dpjfox Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 make him sign a new contract on a reduced wage or let him go to the highest bidder
MPH Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 I don't have a crystal ball, but I don't think we'll sell Kasper - even if it is £2/3/4 million. I think the main priority, if Kasper stays, is that LCFC should negotiate with him to trim his wages down (of course to a level that Kasper is content with). so... we reject a bid from a prem team and you think the way to keep him would be to offer him a contract on reduced terms?
MPH Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Unless someone bids something like 4m we would be better off keeping him... yes his contract runs out at the end of the season and he could leave for free... but I also think he would sign a new deal if we got promoted. Worth the risk me thinks!
MPH Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 West Midlands now... hmm... Could be a reference to where his house is?
Guest MattP Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 I think the days of getting 4million for Championship keepers who are out of contract in a season have long gone now. We shouldn't let him walk mind, he either signs a new deal or we sell him. If he goes so be it, keepers shouldn't be too hard to replace. He good but he isn't THAT good. Providing we hang onto Morgan, James, Knocky and King this summer I'll be happy, that's the spine of what would still be a decent team.
ealingfox Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 It's simple really, and fair play to the Club for standing up for themselves. We don't need to sell and he is certainly worth 3.5m and more.
LCFCstriker Posted 4 June 2013 Posted 4 June 2013 Football . . . â€@The90MinuteGame11m Hull City to make an improved third bid expected to be near to £2million for Leicester City goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel. #LCFC #HCAFC Are they actually taking the piss? Tell them to come back when they have a reasonable offer (or not at all preferably)
Happy Fox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Follow John Percyâ€@John__Percy #lcfc have rejected a second bid of £1.75m from Hull for Kasper Schmeichel. Offer went in on Monday #hcafc
Happy Fox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/wigan-athletic/10099532/Steve-Bruce-targeted-by-Dave-Whelan-for-surprise-return-to-Wigan.html Bruce has been assessing Hull’s transfer targets for the summer and has made signing a new goalkeeper one of his top priorities. Hull tabled a second bid of £1.75 million for Leicester’s Kasper Schmeichel on Monday but the offer has been dismissed out of hand by the East Midland club. Leicester value Schmeichel, 26, at around £4 million and have warned Hull not to make any more low bids for a player with 12 months remaining on his contract.
MC Prussian Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Regardless of whether Schmeichel stays or not, it's somewhat satisfying seeing the club being in the seller's position for once. Makes for a nice change compared to the spending sprees in the past few years.
hackneyfox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 I'd sooner see us buying players than selling our better players.
Bert Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 I'd sooner see us buying players than selling our better players.We've got to sell to buy sadly.
hackneyfox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 We've got to sell to buy sadly. I understand that I just don't understand why someone is satisfied seeing us selling players rather than going on a spending spree. I know which is the most exciting.
FrankieADZ Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 I understand that I just don't understand why someone is satisfied seeing us selling players rather than going on a spending spree. I know which is the most exciting. i dont think its by choice. FFP has got all football league clubs by the nuts.
MC Prussian Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 I understand that I just don't understand why someone is satisfied seeing us selling players rather than going on a spending spree. I know which is the most exciting. Because the past expenses on players have partially left us in the mess we found ourselves in recent years? I'd rather have a club that stands on a solid financial basis than one that's always on the verge of collapsing. FFP may not be THE answer, but it's a step in the right direction.
eye666 Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 I understand that I just don't understand why someone is satisfied seeing us selling players rather than going on a spending spree. I know which is the most exciting. Also think it might be because we finally have players that have a better sell-on value than when we bought them and are in a reasonable financial postion, hence we can play hard-ball and say "pay up or GTFO"?
hackneyfox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Because the past expenses on players have partially left us in the mess we found ourselves in recent years? I'd rather have a club that stands on a solid financial basis than one that's always on the verge of collapsing. FFP may not be THE answer, but it's a step in the right direction Bringing in aa wage cap and limiting the size of squads would have worked for me. If most clubs fail FFP and have a transfer embargo placed on them who can the other clubs sell to? Seems to me that the big clubs will do well out of it while the rest of us struggle.
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Because the past expenses on players have partially left us in the mess we found ourselves in recent years? I'd rather have a club that stands on a solid financial basis than one that's always on the verge of collapsing. FFP may not be THE answer, but it's a step in the right direction. I completely agree. Despite it not being exciting I'm glad the club will no longer be spalshing out stupid fees and making average footballers very very rich.
Steven Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 Because the past expenses on players have partially left us in the mess we found ourselves in recent years? I'd rather have a club that stands on a solid financial basis than one that's always on the verge of collapsing. FFP may not be THE answer, but it's a step in the right direction. A real step in the right direction would be to bond the owners of the Club for any losses made by the Club.
hackneyfox Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 A real step in the right direction would be to bond the owners of the Club for any losses made by the Club. So how do smaller clubs ever have any real chance of punching above their weight if owners can't dream a bit and invest?
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2013 Posted 5 June 2013 So how do smaller clubs ever have any real chance of punching above their weight if owners can't dream a bit and invest? Investing should be fine if it's being given to the club, loaning huge amounts and charging interest rates that endanger the futures of football clubs has to be stopped.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.