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
jonthefox

The "do they mean us?" thread

By jonthefox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

DANGEROUS TIGER

DANGEROUS TIGER

Posted
Posted
On ‎02‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 16:39, davieG said:

Manchester City’s Greed Has Thrown Leicester’s Season Into Chaos

Simon O'Keeffe February 2, 2018

 

 

The story of a player being denied a move to a bigger team is not a new one, but as Leicester are now discovering, the fallout can be all too real.

When news broke on Tuesday that Manchester City had either lodged a bid for Riyad Mahrez, or fully intended to do so, it came as a surprise. Granted, Man City’s previous pursuit of Alexis Sanchez had come to nothing but at least they had been tracking him for months, that at at least made some degree of sense. But when that deal didn’t go through, it looked as though Pep Guardiola would just have to plod on with the vast array of attacking talent available to him.

Imagine, then, the surprise that Leicester must have felt when the Premier League champions-in-waiting came storming in with offer after offer, seemingly determined to take the Foxes’ star player with no prior warning before the last 48 hours or so of the January transfer window.

 

Leicester, mindful of the fact that they had little or no time to replace the Algerian were he to be allowed to depart the club, initially resisted any form of deal before eventually relenting and agreeing to sell the 2016 PFA Player of the Year if Man City came back with a package worth £95m (subsequently lowered to £80 when Patrick Roberts was taken out of the equation).

In the midst off all of this drama, Mahrez had suddenly decided that he no longer wanted to be a Leicester player and duly handed in a transfer request, just as he did last summer. He also took it upon himself to skip training on Wednesday (and has not been back since), so adamant was he that he wanted to play for Guardiola and win his second Premier League title in three years at the end of this season.

 

And so to the take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum that Leicester offered Man City. Having barged in and disrupted the Foxes’ camp and probably threw the remainder of their season into chaos, the league leaders were set to emerge with a new player. And yet it was at this point that the same moral quandary befell them that had previously sen them pull out of the Sanchez deal. Clubs like Man City tend to speak the language of money and are quite prepared to throw it around when they need to, and yet they balked at Leicester’s demands as if they were being unreasonable.

They ended up walking away from the table on deadline day, passing through the King Power like a hurricane and leaving Leicester and Mahrez to deal with the fallout, with the relationship between player and club in tatters.

 

Man City had decided, having spend almost £60m on a French U21 international centre-back, had decided that a Premier League winner and Ballon d’Or nominee was not worth £20m more than that.

 

The fact that Man City wanted Mahrez should not grate too much – after all, he is one of the best players in the Premier League, it stands to reason that he should be a man in demand from the upper echelons of the division. However, it’s plainly obvious that neither City nor Guardiola actually needed him. With Leroy Sane injured until March, Mahrez would effectively have been signed as cover for the German. A gilded stopgap, if you will.

 

Could Guardiola really not have been expected to carry on with David Silva, Kevin De Bruyne, Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva, Brahim Diaz the soon-to-return Gabriel Jesus and, if a change of formation was required, Phil Foden, Yaya Toure and Ilkay Gundogan. Rather than offer Patrick Roberts to Leicester, couldn’t they just have recalled him from his loan spell at Celtic and used him, as was surely the long-term intention when they paid Fulham £12m for his services in 2015?

Guardiola made his name off the back of bringing through promising youth products at Barcelona, prospects who would go on to conquer Europe, and yet in the past month he has shown signs of being drawn into the money-based instant gratification-hungry world of Premier League capitalism. Had the Mahrez deal gone through, Guardiola would have spent £500m in his time at the Etihad. Granted the squad was in serious need of redevelopment and investment and while he has great success with the likes of Sane and Gabriel Jesus for fees that look relatively modest in today’s market, the last-minute hunt for Mahrez just for the sake of it was crass and needless, spending just for the sake of it.

 

It’s crossing the line between obscene and outright vulgar.

 

And so Man City move on. They will still win the Premier League this year, will be favourites to win the FA and Carabao cups and stand a good chance of winning the Champions League. All of this would have been true without or without Mahrez so this whole ordeal has had a negligible impact on their season, bar the slight inconvenience of having an important player out of action for a few weeks.

But for Leicester, as they now attempt to handle Mahrez’s continued absence from training, they now have to deal with the aftermath of daring to command a player to commit to the long-term con"tract he signed 18 months ago.

