Red Cards than a squad of 25 Wes's.  Please God no

[FoxinNotts]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Last season’s kit....

Are you suggesting the photo is a fake?

[Nod.E]

2 hours ago, Bert said:

But with a younger winger you’ll have the sell on value and with Robben you won’t. If it was to happen it would only be a one year contract. Don’t know any clubs that give out more than year contracts to players 35+ unless they’re gk’s. Let’s also not forget now that players demand appearance fees, assist and goal bonus etc. 

 

The club also no longer rely on stuff like shirt sales and names on the back of shirts as a major source of income like they used to, so I think for people saying that then maybe think again. 

Weird point to make given your stance.

By the same token we can afford the odd signing that doesn't come with the benefit of a sell on fee.

[Bert]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Weird point to make given your stance.

By the same token we can afford the odd signing that doesn't come with the benefit of a sell on fee.

How is it a weird point?  

 

Many people’s argument for signing him is that he would increase shirt revenue. All I’ve said is that the club don’t rely on that anymore. I’m not against him signing, just that long term financially he’s not the better option. Fact. 

[st martin]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Last season’s kit....

Great picture though.

[Dahnsouff]

Plenty of good reasons for this type of signing. Kids are great, but inconsistent (Don`t quote the Alan Hansen thing...)

Old head to keep everyone calm and focused. Not sure if Robben is of that (Cambiasso) ilk, but the idea is sound in my opinion.

 

and no, Wes does not count once you get outside the penalty area.

[Bluearmyfox28]

4 hours ago, Bert said:

But with a younger winger you’ll have the sell on value and with Robben you won’t. If it was to happen it would only be a one year contract. Don’t know any clubs that give out more than year contracts to players 35+ unless they’re gk’s. Let’s also not forget now that players demand appearance fees, assist and goal bonus etc. 

 

The club also no longer rely on stuff like shirt sales and names on the back of shirts as a major source of income like they used to, so I think for people saying that then maybe think again. 

That’s true, but then again it all comes down to clubs vision. How quickly & how desperate are they to make the top 6 within the next year or 2. If the club feel he could make a valuable contribution to that then imo it’s a good investment.

[Bluearmyfox28]

4 hours ago, Xen said:

I don't think anyone is saying that we rely on shirt sales, just that if he came then shirt sales would go up, and that extra revenue (however slight) would go some way to offset part of his wages. As someone else pointed out we also get an extra fee for each TV game, and the appeal of a transfer like this would add on at least 1 fixture I'd imagine. I'd certainly expect the first Leicester vs Chelsea match to be televised.

 

IF this happens I imagine it'll be a 1 year contract with the club having a 1-year extension option. Probably a gentlemans agreement that if we're in a position to buy a top-quality player long-term then we wont activate the extension and he can go to one of the paycheck leagues or back to Groningen.

My point exactly.

[Bluearmyfox28]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

How is it a weird point?  

 

Many people’s argument for signing him is that he would increase shirt revenue. All I’ve said is that the club don’t rely on that anymore. I’m not against him signing, just that long term financially he’s not the better option. Fact. 

But no one is expecting anything long term in signing Robben. You know exactly what your getting a year or 2 max with his age. He would be simply signed for someone who could make a huge impact short term. Just like Cambiasso did.

 

My point wasn’t that we rely on the revenue, my point is the extra revenue we make specifically from Robben also goes towards paying of his wages. Look at Juve & Ronaldo, I know it’s a huge difference but it was made public the one way they could afford his deal without it massively affecting them was due to the extra revenue he would bring in. Like others have stated having Robben playing for us will give us a lot more air time than usual. Let alone the impact he could have on the pitch & on the young lads.

 

Could you imagine the boost the fans & players would get chasing a goal with 20 minutes to go & Robben is coming off the bench... 

[Nod.E]

2 hours ago, Bert said:

How is it a weird point?  

 

Many people’s argument for signing him is that he would increase shirt revenue. All I’ve said is that the club don’t rely on that anymore. I’m not against him signing, just that long term financially he’s not the better option. Fact. 

Because you're saying we don't need to worry about money in one breath and then saying we do in the next.

 

I really don't think we need to worry about the sell on value here. I'm not suggesting we make a habit of only signing players at the ends of their careers but we can afford to bring on a couple.

[ozvaldo]

8 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Big Daddy just went from 6 to midnight. 

[Jordan]

That Robben image edit--on the back of the flimsiest of links to Leicester--can bring nothing but bad karma.