Summer 2016 Transfer Rumour Thread

[SM]

I'm not across Leicester's financials from 14/15 or 15/16 so who knows how much profit they made. But I do think its financially risky re-signing players to long contracts on increased money on the basis of having increased revenues for the very first time from CL money.

Say Mahrez signs a new 5 year 100k a week deal (no clause because its just stupid). They then dont make the CL, he wants out and they arent able to pay him that sort of money without CL money, you get a situation where both player and club need to sell and the price wont be as high because of the desperation shown.

No one has yet to convince me that having an automatic wage reduction built into deals if the club doesn't make the CL would be stupid. If the clause kicks in, as well as an automatic reduction in wage, the club is no longer desperate to sell, and the player is available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs, meaning the player is incredibly likely to make the move across. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend.

 

[SM]

no, just that its easier to get a clause that reduces a players wage in a west brom/hull player's conrtact than it is in a leicester/spurs/liverpool players contract.

surely that is common sense?

we'd be lucky to have any player sign a deal that limits their earnings if we dont make CL football.

You seriously think that telling someone like Mahrez "Hey, you can be paid 100k a week for next season, and if we don't get CL again, we'll make it very easy for you to jump across to a Top 4 club so you can keep the good times rolling and we don't get ****ed over financially" would be hard to do?

 

[elhadjihenry]

And yet you are still missing the point.

2017 £30m Wage increase ----> £91m in CL TV revenue for 2017.

+£61m balance to carry over to 2018/2019.


Simple enough?

There's no need to be condescending.

Every player is going to want a pay rise with the new TV money coming in and it applies to every club. The Champions League gives clubs a financial advantage over those who are not in it, meaning they can pay higher wages to those who aren't. Leicester will have that advantage this season, but not necessarily the season after if they fail to qualify again. Players like Kante and Mahrez who will want to play in the champions league and earn big money may not have that opportunity at Leicester after next season, whereas the bigger clubs will be able to offer it to them. Will Leicester match the offers of clubs with this additional income (let alone the commercial revenues they have)? And if they do, what happens when if they drop out of the Champions League next season and lose that extra income?

This is and always has been my sole argument, and I said (before this SM shitfight began) that as long as they structure their wages correctly with bonuses etc they should be fine. I don't think anyone (maybe aside from Jod) is saying that Leicester can't pay Kante 100-150k, just that there is the potential it could backfire on them if they miss out on the UCL next season.

 

[elhadjihenry]

No one has yet to convince me that having an automatic wage reduction built into deals if the club doesn't make the CL would be stupid. If the clause kicks in, as well as an automatic reduction in wage, the club is no longer desperate to sell, and the player is available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs, meaning the player is incredibly likely to make the move across. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend.

And no one is arguing this, the only point of yours I was opposing was the buyout clauses. I actually suggested the exact same thing earlier in the thread.

 

[SM]

There's no need to be condescending.

Every player is going to want a pay rise with the new TV money coming in and it applies to every club. The Champions League gives clubs a financial advantage over those who are not in it, meaning they can pay higher wages to those who aren't. Leicester will have that advantage this season, but not necessarily the season after if they fail to qualify again. Players like Kante and Mahrez who will want to play in the champions league and earn big money may not have that opportunity at Leicester after next season, whereas the bigger clubs will be able to offer it to them. Will Leicester match the offers of clubs with this additional income (let alone the commercial revenues they have)? And if they do, what happens when if they drop out of the Champions League next season and lose that extra income?

This is and always has been my sole argument, and I said (before this SM shitfight began) that as long as they structure their wages correctly with bonuses etc they should be fine. I don't think anyone (maybe aside from Jod) is saying that Leicester can't pay Kante 100-150k, just that there is the potential it could backfire on them if they miss out on the UCL next season.

Maybe take your own advice if you want to go looking for reasons for the so called "shit fight".

 

[SM]

And no one is arguing this, the only point of yours I was opposing was the buyout clauses. I actually suggested the exact same thing earlier in the thread.

If no one is arguing the concept that the players could be made available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs via buyout clauses, then how are you opposing buyout clauses.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Maybe take your own advice if you want to go looking for reasons for the so called "shit fight".

