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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It would certainly be a statement of intent if we got Eriksen in. Perhaps Kasper could facilitate this and we could add another colleague in Damsgaard on the wing as well! OK maybe a bit too hopeful but it would give everyone a boost

Edited by Edingleyfox
Posted
4 minutes ago, Edingleyfox said:

It would certainly be a statement of intent if we got Eriksen in. Perhaps Kasper could facilitate this and we could add another colleague in Damsgaard on the wing as well! OK maybe a bit too hopeful but it would give everyone a boost

Statement of intent? He was at Brentford last season. 

 

Poor blokes been through enough to play for either us or Man Utd!

Guest nathan.
Posted

United still have much more pull than we do I’m afraid.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Edingleyfox said:

It would certainly be a statement of intent if we got Eriksen in. Perhaps Kasper could facilitate this and we could add another colleague in Damsgaard on the wing as well! OK maybe a bit too hopeful but it would give everyone a boost

Doesn't Damsgaard play on the left? I mean, sure, not needing yet another player on the left wing hasn't stopped us before...

Posted

The idea of “I’m worried I might die if I play for Man. U but not if I play for Leicester” seems very odd to me.  Eriksen either considers himself healthy enough to play football or he doesn’t.  It’s football.  I would think, in his shoes, it would be more compelling that ever to want the matches I play in to have real significance (like CL matches, for example).  Just because a team has European football doesn’t mean they’d play Eriksen 50 times a season.

 

There’s a lot of projection happening here.  Absent reason to believe otherwise I don’t assume Eriksen has cast aside ambition,

Posted
1 minute ago, Deeg67 said:

The idea of “I’m worried I might die if I play for Man. U but not if I play for Leicester” seems very odd to me.  Eriksen either considers himself healthy enough to play football or he doesn’t.  It’s football.  I would think, in his shoes, it would be more compelling that ever to want the matches I play in to have real significance (like CL matches, for example).  Just because a team has European football doesn’t mean they’d play Eriksen 50 times a season.

 

There’s a lot of projection happening here.  Absent reason to believe otherwise I don’t assume Eriksen has cast aside ambition,

It's not Eriksen's ambition I am questioning at all. I am sure he wants to play all the games. It is the clubs' lawyers and insurers opinion on the matter that I am questioning. And their opinions actually do matter. (I am not saying I know those opinions, but I wouldn't be surprised if his doctors have made certain recommendations as to his playing time.) Yes, clubs wouldn't need to play him 50 times a year, but an inability to play 50 times a year does enter the picture when negotiating a deal.

Posted

if we were to sign Eriksen and a defender. With only Tielemans going the out (excluding squad player disposal). That is a significant upgrade in squad then last season. Exceptional player - who knows this league. 

Posted
Just now, Bourbon Fox said:

Is nobody slightly worried at the prospect of signing a player who has suffered cardiac arrest on the pitch?

He has an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, he is far safer with that than having an undiagnosed condition.

 

Daley Blind has been playing with one since 2019 for Ajax and Netherlands.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

if we were to sign Eriksen and a defender. With only Tielemans going the out (excluding squad player disposal). That is a significant upgrade in squad then last season. Exceptional player - who knows this league. 

100% Just have to see the improvement of Brentford once he signed, they only lost 2 of the 11 games he started. 

 

Would be a excellent  replacement for Youri.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

100% Just have to see the improvement of Brentford once he signed, they only lost 2 of the 11 games he started. 

 

Would be a excellent  replacement for Youri.

 

he isn't so much a youri replacement. infact he's more likely to play i/o KDH or madders.  youri plays deeper interacting with wilf.  the main point is that i cannot see us committing 100/125k per week to a player we don't necessarily need. we have more pressing issues ......

  • Like 1
Posted

Yes he would be a great addition and would sweeten the pill of losing YT, but just can’t see it happening. What can we offer him? 
 

London? Nope

CL football? Nope

European football? Nope

Biggest salary? highly unlikely 

Shared bathing facilities with Kasper? Yep, definitely!!

 

I think we should try and sell it to him on the latter point 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

We would offer more playing time I imagine. If he goes to Man Utd, he won`t be first choice.

One typical Erikson performance and he would be first on the team sheet. Chris has a heart problem but his brain is still razor sharp.

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

he isn't so much a youri replacement. infact he's more likely to play i/o KDH or madders.  youri plays deeper interacting with wilf.  the main point is that i cannot see us committing 100/125k per week to a player we don't necessarily need. we have more pressing issues ......

I'd argue that we played our best football under BR early on with Ndidi playing deep and Maddison and Youri playing as duel 8s in a 4-1-4-1.

 

Also, Eriksen would be more at home in the 4-3-3  we are currently playing than Youri due to the mobility and Brentford have been playing a 4-3-3 during his time there.

 

For me, Eriksen is intelligent enough to play as most roles at CM. What does Youri have that he doesn't?

 

But you aren't paying a transfer fee, even at 200k a week for 2 years it's cheaper the buying someone for 20m. 

 

Edited by coolhandfox
Posted
40 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

We would offer more playing time I imagine. If he goes to Man Utd, he won`t be first choice.

He’d be Uniteds best central midfielder arguably, though it depends if they want him to play deeper or as a deputy to Bruno. If it’s the latter he won’t be first choice. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Deeg67 said:

The idea of “I’m worried I might die if I play for Man. U but not if I play for Leicester” seems very odd to me.  Eriksen either considers himself healthy enough to play football or he doesn’t.  It’s football.  I would think, in his shoes, it would be more compelling that ever to want the matches I play in to have real significance (like CL matches, for example).  Just because a team has European football doesn’t mean they’d play Eriksen 50 times a season.

 

There’s a lot of projection happening here.  Absent reason to believe otherwise I don’t assume Eriksen has cast aside ambition,

Well exactly and why would we sign him if he doesnt want extra games? He wont want us to qualify for europe or go far in the cups? 

 

Not to mention the fact that he will be rotated at Man U... whereas theres a chance we will play him whenever we can. 

Edited by Lambert09
Posted
12 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

But you aren't paying a transfer fee, even at 200k a week for 2 years it's cheaper the buying someone for 20m. 

True, but it does fly in the face of our buy to sell on policy. Though I guess you could get a mill or two out of a sale a couple of years from now.

 

He could be our new Cambiasso.  He won't be. But he could.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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