fkas Posted Thursday at 13:54 Posted Thursday at 13:54 59 minutes ago, Clever Fox said: I did take a quick look at his scoring stats. He's clearly not a prolific scorer of goals as a Striker do we need to know more., remember Daka. Maybe you can tell us more. Okazaki wasn't prolific but still class for us. 1
Popular Post Miquel The Work Geordie Posted Thursday at 14:02 Popular Post Posted Thursday at 14:02 (edited) 8 minutes ago, indierich06 said: There seems to be this idea that he's being brought in as our main striker, marquee signing - which I don't think holds up particularly? Seems more like a relatively cheap utility signing to me, has a bit of experience to help guide the younger lads. Martin seems to want the right attitude in any players he signs first and foremost, which is not a bad thing. I do think we're going to be mostly going for free transfers and loans, but think we will spend modest amounts of money on the right signings. Contextually, in our current situation, signing someone for 7 figures (allegedly) and coaxing him to League One on what you'd assume is a decent enough wage isn't "relatively cheap." We've dug ourselves such a hole that signings like this – mid-late 20s, substantial-ish fee, little to no sell on value, decent wage – make little sense unless he's levels above the division we're in. Edited Thursday at 14:02 by Miquel The Work Geordie 6
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 14:48 Posted Thursday at 14:48 3 hours ago, StinckleyFox said: Swansea have said that it’s over 1 mill? Or a Swansea fan pretending to be ITK has said that it’s over 1 mill? Mercury article mentions 2m, could be wrong, don't know their source. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-martin-transfer-statement-11084831
Popular Post AjcW Posted Thursday at 15:10 Popular Post Posted Thursday at 15:10 22 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: Mercury article mentions 2m, could be wrong, don't know their source. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-martin-transfer-statement-11084831 Mr R Flair 10
StinckleyFox Posted Thursday at 15:14 Posted Thursday at 15:14 24 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: Mercury article mentions 2m, could be wrong, don't know their source. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-martin-transfer-statement-11084831 If true then it’s a bad deal, but assume they may just be going off his supposed market price. From what I can see he was on the bench most of last season so it’s not like we are prizing away one of their star players, therefore, they shouldn’t be in a position to demand his market price. That being said, maybe we’ve paid up his market price and kept him on a relatively similar wage to what he was on which overall wouldn’t be a bad deal. The issue will be if we have paid 2mil for him and tripled his wages.
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 15:14 Posted Thursday at 15:14 3 minutes ago, AjcW said: Mr R Flair Could well be. 1
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 15:17 Posted Thursday at 15:17 Just now, StinckleyFox said: If true then it’s a bad deal, but assume they may just be going off his supposed market price. From what I can see he was on the bench most of last season so it’s not like we are prizing away one of their star players, therefore, they shouldn’t be in a position to demand his market price. That being said, maybe we’ve paid up his market price and kept him on a relatively similar wage to what he was on which overall wouldn’t be a bad deal. The issue will be if we have paid 2mil for him and tripled his wages. I assume we would have needed some incentive to get him to drop a division. It is what its is, I would'nt have signed him no, but if he pulls on the City shirt I will be behind him and hope he proves me wrong.
Stadt Posted Thursday at 15:18 Posted Thursday at 15:18 A player isn’t ‘cheap’ if we spend the only money we’ve spent in 18 months on them, regardless of the fee. If we picked him up on 500k, I still think it’s silly because it’s the wrong profile but he does at least have some upside. If it’s £2m then we will end up in administration, not directly because of the signing but we don’t say no to reckless spending. 3
StinckleyFox Posted Thursday at 15:31 Posted Thursday at 15:31 11 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: I assume we would have needed some incentive to get him to drop a division. It is what its is, I would'nt have signed him no, but if he pulls on the City shirt I will be behind him and hope he proves me wrong. Appears that he is being phased out of the Swansea team based on last season only 17 starts, was maybe told that he will be starting even less this season.
StinckleyFox Posted Thursday at 15:32 Posted Thursday at 15:32 13 minutes ago, Stadt said: A player isn’t ‘cheap’ if we spend the only money we’ve spent in 18 months on them, regardless of the fee. If we picked him up on 500k, I still think it’s silly because it’s the wrong profile but he does at least have some upside. If it’s £2m then we will end up in administration, not directly because of the signing but we don’t say no to reckless spending. He’s the wrong profile according to you, but RM sees him as the right profile of player.
hackneyfox Posted Thursday at 15:32 Posted Thursday at 15:32 5 hours ago, coolhandfox said: Not confirmed, but from the Swansea side. How would the Swansea side know what salary we are offering and why would they share that info with a Leicester fan?
CosbehFox Posted Thursday at 15:37 Posted Thursday at 15:37 4 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: How would the Swansea side know what salary we are offering and why would they share that info with a Leicester fan? @coolhandfox was replying about the transfer fee. Which is further confirmed by the Mercury saying £2m
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 15:38 Posted Thursday at 15:38 5 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: How would the Swansea side know what salary we are offering and why would they share that info with a Leicester fan? I was talking about the fee.
