Harvey Barnes

[Ric Flair]

7 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

If that happens Rudkin needs a huge pay rise and Harvey Barnes agent wants sacking.

Why, that's the sort of wages Ndidi, Ricardo and Tielemans are on here. All probably deserve £100k a week or more but the simple fact is we can't afford it.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Is he Mahrez in disguise just with different attributes?

[Grebfromgrebland]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Why, that's the sort of wages Ndidi, Ricardo and Tielemans are on here. All probably deserve £100k a week or more but the simple fact is we can't afford it.

As we get better and better players we're going to have to pay them the going rate or we won't have them for very long.

 

Barnes is almost guaranteed a new contract at the end of the season and we should get that sorted before the Euros.

 

I don't think Tielemans has his new contract yet, but it will be a good one that's for sure.

 

 

[Ric Flair]

52 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

As we get better and better players we're going to have to pay them the going rate or we won't have them for very long.

 

Barnes is almost guaranteed a new contract at the end of the season and we should get that sorted before the Euros.

 

I don't think Tielemans has his new contract yet, but it will be a good one that's for sure.

 

 

I agree but this is why we have the policy of buying low and selling for a huge profit with one replaceable player every year. It allows us to keep the rest and offer them new contracts. But until we are pulling in more than £200m in TV money, commercial sponsorship and other income then it's nigh on impossible to have a squad of 25 players with 5-10 of them on 100k a week or more. 

 

It's another reason why it's essential we fine tune our academy to have the best chance of bringing through young players to compliment thr 1st tea and then we don't need as many fringe players on 50k a week. 

[majaco]

9 hours ago, Stadt said:

Where’s that freak that used to add a laughing face reaction on every pro-Barnes post now?  Probably boomerangs his wank socks around the gaff in frustration every time he scores 

The second sentence may be the strangest one I've seen on the forum.   I have no idea what it means.  It is a metaphor beyond my understanding.  It is an image that I do not comprehend.   Is anyone able to explain what a wank sock is?  Or to unravel the meaning , does it need to be a pair of wank socks.

 

Then can someone explain how the verb 'boomerang' works in this context?  I find the idea of wank socks returning having been thrown a little alarming.  The fact that they boomerang 'around' is also potentially sinister.

[majaco]

8 hours ago, KingsX said:

One day? How about yesterday. Moved him up front alongside Vardy, and Liverpool were undone. Might see more of that given the stunning results?

 

https://theathletic.com/2386428/2021/02/14/liverpool-leicester-rodgers-gamble-premier-league-decisive-formation-change/

 

            Barnes                Vardy

 

                 Pérez / Madders

 

Madders / Sharkey.      Sharkey / Under / Pérez

 

                  the Emperor Wilf

 

 

... too much risk while missing JJ & Castagne?

 

But next year...

 

   

Where's Tielemans?  Your post started well but then your preferred Perez to Tielemans.

 

Mods:. a ban is needed here

[Ashley]

10 hours ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

He fits into Leicester perfectly, playing for a counter attacking team, don't think he's suited to teams that play  possession based football.

 

Yet we do play possession based football🤔

 

Sometimes counter attacking stuff

[Stadt]

6 minutes ago, majaco said:

The second sentence may be the strangest one I've seen on the forum.   I have no idea what it means.  It is a metaphor beyond my understanding.  It is an image that I do not comprehend.   Is anyone able to explain what a wank sock is?  Or to unravel the meaning , does it need to be a pair of wank socks.

 

Then can someone explain how the verb 'boomerang' works in this context?  I find the idea of wank socks returning having been thrown a little alarming.  The fact that they boomerang 'around' is also potentially sinister.

spaff

Edited 15 February 2021 by Stadt

[majaco]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

spaff

Thanks for explaining it.   That has cleared it up.

[OhYesNdidi]

18 minutes ago, Ashley said:

 

Yet we do play possession based football🤔

 

Sometimes counter attacking stuff

I think Rodgers has learnt and evolved from last season. We seem much more comfortable sitting deep and playing on the counter than we did last season where we’d completely dominate. Still think the best Rodgers’ Leicester side was the 2019/20 between October - early December, what a joy that was!  

[Ashley]

5 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

I think Rodgers has learnt and evolved from last season. We seem much more comfortable sitting deep and playing on the counter than we did last season where we’d completely dominate. Still think the best Rodgers’ Leicester side was the 2019/20 between October - early December, what a joy that was!  

I suppose being able to play both is the sign of a good team. Just look how far we've come. It's brilliant 👏

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

I agree but this is why we have the policy of buying low and selling for a huge profit with one replaceable player every year. It allows us to keep the rest and offer them new contracts. But until we are pulling in more than £200m in TV money, commercial sponsorship and other income then it's nigh on impossible to have a squad of 25 players with 5-10 of them on 100k a week or more. 

 

It's another reason why it's essential we fine tune our academy to have the best chance of bringing through young players to compliment thr 1st tea and then we don't need as many fringe players on 50k a week. 

Agree with most of what you're saying but we might have so many good players that we have 11 deserving to be in the 100k pw category but what goes with that is that fact that we will also be regular champions league entrants and hanging round near the top of the league and can thus afford it.  You need to think big and we will bring in that income from a combination of player sales, TV money and prize money.

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, majaco said:

Thanks for explaining it.   That has cleared it up.

That’s what the sock is for. 

[Gerard]

5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Why, that's the sort of wages Ndidi, Ricardo and Tielemans are on here. All probably deserve £100k a week or more but the simple fact is we can't afford it.

 

if Leicester can't afford to pay wages that a player can get elsewhere then that's our problem not the player's. 

 

A quick google search suggests Maguire is on £200k a week and Chilwell on £190k a week (I know). 

