Dunk??!!

[mozartfox]

2 minutes ago, Ricey said:

I'm starting to think the Dunk link and £45M might be a ploy from our end to push up the Maguire price. If Harry's replacement is going to cost £45M, it strengthens our case to demand £80M+.

 

We know any replacement is going to be at an inflated price because Maguire's price will be inflated. If we had any sense we would have signed his replacement last summer in a more sensible market and spent a year bedding him in...

We did - Soyuncu and Benkovic.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, henrik_62 said:

Guess it's down to opinion but from what I've saw Maguire is a far better player than Dunk, the fact one is an England regular and attracting the likes of Man City, Man Utd etc and one isn't definitely suggests that also.  I don't see clubs battering the door down to get Dunk, in fact I've not heard anyone linked with him other than Leicester.

 

Easy to say that but however you get to a World Cup semi-final is not to be sniffed at, if anything it enhances Maguire's reputation further as that run was built on a strong defence and he was a threat in both boxes.

Well that shows our scouting is a damn site better than the utterly useless United. Who is to say the same wouldn't happen with Dunk (not that I'm suggesting I'd pay the kind of money they want). Playing in a team in the top half of the table over the bottom half puts you in a totally different shop window. Dunk was also excellent when he played against us. 

 

Maguire is good on the ball, but frankly I've never been totally sold on him defensively and I find his style of play is quite disruptive. I thought we looked solid last year when he was out injured.

[hackneyfox]

1 hour ago, Manini said:

I think we’ve just got to look ourselves in the mirror and accept the fact that we’re a massive part of the problem with the transfer market in this country if we pay anywhere near £50 million or Lewis Dunk. 

Foxes Talk exaggeration again, closer to £40m than £50m

22 minutes ago, Jack1993 said:

Prove you're a FoxesTalk veteran by quoting the players next age rather than his current age! 

 

"Vardy needs support, he's 33 this season" 

 

"I'd be careful with Dunk, he's 28 this year" 

 

I mean I'm all for debate but it's ridiculous 

 

For what it's worth, I'd say Vardy has got years left in his legs, he was only 30 at the beginning of last year 

 

I KNOW IT'S THE DUNK THREAD 

See above

[hackneyfox]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Well that shows our scouting is a damn site better than the utterly useless United. Who is to say the same wouldn't happen with Dunk (not that I'm suggesting I'd pay the kind of money they want). Playing in a team in the top half of the table over the bottom half puts you in a totally different shop window. Dunk was also excellent when he played against us. 

 

Maguire is good on the ball, but frankly I've never been totally sold on him defensively and I find his style of play is quite disruptive. I thought we looked solid last year when he was out injured.

Wondering if we scored more goals when Maguire plays, certainly didn't seem to ship many more.

[CosbehFox]

Why are people getting all alarmed by a clickbait article? 

 

Ill repeat what I said in the Maguire thread. The same journalist who wrote this reckoned Burnley were signing an ukrainian midfielder from Genk. He flew yesterday to atalanta and is expected to sign today for them. 

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

Wondering if we scored more goals when Maguire plays, certainly didn't seem to ship many more.

For all his passing ability and his ability to get up the pitch, I'm not sure I remember us directly reaping the benefits all that often.

[hackneyfox]

Just now, Babylon said:

For all his passing ability and his ability to get up the pitch, I'm not sure I remember us directly reaping the benefits all that often.

Agreed, looked great and got us out of our seats but I don't remember many goals from his runs or long passes.

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

If we have to go and get a 5th centre back why the need to buy domestically for a player who is going to be hugely overpriced like Dunk or Tarkowski? I just find it really short sighted and a little bit alarming. We seemingly did our forward planning by getting in Benkovic and Soyuncu last summer and I know neither are an upgrade on Maguire or even a like for like switch but they may well be quite quickly if they are given a chance. Dunk is nearly 28 and we will have to pay more than we paid for Tielemans to get him, a player we spent months negotiating to get for lower and who has only just turned 22, is not far off first choice for Belgium right now and one of the most gifted young players in Europe. It makes me feel sick, decisions like this really make me question how clued up we are as a club, just steer clear of domestic transfers if we are going to be held to ransom like we are doing for Maguire. We don't have to follow suit, we have an opportunity to get obscene money and utilize it in areas of the squad that need strengthening like out wide. We could go and spend £50-60m on one of the very best young wingers who are looking for a move to the PL and an increase in wages and exposure.

