James Maddison

[urban fox]

18 minutes ago, ithuriel said:

Never happen in regards Murphy, he is more blinkered than a drunkard with their head stuck in a black bin liner whilst lost in a coal mine.

At midnight.

[whoareyaaa]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Glad someone posted this I heard it on the radio earlier luckily 2 Leicester fans called in to call the nob out what an utter bellend Danny Murphy is proper twat full of himself talking down the club.

 

He then tried to save face by saying it was because Madison is a united fan he will want to play for them he was doing exactly the same for Riyad Mahrez so he talks out his arse.

[Sly]

If he’s watching this, he’ll maybe think twice!! 

[sdb]

Utd are woeful! And Lingard is as good as invisible.

[mozartfox]

How can you nominate the FT ‘BellEnd-Dor’ of the Year on January, 7th?  But I am really tempted to post my nomination for Murphy tonight. 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Well he hasn’t hired raiola to get him a move to Lcfc ! 
 

[pazzerfox]

Can't stand Danny Murphy.  He is a mould of Mark Lawrenson as they both state the obvious and doesn't really have any knowledge of teams outside the big 6.  I watched the Arsenal v Leeds game last night and he hardly praised Leeds at all.  It was more down to the fact that Arsenal were tired after working hard to beat Manchester United than the fact that Leeds were far superior in the first half!  He;s an odious toad!

[TommyK]

2 hours ago, Glorious Leicester Fan said:

I would firstly like to apologise in advance for both being a long and arguably convoluted post.

 

I hold the opinion that the way MU have handled their pursuit of Maddison is a perfect illustration of their decline in both stature and influence. MU find themselves in a situation that they do not want to be in but can’t see a way out. MU are not unique, and many companies/organisations are in a similar position. I am an AI/Data scientist, and ‘problems don’t get fixed’ theories are a hot topic in my field of expertise. I recently read a book (by Eliezer Yudkowsky) that explain why this predicament occurs, which I feel is very pertinent to both MU and perversely to LCFC.

 

For Yudkowsky, there are three factors that can an account for ‘problems don’t get fixed’ within companies/organisations: Decision makers who are not beneficiaries, Asymmetric information, “bad Nash equilibria”. Stick with me as I try to relate this to MU and LCFC.

 

The first factor refers to cases where the decision lies in the hands of people who would gain little personally, or lose out personally, if they did what was necessary to help someone else. I think it’s generally accepted that whilst the business side is arguably working well, MU need help on the footballing matters, hence a call for a footballing overhaul (with a DoF). But what incentive is there for Ed Woodward to instigate such an overhaul? If anything, any significant change would arguably marginalise both his influence and power. I think the same could be said about the owners, whose self-interest is to simply make money. If they continue to do so, why rock the boat?

 

The second factor refers to cases where decision-makers can’t reliably learn the information they need to make decisions, even though someone else has that information. I love to see the decision processes behind some of MU recent transfers. I cannot believe that it was universally agreed within MU that Sanchez would be an optimum purchase. Conversely, I don’t think beyond the realms of possibility that some MU data nerd was extolling the virtues of players like Maguire (when at Hull) and Maddison (when at Norwich). For some reason he, she, they were ignored. Perhaps Maguire/Maddison were deemed as commercially nonviable to sponsors, which goes back to the first factor.

 

The third factor relates to systems with an organisation/company that are broken in multiple places so that no one actor can make them better. From what I have read it seems that a significant concentration of power lies with Ed Woodward and makes key financial and footballing decisions. For a company of MU’s size, this is ridiculous, and is beyond the realms of a single person to manage. I read a recent interview with Arsene Wenger who said that Arsenal had become inhuman. His exact words were:

 

“When I arrived at Arsenal, we were 80. When I left, there were 750, and when there’s 750 people in one organisation, each thinks about saving themselves rather than improving”.

