I'm thinking perfectly clearly thank you.
The club have already made a statement that they are willing to back up their intention to be challenging for europe by not caving in and selling a player below their valuation.
You're making the mistake of thinking that an unrealised asset value equates with cost, it doesn't , if they let his contract run down it will only cost the club his wages.
I'm not saying this will happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't , I hope he comes back, plays out of his skin for the rest of the season and earns his move as you suggest, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could rake a stronger stance with him.
I think the club have told him or his agent if someone comes in at 50m last summer you can go and now want more why else would he get the ache apart from winning another EPL winners medal a chance of three others and European football play for Pep he hero etc.
comment by nuneaton_fox (U7936)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm thinking perfectly clearly thank you.
The club have already made a statement that they are willing to back up their intention to be challenging for europe by not caving in and selling a player below their valuation.
You're making the mistake of thinking that an unrealised asset value equates with cost, it doesn't , if they let his contract run down it will only cost the club his wages.
I'm not saying this will happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't , I hope he comes back, plays out of his skin for the rest of the season and earns his move as you suggest, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could rake a stronger stance with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they let his contract run down then they a stranded asset? Nothing to do with wages - they have an asset worth x amount of money that they can’t use and can’t cash in on. You’re not factoring what they would make by selling him.
It makes absolutely no sense. What you are saying is that to protect a point of principle - they should pay his wages for 2.5 years AND let him go for nothing when his contract his up. The alternative is they can sell him and make £50-60m cash in the summer and not pay out wages for the remaining 2 years
It’s a no brainer. Think about the Van Dijk situation
Even if Mahrez was at a club like Man Utd and Barcelona were in for him, the same thing would happen. It’s just business sense - you make a profit on the player and move him on rather than risk getting nothing for him. Happens all the time
Look at the Sanchez situation. Same thing. He pretty much downed tools this season, he stopped performing for arsenal. Did they let his contract wind down? Nope they cashed in. Same thing happens at every club every time this situation arises
The only question is when the club choose to hit that button. Will likely be the summer
I’m with Nuneaton and MIT..
That could be an excellent way out for all.
Not saying it will happen, it won’t. But it would be a shame if Mahrez just went AWOL until the summer. Our owners are very stubborn, I hope they give Mahrez 2 options:
Play and if someone bids an amount we accept we sell
Or
Don’t play, and we’ll fine you repeatedly and let you rot.
Over to you Riyad.
Better to keep him and stay in the league than go down
Yes Timmy. We’re nothing without Mahrez..
... and Vardy ... and Schmeichel.... and Maguire... and Champions league experienced Iborra and Silva. Not to mention all those title winners like Fuchs and Simpson.
You’re right, we’re done.
Mersey - I would agree with Nuneaton if what we were discussing was realistic but what’s the point of agreeing with something that won’t happen?
It’s like me saying - ‘yeah I think it would be a great idea if admin gave everyone on 606 £10 each just for being members’. Pretty sure everyone would agree with me (except Nev) but what’s the point of even suggesting it - it’s not going to happen
Can we just get back to sensibly debating the likely outcomes?
No i don't agree i want £15 plus danger money
If that's a problem i will let my agent sort it out JG
I tend to find the whole asset argument depends on the situation. If you have a player you've overspent on who (for whatever reason) you want out of the club, I figure it's best to take the asset hit because the whole concept is false - no more than a lie on a spreadsheet. The Mahrez situation is the opposite way around and is different, because it's clear that he does have value and that it is possible for a bigger club to come in and offer a substantial fee. So the asset value is far more truthful.
It's a delicate situation all round though. Van Dijk didn't decrease his valuation through his petulance (described as "injury", which I don't believe), but this isn't the first time Mahrez's attitude has been called into question. This time it's more serious as he's actually disappeared completely. It's now a pattern of petulance and that risk for potential suitors could well knock millions off his price tag. It may also make them look elsewhere of course, figuring his attitude isn't worth the hassle. With all that, it's quite possible that £50-60m is the maximum we can hope to get for him now.