 

If our players are courted by the elite clubs they'll want to go for numerous reasons and high on that list will be a chance to double their wages.

[spacemunky]

Whether he's going top cheese or five hole, you know he's going to bury the biscuit. Harv's a dirty dangler with the nifty mittens. A real beautician!

 

Edit- Sorry, just came from my hockey forum.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Gerard said:

 

if Leicester can't afford to pay wages that a player can get elsewhere then that's our problem not the player's. 

 

A quick google search suggests Maguire is on £200k a week and Chilwell on £190k a week (I know). 

 

If our players are courted by the elite clubs they'll want to go for numerous reasons and high on that list will be a chance to double their wages.

Yes it is our problem but we also have to be realistic about it. We can't have a wage bill of £200m which is what we'd have if we paid every player what they could earn elsewhere, so we have to reward them as best we can and systematically sell some of them who we know we can replace with cheaper and possibly better players whilst maintaining progression. If and once CL football is achieved again then it allows us to pay more but there will have to be clauses that should CL football not be achieved the seasons after then their wages are reduced. 

 

We seemingly struggle to increase our commercial revenue, even when we won the title it didn't bring the predicted influx of mere sponsorship. 

[Chrysalis]

Ironically he is a potential replacement for vardy, that finish was superb.

[KingsX]

7 hours ago, majaco said:

Where's Tielemans?  Your post started well but then your preferred Perez to Tielemans.

 

Mods:. a ban is needed here

 

First and last time I ever post a formation on here

 

I do think that diamond with Harvey moving up front won't just be a one-off.  It worked a treat against a tired defense.

[majaco]

36 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

First and last time I ever post a formation on here

 

I do think that diamond with Harvey moving up front won't just be a one-off.  It worked a treat against a tired defense.

That could work.  But Tilemans surely has to play

[dmayne7]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes it is our problem but we also have to be realistic about it. We can't have a wage bill of £200m which is what we'd have if we paid every player what they could earn elsewhere, so we have to reward them as best we can and systematically sell some of them who we know we can replace with cheaper and possibly better players whilst maintaining progression. If and once CL football is achieved again then it allows us to pay more but there will have to be clauses that should CL football not be achieved the seasons after then their wages are reduced. 

 

We seemingly struggle to increase our commercial revenue, even when we won the title it didn't bring the predicted influx of mere sponsorship. 

You're spot on re the commercial stuff. That was a huge missed step, especially from a club owned by a large commercial empire. CL is what really gives you the chance to do that and establish yourself as a 'big' club which we have the chance to do.

 

In terms of wages, we really should be able to afford plenty of players on £100k a week. You're generally going to have the bulk of players on £40k - £70k with a few over a £100k and then a few that are probably under £40k. Not suggesting we're putting 10 players on £200k a week but even if you have a few on £120k+ we should be able to do that. Even if you want to assume that most players in the squad are on over £75k a week you could have something like this (roughly):

 

5 on £100k = £25m a year

 

10 on £75k = £37.5m a year

 

10 on £50k = £25m a year.

 

So £87.5m a year which isn't that much for a club our size (as stupid as that sounds)

 

And you're likely to have a few players on £30k a week or less, and plenty in that £50k-£75k range which means you can afford to have even about 10 players on £100k+.

 

Of course you need to factor in staff wages which will definitely bump up the overall bill but if we can finally crack a bit more of the  commercial growth, we'll leave ourselves in a position to compete financially for CL every year

[Ric Flair]

13 minutes ago, dmayne7 said:

You're spot on re the commercial stuff. That was a huge missed step, especially from a club owned by a large commercial empire. CL is what really gives you the chance to do that and establish yourself as a 'big' club which we have the chance to do.

 

In terms of wages, we really should be able to afford plenty of players on £100k a week. You're generally going to have the bulk of players on £40k - £70k with a few over a £100k and then a few that are probably under £40k. Not suggesting we're putting 10 players on £200k a week but even if you have a few on £120k+ we should be able to do that. Even if you want to assume that most players in the squad are on over £75k a week you could have something like this (roughly):

 

5 on £100k = £25m a year

 

10 on £75k = £37.5m a year

 

10 on £50k = £25m a year.

 

So £87.5m a year which isn't that much for a club our size (as stupid as that sounds)

 

And you're likely to have a few players on £30k a week or less, and plenty in that £50k-£75k range which means you can afford to have even about 10 players on £100k+.

 

Of course you need to factor in staff wages which will definitely bump up the overall bill but if we can finally crack a bit more of the  commercial growth, we'll leave ourselves in a position to compete financially for CL every year

Weren't our wage about £110m the other year? 

[HankMarvin]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Weren't our wage about £110m the other year? 

[Bazly]

Reports circulation say Liverpool need to sign Barnes in the Summer. Why? No one really says other than they should. Why not Norwich, or Cardiff? This exceptionalism gets my goat. I think Liverpool need defenders first, second and third. But, that's just my opinion. Maybe Liverpool need to poach our scouting crew just like Everton did before sacking them off a couple of years later.

[Fox forever]

5 minutes ago, Bazly said:

Reports circulation say Liverpool need to sign Barnes in the Summer. Why? No one really says other than they should. Why not Norwich, or Cardiff? This exceptionalism gets my goat. I think Liverpool need defenders first, second and third. But, that's just my opinion. Maybe Liverpool need to poach our scouting crew just like Everton did before sacking them off a couple of years later.

Yeah annoying. Harvey is a Leicester fan and according to my lad who went countesthorpe college, only wanted to play for Leicester. Times change and money talks but he might be out Matt Le Tissier. 

[Heymister2015]

I’d play the Diomond on Thursday and play Barnes and under together!