 

 

Agree totally .!!

This is exactly what confuses me,no matter how we wrap it up and present it!!

Mind you after spending 40mil on Tielemans,I don't see why we should spend 50-60 mil on a young winger!!

I can't think of one quality wide man that is available,and worth this club spending that sum..!! Perhaps 20-30 mil,but again for that amount even,I see no exceptional winger or wide player that could add to the cause...Names put forward on this forum,are not that exceptional,nor available.!!

We fans seem to think it's ok,to throw out an extra 10mil to secure a signing.

We are still licking desperately  our wounds from Musa,Slimani and Silva!!

Just because "we think we can" doesn't then mean every name with a bit of polish,is a 50mil quality player...

 

That's why I understand the 2 Manchester's holding back on Maguire!!

That in turn shouldn't stop our insistence.  Manutd need desperately a quality CB.We don't need to sell,so we can do the insisting.With Kompany retiring Mcity need for their level a top

Quality CB...do they tho'  " need"  a 80mil

Maguire..Even with their ready funds,they still need to be prudent...

 

Edited 15 July 2019 by fuchsntf

[Manini]

15 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Foxes Talk exaggeration again, closer to £40m than £50m

See above

1. I said anywhere near 50 million 

 

2. It’s been quoted that their valuation of him is 50 million, so if reports are true that we want him, we’re going to be paying a lot closer to 50 than we are 40. 

 

3. I’m not exaggerating anything (I wish I was, but these are actual reported figures!) I like to think I’m quite considered in my views and opinions on here I’m not one for exaggeration at the best of times, I’m merely pointing out that these figures that are being quoted for this lad are absolutely obscene, no matter what way you look at it - 40 mill, 50 mill, £10 who cares, the market is on its arse and if we pay anywhere near what they value him at we’re only adding fuel to the fire. 

Edited 15 July 2019 by Manini

[Ric Flair]

35 minutes ago, srbfox said:

In a world where a club and manager think we need a CB with EPL experience. 

We have one of the best in Evans already

[Perseus]

9 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

It seems it’s only people from Brighton’s end stating these figures doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the actual figure being quoted.

Retiring journo Andy Naylor from Brighton quotes over £50m only (his opinion). The point is with TV money, 3 points to avoid relegation is worth more than £100 million to Brighton. NB: Dunk was not a Houghton signing (and Poyet wanted to sign Van Dijk instead) and Houghton's style inhibited Dunk (as slow as Maguire) and both not quick enough for a CL side. Sell Maguire to Man United and they won't be a top six side anymore?

 

Unsure how good or bad Dunk is, but he doesn't make too many mistakes and Brighton turned down £15 million bids for him from Fulham whilst in the Championship and before prices went very silly.

 

To play in the opponents half like a top 6 side and both Maguire and Dunk seem too slow. Play deep defence and counter attack and they both seem ideal. And both Maguire and Dunk seem capable of scoring goals at home when the dross sides sit deep. Maguire is better because he is influential to others in the defence. Dunk is better seen in conjunction with his partnership with Duffy which together is better than the individual players (until they meet Man City). 

[blaaklint]

With Maguire: 2599 minutes, condeding 43 goals (1.49 goals conceded per 90), scoring 41 goals (1.42 goals scored per 90)

Without Maguire: 821 minutes, conceding 5 goals (0.54 goals conceded per 90), scoring 10 goals (1.10 goals scored per 90)

 

Doesn't necessarily tell us anything about Maguire, but it's interesting nevertheless.

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Agreed, looked great and got us out of our seats but I don't remember many goals from his runs or long passes.

To be fair, it's hard to quantify what his ability to pass out can open up for us. It might be 5 passes further on, but his starting pass might have broken the lines and got us into a position that we wouldn't have previously. 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

To be fair, it's hard to quantify what his ability to pass out can open up for us. It might be 5 passes further on, but his starting pass might have broken the lines and got us into a position that we wouldn't have previously. 

Was gonna say similar, value can't always be directly proportioned to goals or assists.  

[ARM1968]

53 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Because it's deranged and totally ignores the market we're dealing in.

No, I think the market is deranged, not me. The only thing more deranged would be to exacerbate the madness by overpaying for Dunk. 