Dude, this only turned nasty with you when you started having a go at my comprehension skills when it was you who was missing the point

 

[Pykie]

I'm not across Leicester's financials from 14/15 or 15/16 so who knows how much profit they made. But I do think its financially risky re-signing players to long contracts on increased money on the basis of having increased revenues for the very first time from CL money.

Say Mahrez signs a new 5 year 100k a week deal (no clause because its just stupid). They then dont make the CL, he wants out and they arent able to pay him that sort of money without CL money, you get a situation where both player and club need to sell and the price wont be as high because of the desperation shown.

The difference between Mahrez on £30k going up to £100k across a season is £2.6m, Leicester will cover Mahrez' wage (excluding all sponsorship, tickets, merchandise, commercial etc) in around 18 minutes of their first game of the season from TV revenue alone.

I doubt they will be in a position where they can't afford that sort of an increase.

 

[jd2010]

No one has yet to convince me that having an automatic wage reduction built into deals if the club doesn't make the CL would be stupid. If the clause kicks in, as well as an automatic reduction in wage, the club is no longer desperate to sell, and the player is available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs, meaning the player is incredibly likely to make the move across. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend.

You're forgetting the most important component here. Players/agents do what is best for them.

Say Kante signs that deal, breaks a leg and barely plays and Leicester dont make the CL. He is on 100k for one season, through no fault of his own his contract triggers a clause to say 60k, is coming back from serious injury. He isn't the prospect that a top 4 side just throws 100k a week at on the back of being out for the year.

That's how an agent will look at a deal like that when it's compared to a flat 5 year 100k a week deal at PSG or Arsenal

 

[elhadjihenry]

If no one is arguing the concept that the players could be made available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs via buyout clauses, then how are you opposing buyout clauses.

Wage reductions and buyout clauses are two very different things.

 

[jd2010]

You seriously think that telling someone like Mahrez "Hey, you can be paid 100k a week for next season, and if we don't get CL again, we'll make it very easy for you to jump across to a Top 4 club so you can keep the good times rolling and we don't get stuffed over financially" would be hard to do?

See my post above.

He could cop a leg breaker opening day and never be the same again. That's how a good agent should think

 

[SM]

You're forgetting the most important component here. Players/agents do what is best for them.

Say Kante signs that deal, breaks a leg and barely plays and Leicester dont make the CL. He is on 100k for one season, through no fault of his own his contract triggers a clause to say 60k, is coming back from serious injury. He isn't the prospect that a top 4 side just throws 100k a week at on the back of being out for the year.

That's how an agent will look at a deal like that when it's compared to a flat 5 year 100k a week deal at PSG or Arsenal

And players could be hit by a bus tomorrow and die. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

If you honestly think all negotiations are done on the preconception players could miss the year with a serious injury you're dreaming.

If Kante has a season ending injury, he's sitting there making 100k for a year doing nothing, and then would be free to leave for maybe 20m? Or stick around and regain form on let's say 60k. Which is more than he's currently earning at the same club. I really don't understand your argument at all.

 

[SM]

No one has yet to convince me that having an automatic wage reduction built into deals if the club doesn't make the CL would be stupid. If the clause kicks in, as well as an automatic reduction in wage, the club is no longer desperate to sell, and the player is available at an attractive price to Top 4 clubs, meaning the player is incredibly likely to make the move across. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend.

And no one is arguing this, the only point of yours I was opposing was the buyout clauses. I actually suggested the exact same thing earlier in the thread.

Wage reductions and buyout clauses are two very different things.

Eh?? I said "If the clause kicks in as well as an automatic reduction in wages." You then said no one was arguing this.

 

[SM]

See my post above.

He could cop a leg breaker opening day and never be the same again. That's how a good agent should think

They'd be out of a job pretty quick because most clubs would laugh them out of the office if he came in stammering on about season ending injuries requiring his player to be on megabucks.

 

[Pykie]

There's no need to be condescending.

Every player is going to want a pay rise with the new TV money coming in and it applies to every club. The Champions League gives clubs a financial advantage over those who are not in it, meaning they can pay higher wages to those who aren't. Leicester will have that advantage this season, but not necessarily the season after if they fail to qualify again. Players like Kante and Mahrez who will want to play in the champions league and earn big money may not have that opportunity at Leicester after next season, whereas the bigger clubs will be able to offer it to them. Will Leicester match the offers of clubs with this additional income (let alone the commercial revenues they have)? And if they do, what happens when if they drop out of the Champions League next season and lose that extra income?

