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
Lcfc-1992

Jannik Vestergaard

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KFS said:

And while on the topic of Boehly… Fofana’s involvement in our club created a butterfly effect that has impacted our trajectory. 
 

A club of our size trying to punch up have to be near on perfect. Instead we panic bought this guy because of Fofana’s injury.

 

The rat bag then screws us late in the window into accepting a staggered payment deal that we’ve only just checked (meaning arrivals this window). So now we can’t pay off Vestergaard who’s impacted our FFP structure, we’re a player down and Chelsea are amortising their way into 15 signings. 
 

Whole thing stinks really.

Really don’t understand what chelsea have to do with it 

 

we could have done deals in the summer but we chose not to. We dragged out fofana to try and get as much money as we could. Why wouldn’t they attempt to stage payments ?  I’m sure we do that.

 

it’s just business - we could pay off vestergaard if we wanted to - I have no evidence but i suspect we chose not to pay him his full wage to get him to Fulham last summer so he chose to stay here and draw it.  We would not have had to pay his contract up in one go - it would have been paid monthly as it ticked down over the next couple years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, st albans fox said:

Really don’t understand what chelsea have to do with it 

 

we could have done deals in the summer but we chose not to. We dragged out fofana to try and get as much money as we could. Why wouldn’t they attempt to stage payments ?  I’m sure we do that.

 

it’s just business - we could pay off vestergaard if we wanted to - I have no evidence but i suspect we chose not to pay him his full wage to get him to Fulham last summer so he chose to stay here and draw it.  We would not have had to pay his contract up in one go - it would have been paid monthly as it ticked down over the next couple years. 

Not to derail but i raised it in the context of 7-8 year contracts being handed out by them. They’ve ****ed us by unsettling our player and forced our hand to buy this bum and now handing out lengthy contracts that they would hope don’t do a Vestergaard and up sticks. If Mudryk fancies it he could do a Vestergaard for the remainder of his career. Mental 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Really don’t understand what chelsea have to do with it 

 

we could have done deals in the summer but we chose not to. We dragged out fofana to try and get as much money as we could. Why wouldn’t they attempt to stage payments ?  I’m sure we do that.

 

it’s just business - we could pay off vestergaard if we wanted to - I have no evidence but i suspect we chose not to pay him his full wage to get him to Fulham last summer so he chose to stay here and draw it.  We would not have had to pay his contract up in one go - it would have been paid monthly as it ticked down over the next couple years. 

This was, also unsubstantiated, my assumption too and it’s weird if true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I have no evidence but i suspect we chose not to pay him his full wage to get him to Fulham last summer so he chose to stay here and draw it.  We would not have had to pay his contract up in one go - it would have been paid monthly as it ticked down over the next couple years. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This was, also unsubstantiated, my assumption too and it’s weird if true.

Wasn’t it more that City accepted a bid from Fulham but Vestergaard didn’t agree to personal terms (because they were offering lower wages than City)?

 

If City just unilaterally decided to withhold Vestergaard’s wages, the PFA would have thrown a shit fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree that the club are responsible for this situation and it's not his fault at all. 

 

Having said that.... and I do realise that this is gonna get me some stick but I wouldn't have him anywhere near the first team squad, particuarly the younger players. He'd be training by himself. 

 

Surely the culture you want to create within your squad is hunger, determination, a willingness to get your head down, graft and to just want to play. That's not an easy culture to promote when you have players seemingly willing to sit back and collect a wage. 

 

Ofcourse, this is based on speculated reports and my opinion only applies if there is any actual truth to it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blame for this has be sits entirely with Rogers, the scouts and whomever negotiated his contract. 2 mins due diligence scanning the Southampton message boards would've told us he wasn’t for us.

 

Only positive is the club appear to have learnt their lesson and this windows signings (and Faes) appear to be on paper at least more back to our previous modus operandi.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jordan said:

 

Wasn’t it more that City accepted a bid from Fulham but Vestergaard didn’t agree to personal terms (because they were offering lower wages than City)?

 

If City just unilaterally decided to withhold Vestergaard’s wages, the PFA would have thrown a shit fit.

Jordan, in your view would this situation be easier to navigate should it be the MLB or another American league? 
 

Judge’s form completely drops off a cliff, for example, they drop him into an affiliate but he flat out refuses to go and play? 
 

Maybe not a good example, but Im wondering whether he’s intentionally worked this out to collect a wage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jordan said:

 

Wasn’t it more that City accepted a bid from Fulham but Vestergaard didn’t agree to personal terms (because they were offering lower wages than City)?

 

If City just unilaterally decided to withhold Vestergaard’s wages, the PFA would have thrown a shit fit.

Lurch said the money wasn't reduced and wasn't an issue, he wanted to stay and hoped for an opportunity to play for us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, majaco said:

Toxic thread.

 

He was a shocking signing but he is not at fault for circumstances.  

 

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

Make him train by himself for the remainder of his time here. 
 

Don’t let him play another minute for the club. Let’s actively sabotage his career, enjoy the 80k a week! 

@Mark how is this website free lol 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Grown adults criticising a professional, a professional for choosing to stay in gainful employment and maintain his current life setup over taking a (temporary) job elsewhere. The main has loyalty only to his bank balance and to his family. Get a grip.

 

Football fans are a special breed.

Good shout I mean why would a professional chose to do the profession he’s paid handsomely to when he can pick up his weekly salary and be a stay at home dad whilst having full access to 1 of the best gyms around…. Now I say it like that there’s no wonder he’s turning down these transfers lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, brookfox said:

The blame for this has be sits entirely with Rogers, the scouts and whomever negotiated his contract. 2 mins due diligence scanning the Southampton message boards would've told us he wasn’t for us.

 

Only positive is the club appear to have learnt their lesson and this windows signings (and Faes) appear to be on paper at least more back to our previous modus operandi.

could've been worse. Weren't they offered 22 mill but held out for 25 originally and the deal fell through. a lot of posters thought the club had massively lost the plot at the time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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