[mancunianfox]

33 minutes ago, blaaklint said:

With Maguire: 2599 minutes, condeding 43 goals (1.49 goals conceded per 90), scoring 41 goals (1.42 goals scored per 90)

Without Maguire: 821 minutes, conceding 5 goals (0.54 goals conceded per 90), scoring 10 goals (1.10 goals scored per 90)

 

Doesn't necessarily tell us anything about Maguire, but it's interesting nevertheless.

While it was obvious that we were defensively a lot worse with Maguire in the side I am surprised it is quite as much as that.

[Babylon]

15 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

No, I think the market is deranged, not me. The only thing more deranged would be to exacerbate the madness by overpaying for Dunk. 

Well if you want to take the market out of it then none of them are worth more than they used to pay 30 years ago. In the market we're in though they'd have every right to be asking north of £30m.

[ARM1968]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Well if you want to take the market out of it then none of them are worth more than they used to pay 30 years ago. In the market we're in though they'd have every right to be asking north of £30m.

And they can. My argument is that he isn’t worth it and there are better options out there for that money.  Doubt you could mount a significant argument against that. 

[cityfanlee23]

14 hours ago, Harry96 said:

He’s a good player tbf 

He's a good player, but for 45m I would prefer someone better than 'good', he was one of the better players in one of the most anti football teams to have been in the prem in a long while, no way is he worth 45m. 
Put it this way, we paid 17m for Maguire who had been far better than Dunk in a team that actually tried to play football.

Edited 15 July 2019 by cityfanlee23

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

And they can. My argument is that he isn’t worth it and there are better options out there for that money.  Doubt you could mount a significant argument against that. 

Only if you want to take the risk of buying from another country, if you want players who you know can perform in the league we're actually in then there aren't that many options.

 

Can you go to France and buy someone cheaper, yes. Is there a chance they could be better, yes. Is there a chance they might be totally useless in our league, yes.

 

The club have to take a view on the risk element. Yes, £40m (for arguemnts sake) is a lot of money, but you know what you are getting. Or the risk is at the very least reduced, as you've seen him play week in week out against players he's going to be facing.

 

You could end up going abroad, taking the risk and end up trying to replace a player two or three times over.  We spent all the Kante money on two players trying to find someone good enough, we've signed two centre backs we're yet to see if either can play in this league. We've spent about three times the Drinwkater money trying to find a creative CM from aborad that works.

 

People turned their noses up at Deeney for £30m, yet seemed happy with Iheanacho for £25m... the former would frankly have been of far better value. Despite not having seemed so at the time and it wasn't particularly glamorous.

 

What appears to be cheaper and better value doesn't end up always being so.

Edited 15 July 2019 by Babylon

[Nalis]

Classic case of us wanting to rip off Man Utd for a Maguire fee whilst simultaneously complaining about Brighton wanting to rip us off on a fee for Dunk.

Edited 15 July 2019 by Nalis

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Classic case of us wanting to rip off Man Utd for a Maguire fee whilst simultaneously complaining about Brighton wanting to rip us off on a fee for Dunk.

But we don't have to be ripped off by Brighton, just swerve it all together. Domestic transfers are for the most part, a major headache to negotiate. We've done our forward planning and likewise keeping Wes on for another year.

[Dahnsouff]

23 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

And they can. My argument is that he isn’t worth it and there are better options out there for that money.  Doubt you could mount a significant argument against that. 

Sigh - of course it can be argued. Its a sellers market. We value Maguire at 85m (He is not worth that in this market, but we say he is to us). Dunk ain`t worth 40m in this market, Brighton say he is to them)

Yes, the market is buggered good and proper, but that is where we are. As a side point, who are the better options you mention?

(This is starting to read like Red Cafe)

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

But we don't have to be ripped off by Brighton, just swerve it all together. Domestic transfers are for the most part, a major headache to negotiate. We've done our forward planning and likewise keeping Wes on for another year.

This is the nub of it. If we don`t want to pay what Brighton want - we walk away. Same story with Utd and Maguire.

[Bluearmyfox28]

1 hour ago, Ricey said:

I'm starting to think the Dunk link and £45M might be a ploy from our end to push up the Maguire price. If Harry's replacement is going to cost £45M, it strengthens our case to demand £80M+.

 

We know any replacement is going to be at an inflated price because Maguire's price will be inflated. If we had any sense we would have signed his replacement last summer in a more sensible market and spent a year bedding him in...

That’s an interesting way of looking at it actually. Be bloody funny if true playing Woodward at his own game.