However, there are other factors at play. Man City came in very late in the window, we had no time to do any business of our own in the time remaining and Mahrez's absence is bound to have an impact on our league and Europa League qualification ambitions. Also, continually selling our best players with no fight would not be a successful way of building the squad. The owners will get no respect by caving in the transfer market. At least when Drinkwater went we had a plan, even if it went wrong.
There is the question of whether Leicester have broken a gentleman's agreement that Mahrez could go for £50m; it would fit with Mahrez's reaction - which is still immature but would at least have some explanation behind it. But being financially and managerially uncompromising will be the club's primary concern in all this and I think, in balance, they've done the right thing by saying no now, even if it costs them a few millions on Mahrez specifically in the summer.
Totally agree there Dunge. The right thing not to sell him for less than market value. Yes we won’t get £80m for him in the summer now however equally that doesn’t mean we should sit him in the reserves for the next two years while his value deteriorated further and further
Just makes no sense for the club to do that
Yeah, I think it's about striking a balance between being tough and being practical. Realistically, the rest of the season is about learning to attack and create chances without him, and for that reason I hope we see more of Silva because I think he'll be important to us with Gray disappointing and Diabate very much a work in progress. It'll be interesting to see who we go for as a replacement in the summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of a specialist number 10.
The only way he should sit it out in the reserves is like I said early and to quote again " He's done with Leicester completely" if this is the case then the club should be done with him and in the summer of 2020 you can go where you like. But I suspect not, talks between the parties will be going on that non of us have even dreamed of, or will ever find out.
MitLBC - If it is genuinely an irretrievable situation then I'd rather us sell for ~£50m, as well as saving money on wages, in order to fund a replacement. I agree with being tough for now, but there's a point where it ends up being spite and just hurting all parties.
Like I said I'm sure talks are taking place non of us will ever here of.
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 39 minutes ago
MitLBC - If it is genuinely an irretrievable situation then I'd rather us sell for ~£50m, as well as saving money on wages, in order to fund a replacement. I agree with being tough for now, but there's a point where it ends up being spite and just hurting all parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.......
People will agree now you’ve said it
But Dunge - you’re not as stubborn as me.
I’d rather we told him the following. Turn up and give 100% or spend the next 2.5 years never playing first team football.
I’m sick and disgusted that a player so privileged to be earning the type money he is should respect those paying him, and the fans who spend so money money to be able to watch him.
It’s called respect.
Currently, Mahrez is disrespecting me as a fan. Until he stops that, I hope the owners hang him out to dry. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? Accept his behaviour? It’s like watching a rich kids child throw a paddy because he can’t have a gold plated iPhone. Grow up.
And BS - I know that makes zero financial sense. I’m just stupidly principled, and stupidly stubborn!
I'm with BS - agreeing to disagree!
Did he turn up then, is he training today?
He's turned up to train with the reserves
but there was nobody there. He didnt realize
we havent got a reserve team.
Any talk of new contracts or release clauses might provide a neat solution, but it is fanciful to think that Mahrez would sign. A release clause might protect the price that LCFC want - and give Mahrez the visibility and guarantee of what that fee is - but the reality is that he wants to leave Leicester at any price and any fees negotiated are not his concern. He, and his agent, just wouldn't see it being in their best interests.
He'll now leave in the summer and probably at a knockdown price to what we might have wanted in the January window. People forget that transfer fees are not static and are driven by many factors so it's difficult to predict what a good price will be, but I'd be surprised if we get more than £50m and wouldn't be that surprised if it was less than £40m.
The background to all of this though is, whatever happens, the stance taken by Leicester City is probably the right one. If we roll over with our legs in the air every time a team with vast amounts of money comes in for one of our players we'll just become another Southampton. I wouldn't currently have enormous faith in our recruitment team to manage to backfill as successfully as they have historically managed to do.
Sign in if you want to comment
Pretty Depressing
Page 2 of 3
posted on 4/2/18
I'm thinking perfectly clearly thank you.
The club have already made a statement that they are willing to back up their intention to be challenging for europe by not caving in and selling a player below their valuation.
You're making the mistake of thinking that an unrealised asset value equates with cost, it doesn't , if they let his contract run down it will only cost the club his wages.
