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
 Share
moore_94

Wilfred Ndidi

By moore_94, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
26 minutes ago, Mark said:

He was also out of position last year, maybe managers keep trying it because he's no longer effective in his normal position? I think its been forgot how bad he actually was the season we went down.

Absolutely this. People have short memories.

 

Some of his performances that season were disgraceful. He looked like he’d forgotten how to play football entirely - and that was him playing in his “natural” position.

 

I’m not against him staying, but some people acting like we’ve re-signed prime 2017-2020 destroyer Wilf when we’ve seen nothing of the sort for years.

  • Like 5
Jonezy

Jonezy

Posted
Posted

Very meh of retaining Wilf and Vestergaard on probably very high wages. Most of our problems stem from a wage bill out of control, and this feels like, we have learnt nothing. I do understand, that buying someone for around 10 miliion and giving them 40K a week is more expensive than sticking with Wilf for 75K a week; but we need to get that wage bill under control and we can't have a squad with massive gaps in wages.

  • Like 2
Jazzy_Jeff

Jazzy_Jeff

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Absolutely this. People have short memories.

 

Some of his performances that season were disgraceful. He looked like he’d forgotten how to play football entirely - and that was him playing in his “natural” position.

 

I’m not against him staying, but some people acting like we’ve re-signed prime 2017-2020 destroyer Wilf when we’ve seen nothing of the sort for years.

Could have been due to how he was coached and the instructions given by the manager?

 

Worth remembering in his prime he had a motivated Tielemans and Maddison central with him. In the relegation season, Madders was often moved out wide, Tielemans had checked out and KDH/Soumare drifted in and out of form.

 

If he’s sat in front of the defence with the instruction to disrupt/win the ball and give it to Harry I’m confident he can do a job. 

James_lcfc

James_lcfc

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

I’m not having that Wilf was worse than Danny Ward. You replace Ndidi in that team and it probably makes little difference, you replace Ward and we probably finish comfortably in about 15th.

Well it's just an opinion, so you don't have to 'have it'.

 

You may be right due to the nature of the positions, but I maintain that Wilf's performances were as bad or worse.

RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

Could have been due to how he was coached and the instructions given by the manager?

 

Worth remembering in his prime he had a motivated Tielemans and Maddison central with him. In the relegation season, Madders was often moved out wide, Tielemans had checked out and KDH/Soumare drifted in and out of form.

 

If he’s sat in front of the defence with the instruction to disrupt/win the ball and give it to Harry I’m confident he can do a job. 

If Rodgers’ instructions were to repeatedly give the ball to the opposition via woefully inept passes interspersed by long bouts of complete disinterest, then I suppose it could. :ph34r:

 

Edited by RoboFox
  • Haha 1
slymunn

slymunn

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Jonezy said:

Very meh of retaining Wilf and Vestergaard on probably very high wages. Most of our problems stem from a wage bill out of control, and this feels like, we have learnt nothing. I do understand, that buying someone for around 10 miliion and giving them 40K a week is more expensive than sticking with Wilf for 75K a week; but we need to get that wage bill under control and we can't have a squad with massive gaps in wages.

The wage bill is still going to be lower if they have re signed on 'similar' wages to before.  The three signings we have made will be on less than Albrighton. Praet and Iheanacho, along with the big earners leaving from the last two seasons. 

Edited by slymunn
whoareyaaa

whoareyaaa

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, James_lcfc said:

Well it's just an opinion, so you don't have to 'have it'.

 

You may be right due to the nature of the positions, but I maintain that Wilf's performances were as bad or worse.

If we had played Wilf in goal we probably would have stayed up

  • Haha 2
whoareyaaa

whoareyaaa

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

If Rodgers’ instructions were to repeatedly give the ball to the opposition via woefully inept passes interspersed by long bouts of complete disinterest, then I suppose it could. :ph34r:

 

It could have been as every other player was just as shit

  • Like 1
James_lcfc

James_lcfc

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

If Rodgers’ instructions were to repeatedly give the ball to the opposition via woefully inept passes interspersed by long bouts of complete disinterest, then I suppose it could. :ph34r:

 

You need to realise that everything that happened in the relegation season was down to Rodgers and Rodgers only.

 

The (well paid) players had nothing to do with it and should take no blame. Professional pride and accountability isn't really a thing in football innit.

  • Popular Post
FoxTimmy2

FoxTimmy2

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, VLC86 said:

I’m not having that Wilf was worse than Danny Ward. You replace Ndidi in that team and it probably makes little difference, you replace Ward and we probably finish comfortably in about 15th.

We could have put Wilf in goal and still stayed up—that’s how bad Danny Ward was.

  • Like 5
Wortho

Wortho

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

We've signed 2 to be fair. 

An 18 year old and an experienced 31 year old. Not really the same?

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
Just now, StanSP said:

Don't mind him staying. Less transfer outlay that can hopefully be used elsewhere. 

Would hope this is the case, but is it? Wouldn't he have got a signing on fee as if he were any other out of contract guy? Plus there is potentially a higher watermark with his last contract here?

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jonezy said:

Very meh of retaining Wilf and Vestergaard on probably very high wages. Most of our problems stem from a wage bill out of control, and this feels like, we have learnt nothing. I do understand, that buying someone for around 10 miliion and giving them 40K a week is more expensive than sticking with Wilf for 75K a week; but we need to get that wage bill under control and we can't have a squad with massive gaps in wages.

I don’t think a top wage of 75k is that bad for. Premier league team. It was close to double that for  Vardy and also Kasper. Vardy is in the twilight years and he will have taken a significant cut as per normal for aging starts due to their decrease in playing time and sell on value..

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Would hope this is the case, but is it? Wouldn't he have got a signing on fee as if he were any other out of contract guy? Plus there is potentially a higher watermark with his last contract here?

Probably, but it would potentially beat paying a fairly inflated transfer fee, plus signing on fee, plus more wages on another player... 

 

EDIT: knowing us we'd buy a new player and end up keeping Ndidi lol

Edited by StanSP
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Is he training with us?

He's sitting in a deckchair in his back garden as his phone pings notifying him of the 234th voicemail from the club has left him over the past week. He briefly considers listening to the message but decides against it, then takes a sip of his piña colada, sighs and closes his eyes. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Sol thewall Bamba

Sol thewall Bamba

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Wortho said:

An 18 year old and an experienced 31 year old. Not really the same?

 

45 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Well he said 2 even though it’s 3

No I didn't. The original post I quoted said that Ipswich have signed 3 young players. I said we have signed 2, referring to Okoli and Golding. 

  • Like 1
coolhandfox

coolhandfox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jonezy said:

Very meh of retaining Wilf and Vestergaard on probably very high wages. Most of our problems stem from a wage bill out of control, and this feels like, we have learnt nothing. I do understand, that buying someone for around 10 miliion and giving them 40K a week is more expensive than sticking with Wilf for 75K a week; but we need to get that wage bill under control and we can't have a squad with massive gaps in wages.

For PSR whether it's expenditure on wages or amortisation of a transfer fee it makes no difference.

 

What you just described on a 3 year contract would impact or PSR position yearly by 3.33m transfer amortisation and 2.08m wages, so 5.41m per year.

 

Wilf at 75k is coating is 3.9m per year.

 

 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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