Superbly put and so very true! Finners please note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuna

Tuna

Posted
Posted
On ‎02‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 16:39, davieG said:

Manchester City’s Greed Has Thrown Leicester’s Season Into Chaos

Simon O'Keeffe February 2, 2018

 

 

The story of a player being denied a move to a bigger team is not a new one, but as Leicester are now discovering, the fallout can be all too real.

When news broke on Tuesday that Manchester City had either lodged a bid for Riyad Mahrez, or fully intended to do so, it came as a surprise. Granted, Man City’s previous pursuit of Alexis Sanchez had come to nothing but at least they had been tracking him for months, that at at least made some degree of sense. But when that deal didn’t go through, it looked as though Pep Guardiola would just have to plod on with the vast array of attacking talent available to him.

Imagine, then, the surprise that Leicester must have felt when the Premier League champions-in-waiting came storming in with offer after offer, seemingly determined to take the Foxes’ star player with no prior warning before the last 48 hours or so of the January transfer window.

 

Leicester, mindful of the fact that they had little or no time to replace the Algerian were he to be allowed to depart the club, initially resisted any form of deal before eventually relenting and agreeing to sell the 2016 PFA Player of the Year if Man City came back with a package worth £95m (subsequently lowered to £80 when Patrick Roberts was taken out of the equation).

In the midst off all of this drama, Mahrez had suddenly decided that he no longer wanted to be a Leicester player and duly handed in a transfer request, just as he did last summer. He also took it upon himself to skip training on Wednesday (and has not been back since), so adamant was he that he wanted to play for Guardiola and win his second Premier League title in three years at the end of this season.

 

And so to the take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum that Leicester offered Man City. Having barged in and disrupted the Foxes’ camp and probably threw the remainder of their season into chaos, the league leaders were set to emerge with a new player. And yet it was at this point that the same moral quandary befell them that had previously sen them pull out of the Sanchez deal. Clubs like Man City tend to speak the language of money and are quite prepared to throw it around when they need to, and yet they balked at Leicester’s demands as if they were being unreasonable.

They ended up walking away from the table on deadline day, passing through the King Power like a hurricane and leaving Leicester and Mahrez to deal with the fallout, with the relationship between player and club in tatters.

 

Man City had decided, having spend almost £60m on a French U21 international centre-back, had decided that a Premier League winner and Ballon d’Or nominee was not worth £20m more than that.

 

The fact that Man City wanted Mahrez should not grate too much – after all, he is one of the best players in the Premier League, it stands to reason that he should be a man in demand from the upper echelons of the division. However, it’s plainly obvious that neither City nor Guardiola actually needed him. With Leroy Sane injured until March, Mahrez would effectively have been signed as cover for the German. A gilded stopgap, if you will.

 

Could Guardiola really not have been expected to carry on with David Silva, Kevin De Bruyne, Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva, Brahim Diaz the soon-to-return Gabriel Jesus and, if a change of formation was required, Phil Foden, Yaya Toure and Ilkay Gundogan. Rather than offer Patrick Roberts to Leicester, couldn’t they just have recalled him from his loan spell at Celtic and used him, as was surely the long-term intention when they paid Fulham £12m for his services in 2015?

Guardiola made his name off the back of bringing through promising youth products at Barcelona, prospects who would go on to conquer Europe, and yet in the past month he has shown signs of being drawn into the money-based instant gratification-hungry world of Premier League capitalism. Had the Mahrez deal gone through, Guardiola would have spent £500m in his time at the Etihad. Granted the squad was in serious need of redevelopment and investment and while he has great success with the likes of Sane and Gabriel Jesus for fees that look relatively modest in today’s market, the last-minute hunt for Mahrez just for the sake of it was crass and needless, spending just for the sake of it.

 

It’s crossing the line between obscene and outright vulgar.

 

And so Man City move on. They will still win the Premier League this year, will be favourites to win the FA and Carabao cups and stand a good chance of winning the Champions League. All of this would have been true without or without Mahrez so this whole ordeal has had a negligible impact on their season, bar the slight inconvenience of having an important player out of action for a few weeks.

But for Leicester, as they now attempt to handle Mahrez’s continued absence from training, they now have to deal with the aftermath of daring to command a player to commit to the long-term contract he signed 18 months ago.