I'm not saying this will happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't , I hope he comes back, plays out of his skin for the rest of the season and earns his move as you suggest, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could rake a stronger stance with him.
posted on 4/2/18
I think the club have told him or his agent if someone comes in at 50m last summer you can go and now want more why else would he get the ache apart from winning another EPL winners medal a chance of three others and European football play for Pep he hero etc.
posted on 4/2/18
comment by nuneaton_fox (U7936)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm thinking perfectly clearly thank you.
The club have already made a statement that they are willing to back up their intention to be challenging for europe by not caving in and selling a player below their valuation.
You're making the mistake of thinking that an unrealised asset value equates with cost, it doesn't , if they let his contract run down it will only cost the club his wages.
I'm not saying this will happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't , I hope he comes back, plays out of his skin for the rest of the season and earns his move as you suggest, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could rake a stronger stance with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they let his contract run down then they a stranded asset? Nothing to do with wages - they have an asset worth x amount of money that they can’t use and can’t cash in on. You’re not factoring what they would make by selling him.
It makes absolutely no sense. What you are saying is that to protect a point of principle - they should pay his wages for 2.5 years AND let him go for nothing when his contract his up. The alternative is they can sell him and make £50-60m cash in the summer and not pay out wages for the remaining 2 years
It’s a no brainer. Think about the Van Dijk situation
posted on 4/2/18
Even if Mahrez was at a club like Man Utd and Barcelona were in for him, the same thing would happen. It’s just business sense - you make a profit on the player and move him on rather than risk getting nothing for him. Happens all the time
posted on 4/2/18
Look at the Sanchez situation. Same thing. He pretty much downed tools this season, he stopped performing for arsenal. Did they let his contract wind down? Nope they cashed in. Same thing happens at every club every time this situation arises
The only question is when the club choose to hit that button. Will likely be the summer
posted on 4/2/18
I’m with Nuneaton and MIT..
That could be an excellent way out for all.
Not saying it will happen, it won’t. But it would be a shame if Mahrez just went AWOL until the summer. Our owners are very stubborn, I hope they give Mahrez 2 options:
Play and if someone bids an amount we accept we sell
Or
Don’t play, and we’ll fine you repeatedly and let you rot.
Over to you Riyad.
posted on 4/2/18
Better to keep him and stay in the league than go down
posted on 4/2/18
Yes Timmy. We’re nothing without Mahrez..
... and Vardy ... and Schmeichel.... and Maguire... and Champions league experienced Iborra and Silva. Not to mention all those title winners like Fuchs and Simpson.
You’re right, we’re done.
posted on 4/2/18
Mersey - I would agree with Nuneaton if what we were discussing was realistic but what’s the point of agreeing with something that won’t happen?
It’s like me saying - ‘yeah I think it would be a great idea if admin gave everyone on 606 £10 each just for being members’. Pretty sure everyone would agree with me (except Nev) but what’s the point of even suggesting it - it’s not going to happen
Can we just get back to sensibly debating the likely outcomes?
posted on 4/2/18
No i don't agree i want £15 plus danger money
posted on 4/2/18
If that's a problem i will let my agent sort it out JG
posted on 4/2/18
I tend to find the whole asset argument depends on the situation. If you have a player you've overspent on who (for whatever reason) you want out of the club, I figure it's best to take the asset hit because the whole concept is false - no more than a lie on a spreadsheet. The Mahrez situation is the opposite way around and is different, because it's clear that he does have value and that it is possible for a bigger club to come in and offer a substantial fee. So the asset value is far more truthful.
It's a delicate situation all round though. Van Dijk didn't decrease his valuation through his petulance (described as "injury", which I don't believe), but this isn't the first time Mahrez's attitude has been called into question. This time it's more serious as he's actually disappeared completely. It's now a pattern of petulance and that risk for potential suitors could well knock millions off his price tag. It may also make them look elsewhere of course, figuring his attitude isn't worth the hassle. With all that, it's quite possible that £50-60m is the maximum we can hope to get for him now.
