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
2 hours ago, JimJams said:

I'm not sure his 5 goals last season or 2 this would be worth killing for.

Bit short sighted imo, he's limited yeah but he's a different option, hold the ball up bring others in to play etc, he was good when he was here and still good enough to do a job now, doesn't have to be him, man u just got that weghorst, anyone like that for a different angle but under this manager it's 1 size fits all and it's not working. 

  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Cincinnati Fox said:

Craig Dawson to wolves for 3 million . We should have been looking at this. 

He wanted to move back to the West Midlands for family reasons. Don't know if Leicester would have been close enough. Maybe. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Cincinnati Fox said:

Craig Dawson to wolves for 3 million . We should have been looking at this. 

this is exactly the type of transfer we are trying to move away from. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Lambert09 said:

this is exactly the type of transfer we are trying to move away from. 
 

 

Need a balance ! Look at what god did!!

young and Hungry mixed with model pros.

nobby 

Esteban 

kevin

 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, -sodapop said:

Really makes you wonder if Omari Hutchinson's regretting his decision to leave Arsenal to get minutes to a club who have signed two more wingers for more than 130m combined since he joined . Maybe there's an in there.

Bang on, was an odd move anyway. He's now got a further 6 new wingers and attackers in front of him. We should be all over him.

Posted
13 hours ago, The Bear said:

He wanted to move back to the West Midlands for family reasons. Don't know if Leicester would have been close enough. Maybe. 

It would have but wolves is a better fit for him so why not ….

Posted
43 minutes ago, Clarkey123 said:

Seems cheap?

5ECCD316-E357-4FC2-9ECD-55BD57B556F6.png

He was very impressive at the World Cup.

 

I think it's important for Leicester to return to the "buy promising young players" angle though and am happy we seemed to have gone back to that way. The problem with the older players is whilst their transfer fees can be cheap, their wages usually are not. And that's why all teams end up with dead weight players they can't shift. That's why players like Dawson, Ings, etc might be good for the short term but will eventually get you into trouble.

 

Juarnovic is 27... so not too old. At that age with a 3 or 4 year contract you probably don't get to sell them on, but worst case scenario he'd be 31 when he leaves on a free, and Union will have him for the peak of his career. He's actually their record signing and they have a good record of scouting, so I think that is a good deal for them.

 

I think it's highly important we keep going for players like Fofana, Faes, Kristiansen, etc because those are the type of players who can end up being sold for 3-4x for what we paid for them. And that's how the club sustains itself! Sadly with clubs like Chelsea in the league there simply isn't a way we can compete other than to exploit them with high transfer fees.

  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

He was very impressive at the World Cup.

 

I think it's important for Leicester to return to the "buy promising young players" angle though and am happy we seemed to have gone back to that way. The problem with the older players is whilst their transfer fees can be cheap, their wages usually are not. And that's why all teams end up with dead weight players they can't shift. That's why players like Dawson, Ings, etc might be good for the short term but will eventually get you into trouble.

 

Juarnovic is 27... so not too old. At that age with a 3 or 4 year contract you probably don't get to sell them on, but worst case scenario he'd be 31 when he leaves on a free, and Union will have him for the peak of his career. He's actually their record signing and they have a good record of scouting, so I think that is a good deal for them.

 

I think it's highly important we keep going for players like Fofana, Faes, Kristiansen, etc because those are the type of players who can end up being sold for 3-4x for what we paid for them. And that's how the club sustains itself! Sadly with clubs like Chelsea in the league there simply isn't a way we can compete other than to exploit them with high transfer fees.

Yeah agree on the most part, although i think it’s ok to chuck in the odd more seasoned pro to add the experience, especially one who’s likely to be a starter. 
 

Seeing how he performed at the World Cup, and the desire the Croatians play with, you’d think he’d be just what we need. Can’t imagine he’d be on wages above £50,000 a week at Celtic either.

Posted

Brighton’s scouting team potentially at it again, now picking up one of the best talents out of Sweden.

 

The Scandinavian countries have some potential gems.

 

  • Like 4
Posted

Chelsea's transfer policy is mind boggling. Once the Madueke deal goes through that leaves them with the following wide attackers:  Ziyech, Pulisic, Sterling, Mudryk, Madueke, as well as Mount and Havertz who can play in those positions. Meantime, we've struggled through this season with 1 proper wide man!!

Posted
1 hour ago, kingfox said:

Brighton’s scouting team potentially at it again, now picking up one of the best talents out of Sweden.

 

The Scandinavian countries have some potential gems.

 

The problem is, we seem to have no financial flexibility or interest in spending money on development players. Whether that's players for our academy or players thst go on loan and develop to become 1st team here or sold on for a profit to reinvest in the model. Its surely the logical plan for having the best facilities in the world and yet we've made no attempts to do so, even before the financial issues.

  • Like 4
Posted

Chelsea could be investigated for breach of FFP due to use of long contracts to attempt spread of cost through amortisation.

Apparantly there is a uefa rule that states maximum contract length must not exceed 5 years. Chelsea are claiming that the contracts under question are five years with options to extend.

Posted
Just now, urban fox said:

Chelsea could be investigated for breach of FFP due to use of long contracts to attempt spread of cost through amortisation.

Apparantly there is a uefa rule that states maximum contract length must not exceed 5 years. Chelsea are claiming that the contracts under question are five years with options to extend.

If they go after Chelsea for it, Chelsea could easily start pointing at a lot of other clubs that have given contracts longer than 5 years to players

Posted
1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

If they go after Chelsea for it, Chelsea could easily start pointing at a lot of other clubs that have given contracts longer than 5 years to players

Haven't we just given Kristiansen a 5 and a half year contract lol 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Chelsea could be investigated for breach of FFP due to use of long contracts to attempt spread of cost through amortisation.

Apparantly there is a uefa rule that states maximum contract length must not exceed 5 years. Chelsea are claiming that the contracts under question are five years with options to extend.

Well, if the contracts are 5 years then thats what should be used when Amortising? 

Posted
9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Haven't we just given Kristiansen a 5 and a half year contract lol 

 

Yep. That's what got me thinking when I read the article. Presuming that as it's a January transfer it is permitted to extend to the end of a season to bring into line with the normal. 

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

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