Tommy Fresh Posted Thursday at 15:39 Posted Thursday at 15:39 5 minutes ago, StinckleyFox said: He’s the wrong profile according to you, but RM sees him as the right profile of player. He's not on about the profile Russell Martin is looking at is he really
Stadt Posted Thursday at 15:40 Posted Thursday at 15:40 6 minutes ago, StinckleyFox said: He’s the wrong profile according to you, but RM sees him as the right profile of player. Cooper liked Ayew’s profile. The equivalent in the premier league would like spending £55m on Will Hughes to complement Skipp and Winks. I think Cullen is fine but we’re hugely overpaying by probably 2x - 4x and we should put the money towards a 9, DM or CB 1
Finnegan Posted Thursday at 15:47 Posted Thursday at 15:47 1 hour ago, fkas said: Okazaki wasn't prolific but still class for us. Overlooking for a second that Okazaki is still significantly under rated and misunderstood, I'll play along and accept that Cullen could be considered an Okazaki-like equivalent for League One (he isn't btw.) But if we had had no money, no Vardy or any other significant goal scorer, no Mahrez or any other significant creator, gaping holes all over the pitch but other options to play in the second striker / 10 role (one of whom was the golden boot winner last time he'd played at that level) then signing Okazaki for a noticeable chunk of our money would have been an absolutely horrific decision. We signed him because none of that was true and because Walsh and Pearson knew how to build a squad. 2
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 15:53 Posted Thursday at 15:53 2 minutes ago, Finnegan said: We signed him because none of that was true and because Walsh and Pearson knew how to build a squad. Been a long time since we had a handle on squad building under NP, only other time was the couple of seasons around Puel time (god knows who that was down too). Rest of the time its dreadful.
StinckleyFox Posted Thursday at 15:56 Posted Thursday at 15:56 12 minutes ago, Stadt said: Cooper liked Ayew’s profile. The equivalent in the premier league would like spending £55m on Will Hughes to complement Skipp and Winks. I think Cullen is fine but we’re hugely overpaying by probably 2x - 4x and we should put the money towards a 9, DM or CB Fair comment on cooper, but at the same time, should managers not get the players that they want to play their system? Also, I think the equivalent regarding the cost vs income isn’t exactly fair as someone previously commented are we therefore claiming that our sale of Fatawu in premier league equivalent is 100s of millions? Did we sell monga then also for 100s of millions on comparison? Best to wait and see if we actually get any real details on the fee paid and wages before we judge the transfer.
Finnegan Posted Thursday at 16:05 Posted Thursday at 16:05 5 minutes ago, StinckleyFox said: Fair comment on cooper, but at the same time, should managers not get the players that they want to play their system? He shouldn't be "the manager", he should be "the head coach" and they should ask for the profile of player they want, even be able to weigh in on some of the options and have a vote sure. But we're supposed to have a Director of Football / Sporting Director whose job it is to ultimately build the squad and to do so whilst protecting the club's long term future. Liam Cullen is a signing that says one of two things. Either that the ownership is inept, or maybe worse, the ownership don't care about the long term value of the squad and the club's profitability because they're planning to sell it off as quickly as possible and if they get out of this league this year then it'll make it easier to do that. Even if Cullen were a decent player at this level, we know he's got no future beyond it. He's proven to be a significant non-entity in the Championship and he's signing a contract with us that'll take him well past his prime to where we'll never be able to sell him on for profit. 3
Lesta Legend Posted Thursday at 16:29 Posted Thursday at 16:29 Will be like Paul Gallagher I'd imagine, not particularly good in any particular position, scores some blinders, lots of fans don't like him and will be a nightmare when trying to move on as some chump offered him obscene wages. 1
hackneyfox Posted Thursday at 16:30 Posted Thursday at 16:30 51 minutes ago, CosbehFox said: @coolhandfox was replying about the transfer fee. Which is further confirmed by the Mercury saying £2m 50 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: I was talking about the fee. I was referring to Ric and his ‘info’ that the fee was £3m and the salary ‘silly money’.
coolhandfox Posted Thursday at 16:43 Posted Thursday at 16:43 12 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: I was referring to Ric and his ‘info’ that the fee was £3m and the salary ‘silly money’. It was in the Mercury, who know who their source is.
hackneyfox Posted Thursday at 16:44 Posted Thursday at 16:44 Just now, coolhandfox said: It was in the Mercury, who know who their source is. Ric mentioned that he heard this from ‘the other side of the negotiations’.
hackneyfox Posted Thursday at 16:46 Posted Thursday at 16:46 1 hour ago, CosbehFox said: @coolhandfox was replying about the transfer fee. Which is further confirmed by the Mercury saying £2m ‘Confirmed by the Mercury’!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that make it a fact? When did the Mercury last get something right? 1
CosbehFox Posted Thursday at 16:51 Posted Thursday at 16:51 4 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: ‘Confirmed by the Mercury’!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that make it a fact? When did the Mercury last get something right? Chill your beans, it’s a better source than anything else we have. Market rate for similar transfers would tell us it’s a million at least
Recommended Posts