Good article, but why on earth was Roberts the player they were offering to us? He's out injured until March, wouldn't have passed a medical (probably) and been no use to us as a replacement for Mahrez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted

 

Quote

 

West Ham United wanted to sign Islam Slimani from Leicester City on transfer deadline day but the Algerian ended up at Newcastle United.

 

According to reports, Leicester flatly refused to do business with West Ham after taking offence to a column written by controversial vice-chairman Karren Brady last season.

 

The Mirror claims West Ham blew the chance to sign Slimani because Brady, a hugely unpopular figure with Hammers fans, annoyed Foxes supremo Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha with comments relating to the dismissal of Claudio Ranieri last year.

 

The Leicester chief was said to be 'seething' over her comments and ignored the injury-hit Hammers' interest before allowing Slimani to join West Ham's relegation rivals instead.

 

West Ham reportedly apologised for any offence caused, but Leicester refused to budge in what was one of the big talking points after deadline day and another embarrassing episode for the Hammers' under fire board.

 

But speaking on Sky Sports' The Debate, pundit Danny Murphy delivered a cutting verdict on Leicester's attitude towards the East Londoners.

 

"Well that's ridiculous," Murphy said of Srivaddhanaprabha's stance on The Debate.

 

"It's ridiculous because if every club didn't deal with another club because of something in the press that they didn't like then nobody would do any business with anybody would they?"

 

Joining Murphy as a guest on The Debate, former Spurs and Aston Villa boss Tim Sherwood also suggested the Hammers didn't need Slimani anyway as Andy Carroll - although currently injured - is a better player.

 

West Ham fans have been unhappy for some time with the way co-owners David Sullivan and David Gold are running the club and are equally unhappy with Brady's involvement in the move to the Olympic Stadium and her weekly column in The Sun.

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/02/03/danny-murphy-delivers-cutting-verdict-on-leicesters-refusal-to-d/

 

Danny Murphy strikes again :crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh:

 

Sherwood would have a point tbf if it wasn't for the fact Carroll has a long term injury - The fact he is injured means his argument doesn't stand up whatsoever - That said Slimani is currently injured and has always seemed to have a 'niggles' but it isn't what's considered a long term injury like Carroll.

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corky

Corky

Posted
Posted

Andy Dunn wrote a good piece on Mahrez today about his situation and saying he shouldn't have signed the new contract and let the last one run down (would've expired last summer) if he didn't want to play for us long-term.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Corky said:

Andy Dunn wrote a good piece on Mahrez today about his situation and saying he shouldn't have signed the new contract and let the last one run down (would've expired last summer) if he didn't want to play for us long-term.

I suspect his people were given indications from Arsenal that they would pay the money at the end of last season. His agent(s) has let him down at every turn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Corky said:

Andy Dunn wrote a good piece on Mahrez today about his situation and saying he shouldn't have signed the new contract and let the last one run down (would've expired last summer) if he didn't want to play for us long-term.

Wouldn't have expired last summer mind, signed a four year deal when ranieri took over, so it'd be next summer (2019).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Corky said:

Andy Dunn wrote a good piece on Mahrez today about his situation and saying he shouldn't have signed the new contract and let the last one run down (would've expired last summer) if he didn't want to play for us long-term.

Good piece. Trying to find online without success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
1972 Fox

1972 Fox

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
On 03/02/2018 at 14:09, urban.spaceman said:

 

Reminds me of my Uncle who really was a crap ventriloquist, he used to sit me on his lap, put two fingers up my arse and tell me not to say anything.

Edited by Blue Fox 72
  • Like 1
  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yes N'Didi

Yes N'Didi

Posted
Posted

I think Garth Crooks has only put Diabate in his team of the week so he can moan about Leicester's handling of the Mahrez saga.

 

How tragic then that Leicester's love affair with Mahrez has come to such a dramatic impasse. With a little bit of common sense, everyone would have won. Mahrez gets his move to Manchester City, Manchester City get the player and Leicester get a vast sum of money well in excess of what they paid for him. 

Now they have a distraction that will dominate their every press conference until it is resolved. Well done, Leicester.

 

Utterly ridiculous that this man still earns coin as a football pundit.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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...