 

I think LCFC success can in a large part be explained by our ability to negotiate these pitfalls. It seems to me that authority is distributed more evenly than MU. Our coaching, management, scouting and corporate/business sections are working in tandem with each other. They are all listened to and respected. For me, most significant is that our size is our strength. We can adapt to an ever-changing footballing landscape and make quick and collaborative decisions. We are still a 'family club' and we are all pointing in the same direction. 

 

I hope this all makes sense.

Sounds very interesting. What was the book called. 

 

Really enjoyed reading your post 😊

[Tuna]

At this moment in time we have a better manager than Manchester United, a better squad than Manchester United, better prospects than Manchester United and are a much better run football club than Manchester United.

 

But they are a global brand, and can offer the sort of money that we cannot and that Is simply a fact and as much as we'd like to think that players will put that to one side to stay with us, realistically money will talk, agents will agitate and heads will be turned.

 

If United are serious about signing him and meet our asking price, they'll get him.

 

It's ****ing annoying but we are deluded if we think he'll stay here if they pursue him like they did Maguire.

 

It massively pisses me off but there we are.

[Tom12345]

5 hours ago, Tuna said:

At this moment in time we have a better manager than Manchester United, a better squad than Manchester United, better prospects than Manchester United and are a much better run football club than Manchester United.

 

But they are a global brand, and can offer the sort of money that we cannot and that Is simply a fact and as much as we'd like to think that players will put that to one side to stay with us, realistically money will talk, agents will agitate and heads will be turned.

 

If United are serious about signing him and meet our asking price, they'll get him.

 

It's ****ing annoying but we are deluded if we think he'll stay here if they pursue him like they did Maguire.

 

It massively pisses me off but there we are.

Yes, it is very annoying.

[Chrysalis]

18 hours ago, Babylon said:

So you think having a squad of pissed off players, with pissed off agents is going to keep us high up the league? 

To be fair Ulloa was unhappy, Shinji didnt like the no10 role, Kante didnt want to be at the club, and we won a title that season

 

I deffo agree with the point we need to be stronger holding onto players, the fortune we have right now of strong incoming players will not last.  Also holding players sends a message to other clubs, and this would reduce the amount of media stories.

 

However at the same time, the owners have shown a clear consistent net spend that is very low for an EPL standard, and to achieve this has been the current policy of buying younger players probably with the intention to sell them on for profit.  Holding players to their contract, would damage this model as value goes down as a contract dwindles, and is always a risk of a player leaving for nothing.

 

Personally I think there is a compromise, I think only holding onto players like Maddison for two seasons is underwhelming, its almost nothing, I think players should not be pushing for moves until at least end of Season 3, that would give us more time with a more stable set of players, and also players that have been with us for longer will perform better as they have spent more time playing in our system.

 

Sadly the world is what it is, I don't think there is many players, probably only players who supported LCFC growing up, would consider LCFC as their ambition, 90% of the players in the country, probably either have Manchester United, or Liverpool as their goal ultimately meaning any other club is a stepping stone.  It wouldnt surprise me if players joining us are even thinking about their next club at the time of joining us, so e.g. players knowing that Maguire moved to Manchester United, Mahrez to Manchester City, and Kante plus Danny to Chelsea, would factor that in when joining us, and it wouldn't surprise me if that affected Maddison's decision to choose us over Southampton.  Although granted a fair few players got to Liverpool via Southampton.  So Maddison if he does insist on a clause, does show he is already planning ahead for his next transfer, and even without a clause, he would likely leave the summer after he signs the contract like Maguire did.  So in effect the clause would just serve to make the transfer cheaper for the new club and ease his step up the ladder.  I don't understand why clubs give a player a huge rise only for him to leave the next year anyway, but supposedly this increases the transfer value.

 

At the very least the club would need probably 2-3 seasons of CL in a row, for players to start treating us seriously as a club to strive to play for.  We are a long way from been in that position.