However, there are other factors at play. Man City came in very late in the window, we had no time to do any business of our own in the time remaining and Mahrez's absence is bound to have an impact on our league and Europa League qualification ambitions. Also, continually selling our best players with no fight would not be a successful way of building the squad. The owners will get no respect by caving in the transfer market. At least when Drinkwater went we had a plan, even if it went wrong.
There is the question of whether Leicester have broken a gentleman's agreement that Mahrez could go for £50m; it would fit with Mahrez's reaction - which is still immature but would at least have some explanation behind it. But being financially and managerially uncompromising will be the club's primary concern in all this and I think, in balance, they've done the right thing by saying no now, even if it costs them a few millions on Mahrez specifically in the summer.
posted on 4/2/18
Totally agree there Dunge. The right thing not to sell him for less than market value. Yes we won’t get £80m for him in the summer now however equally that doesn’t mean we should sit him in the reserves for the next two years while his value deteriorated further and further
Just makes no sense for the club to do that
posted on 4/2/18
Yeah, I think it's about striking a balance between being tough and being practical. Realistically, the rest of the season is about learning to attack and create chances without him, and for that reason I hope we see more of Silva because I think he'll be important to us with Gray disappointing and Diabate very much a work in progress. It'll be interesting to see who we go for as a replacement in the summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of a specialist number 10.
posted on 4/2/18
The only way he should sit it out in the reserves is like I said early and to quote again " He's done with Leicester completely" if this is the case then the club should be done with him and in the summer of 2020 you can go where you like. But I suspect not, talks between the parties will be going on that non of us have even dreamed of, or will ever find out.
posted on 4/2/18
MitLBC - If it is genuinely an irretrievable situation then I'd rather us sell for ~£50m, as well as saving money on wages, in order to fund a replacement. I agree with being tough for now, but there's a point where it ends up being spite and just hurting all parties.
posted on 4/2/18
Like I said I'm sure talks are taking place non of us will ever here of.
posted on 4/2/18
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 39 minutes ago
MitLBC - If it is genuinely an irretrievable situation then I'd rather us sell for ~£50m, as well as saving money on wages, in order to fund a replacement. I agree with being tough for now, but there's a point where it ends up being spite and just hurting all parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.......
People will agree now you’ve said it
posted on 4/2/18
But Dunge - you’re not as stubborn as me.
I’d rather we told him the following. Turn up and give 100% or spend the next 2.5 years never playing first team football.
I’m sick and disgusted that a player so privileged to be earning the type money he is should respect those paying him, and the fans who spend so money money to be able to watch him.
It’s called respect.
Currently, Mahrez is disrespecting me as a fan. Until he stops that, I hope the owners hang him out to dry. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? Accept his behaviour? It’s like watching a rich kids child throw a paddy because he can’t have a gold plated iPhone. Grow up.
posted on 4/2/18
And BS - I know that makes zero financial sense. I’m just stupidly principled, and stupidly stubborn!
posted on 4/2/18
i agree with Dunge -
posted on 4/2/18
I'm with BS - agreeing to disagree!
posted on 5/2/18
Did he turn up then, is he training today?
posted on 5/2/18
He's turned up to train with the reserves
but there was nobody there. He didnt realize
we havent got a reserve team.
posted on 5/2/18
Any talk of new contracts or release clauses might provide a neat solution, but it is fanciful to think that Mahrez would sign. A release clause might protect the price that LCFC want - and give Mahrez the visibility and guarantee of what that fee is - but the reality is that he wants to leave Leicester at any price and any fees negotiated are not his concern. He, and his agent, just wouldn't see it being in their best interests.
He'll now leave in the summer and probably at a knockdown price to what we might have wanted in the January window. People forget that transfer fees are not static and are driven by many factors so it's difficult to predict what a good price will be, but I'd be surprised if we get more than £50m and wouldn't be that surprised if it was less than £40m.
The background to all of this though is, whatever happens, the stance taken by Leicester City is probably the right one. If we roll over with our legs in the air every time a team with vast amounts of money comes in for one of our players we'll just become another Southampton. I wouldn't currently have enormous faith in our recruitment team to manage to backfill as successfully as they have historically managed to do.
Page 2 of 3