[Chrysalis]

16 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

He is good but not yet a £100m player. His final ball still needs quite a bit of work especially when compared to more polished players like De Bruyne, Hazard, Mahrez, Pogba, etc. In fact, if Perez can stay on his feet, even Perez is better.  Maddison has the right ideas though and has good dribbling and a nice turn. He is not ready for Man Utd - they will surely not buy anyone from Leicester again if they pay £100m for Maddison after £85m for Maguire.  But then again, we should not sell for anything less. Maddison would be better served staying with us for his development - he could turn out to be a bit like Paul Scholes for Man Utd but he is not quite there yet.

The market has moved with the times, where was you the last window.

 

I would say in current climate Maddison is worth 100-130m.

 

KDB is probably worth 200-250m.

 

Even squad players with barely any pitch time sell for 10-20m now days from EPL clubs.

Edited 8 January 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

14 hours ago, 4everfox said:

When you're a billionaire in a millionaire's playground it doesn't really matter. The owners literally cleared our debts with their own money when they first joined, and Vichai is quoted on record saying something about spending 170 or so million to reach top 6 and I seriously doubt a 100 million training ground and 100 million worth of players over the summer was self funded. My original point was that the money we would make from Champions League means we could afford a few 60-80 grand a week pay rises and a few 180 grand a week players. There will be a loophole somewhere regarding FFP, maybe we could pump a few million into OHL and then loan it off them

Remember we had the world record profit, not long before training ground work started, and umm have a very modest net spend on transfers.  So the training ground you could argue is viably been funded by the club.

 

Meanwhile at Chelsea there is a news report that Roman has injected a 1/4 billion in the last 12 months, which is very much an eye opener considering Chelsea had seemed to be stabilising their finances and sold Hazard for a crap ton of money.

[Chrysalis]

11 hours ago, rico said:

And.......?

 

i watched the full show, she was actually saying that maybe Leicester don’t need to sell, where as the 2 muppets were doing their best to sell him to Utd, i don’t know what your beef is.....?

Got a link to full show?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

Meanwhile at Chelsea there is a news report that Roman has injected a 1/4 billion in the last 12 months, which is very much an eye opener considering Chelsea had seemed to be stabilising their finances and sold Hazard for a crap ton of money.

Don`t get this at all. Roman clearly lied (Or rather the Chelsea hierarchy).

I read that they have spent

• £26m on Conte leaving
• £41m on wage increases
• £280m on Kepa Arrizabalaga, Christian Pulisic, Mateo Kovacic and Jorginho
• Total £347m

They received

• £89m (Potentially £150m) for Hazard
• £247m injection from Roman
• Total £336m

But apparently they actually made a loss of £96m rather than £11m

Seems likely it is on-going severance payments or various smaller transfers, but that is not great and should be punished,

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Don`t get this at all. Roman clearly lied (Or rather the Chelsea hierarchy).

I read that they have spent

• £26m on Conte leaving
• £41m on wage increases
• £280m on Kepa Arrizabalaga, Christian Pulisic, Mateo Kovacic and Jorginho
• Total £347m

They received

• £89m (Potentially £150m) for Hazard
• £247m injection from Roman
• Total £336m

But apparently they actually made a loss of £96m rather than £11m

Seems likely it is on-going severance payments or various smaller transfers, but that is not great and should be punished,

You might be missing some bits and pieces in your profit and loss accounts ........like everything that isn’t transfer fees or wage increases!!!

 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, st albans fox said:

You might be missing some bits and pieces in your profit and loss accounts ........like everything that isn’t transfer fees or wage increases!!!

 

Of course, but try not to paper over the fact that Chelsea just had a 1/4 billion pound cash injection please 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Of course, but try not to paper over the fact that Chelsea just had a 1/4 billion pound cash injection please 

crazy innit

 

all the non big six clubs have to tiptoe around spending restrictions and they seem to spend whatever they bloody like and just take more debt on ..... we are way off being creative enough in our accounts to justify more spending - that’s another thread ......

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

crazy innit

 

all the non big six clubs have to tiptoe around spending restrictions and they seem to spend whatever they bloody like and just take more debt on ..... we are way off being creative enough in our accounts to justify more spending - that’s another thread ......

Maybe thats the definition of a big team - does not give a flying fudge about FFP (Seems possible, look at Arsenal...)

[rico]

18 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Got a link to full show?

It was on Sky Sports News pal

[TRAD-DAD]

12 hours ago, rico said:

And.......?

 

i watched the full show, she was actually saying that maybe Leicester don’t need to sell, where as the 2 muppets were doing their best to sell him to Utd, i don’t know what your beef is.....?

I don't have a beef at all. I only saw the clip posted on here, unlike yourself and in that clip were just two males. hope that helps.

[Simoken]

12 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

Glad someone posted this I heard it on the radio earlier luckily 2 Leicester fans called in to call the nob out what an utter bellend Danny Murphy is proper twat full of himself talking down the club.

 

He then tried to save face by saying it was because Madison is a united fan he will want to play for them he was doing exactly the same for Riyad Mahrez so he talks out his arse.

hmmmmmm, I cant really criticise him on this one tbh or feel disrespected... Hes putting himself in Lingards shoes and thinking, would i be happy to go from Man Utd > LCFC? If you were a boyhood Man Utd player with dreams of finishing with the big '6' and then told at 27 (prime age) to move on and not the likes of PSG/JUVE/RM/MC/ARS then in his mind  set yes he would think less of LCFC. In my own opinion hes wrong and feel LCFC is on the verge of breaking into it, but i do understood his points.

Edited 8 January 2020 by Simoken

[Dahnsouff]

Danny Murphy to be far to him (Which rankles) did say that Maddison is worth more than Sancho.

(Which surely must be the case if anyone gave it a moments thought.)

[Dorkingfox]

I do not think footballers give a hoot who they supported as a child. They want success and money. If it happens to be with a club they supported then that is a bonus. They can become supporters again when their career is over.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

To be fair Ulloa was unhappy, Shinji didnt like the no10 role, Kante didnt want to be at the club, and we won a title that season

 

I deffo agree with the point we need to be stronger holding onto players, the fortune we have right now of strong incoming players will not last.  Also holding players sends a message to other clubs, and this would reduce the amount of media stories.

 

However at the same time, the owners have shown a clear consistent net spend that is very low for an EPL standard, and to achieve this has been the current policy of buying younger players probably with the intention to sell them on for profit.  Holding players to their contract, would damage this model as value goes down as a contract dwindles, and is always a risk of a player leaving for nothing.

 

Personally I think there is a compromise, I think only holding onto players like Maddison for two seasons is underwhelming, its almost nothing, I think players should not be pushing for moves until at least end of Season 3, that would give us more time with a more stable set of players, and also players that have been with us for longer will perform better as they have spent more time playing in our system.

 

Sadly the world is what it is, I don't think there is many players, probably only players who supported LCFC growing up, would consider LCFC as their ambition, 90% of the players in the country, probably either have Manchester United, or Liverpool as their goal ultimately meaning any other club is a stepping stone.  It wouldnt surprise me if players joining us are even thinking about their next club at the time of joining us, so e.g. players knowing that Maguire moved to Manchester United, Mahrez to Manchester City, and Kante plus Danny to Chelsea, would factor that in when joining us, and it wouldn't surprise me if that affected Maddison's decision to choose us over Southampton.  Although granted a fair few players got to Liverpool via Southampton.  So Maddison if he does insist on a clause, does show he is already planning ahead for his next transfer, and even without a clause, he would likely leave the summer after he signs the contract like Maguire did.  So in effect the clause would just serve to make the transfer cheaper for the new club and ease his step up the ladder.  I don't understand why clubs give a player a huge rise only for him to leave the next year anyway, but supposedly this increases the transfer value.

 

At the very least the club would need probably 2-3 seasons of CL in a row, for players to start treating us seriously as a club to strive to play for.  We are a long way from been in that position.

So you'd be fine with N'didi and Chilwell going?

 

The problem is, we have lots of players all at different stages of their development all who've been here different amounts of time. 

 

If you keep holding on and keep holding on, then eventually you're going to end up losing a bunch of players at the same time. Rather than a controlled drip feed of one a season like we currently are doing.