This is and always has been my sole argument, and I said (before this SM shitfight began) that as long as they structure their wages correctly with bonuses etc they should be fine. I don't think anyone (maybe aside from Jod) is saying that Leicester can't pay Kante 100-150k, just that there is the potential it could backfire on them if they miss out on the UCL next season.

Like I said, even a very conservative wage increase of £30m, they will be able to afford 3 new players on 100-150k a week, and increase around 8 players wages £50k a pop.

 

[Shoei]

Kind of disagree, but not really the point I was making.



Don't be a twat about this. If you don't understand the concept of clauses in contracts then don't bother having this discussion.

If their squad got relegated it'd still be a squad that got relegated. But always nice to see a few pot shots made instead of focussing on the discussion.

Players have a base wage. Let's say it's 40k for a Danny Drinkwater. The club then wants to keep hold of him, and they have CL money to help them do this. They then add a clause in his contract, "For every season that the club makes the CL, you will earn an extra 20k per week." Perhaps they could even then say "For every game you play in the CL you will earn an extra 10k on top of that." to cover themselves for when they get knocked out of the CL. Drinkwater is suddenly making 70k a week. If they don't make CL the following season he's automatically back down to 40k. Simples.

Leicester then attract, say, Romelu Lukaku at a base wage of 60k a week, with the same loadings in place, so he's up to 90k a week as long as they make the CL. Lukaku is super keen to play CL though and only goes to the club on the condition they make the CL. The club agrees and says "Sure thing. How about we put in a clause that if we don't qualify for the CL you will have a buy-out clause activated that allows you to leave for 25m. How does that sound?" Lukaku sees his market value as 35m, thinks that clubs will snap him up at 25m, and happily agrees. Leicester now have a quality forward on 90k a week to help them in the CL, and have the prospect of keeping him at 60k a week if they fail to make the CL, and a player people would bite their hand off for at 25m.

Hull got relegated correct?
Leicester just won the league correct?

If you can't comprehend why players from Leicester would be more in demand than players from Hull that's not my fault.

You're an idiot if you think players are going to have "clauses" altering their base wage from 3.6 mil (70k) a season 2 mil (40k) a season over a set number of years.

You're an idiot if you think a club that has made the Champions League once, and on history will struggle to do it a again, is going to start putting "release clauses" in players contracts when in all likelihood those contracts are going to be active. Marhez is allowed to leave for 25m if Leicester don't make the Champions League? Yeah.....that'll go down well with the fans when Leicester start seeing all their best players leave.

That's some next level dumb shit that i can't even be bothered explaining to you so i'm done with this.

 

[jd2010]

And players could be hit by a bus tomorrow and die. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

If you honestly think all negotiations are done on the preconception players could miss the year with a serious injury you're dreaming.

If Kante has a season ending injury, he's sitting there making 100k for a year doing nothing, and then would be free to leave for maybe 20m? Or stick around and regain form on let's say 60k. Which is more than he's currently earning at the same club. I really don't understand your argument at all.

Come on man you seriously dont get it?

An agent has 3 offers in play (PSG, Arsenal & Leicester)

Offer 1 & 2: Guaranteed 100k a week for 5 years with upward performance clauses that could see that rise with league titles etc.
Offer 3: 5 year deal, 100k a week if in CL or 60k if not in CL

What does the agent look at and see as best for his client?

 

[SM]

Hull got relegated correct?
Leicester just won the league correct?

If you can't comprehend why players from Leicester would be more in demand than players from Hull that's not my fault.

You're an idiot if you think players are going to have "clauses" altering their base wage from 3.6 mil (70k) a season 2 mil (40k) a season over a set number of years.

You're an idiot if you think a club that has made the Champions League once, and on history will struggle to do it a again, is going to start putting "release clauses" in players contracts when in all likelihood those contracts are going to be active. Marhez is allowed to leave for 25m if Leicester don't make the Champions League? Yeah.....that'll go down well with the fans when Leicester start seeing all their best players leave.

That's some next level dumb shit that i can't even be bothered explaining to you so i'm done with this.

You're a moron if you don't understand the concept of wage reduction clauses in contracts so maybe go do some reading.

 

[SM]

Come on man you seriously dont get it?

An agent has 3 offers in play (PSG, Arsenal & Leicester)

Offer 1 & 2: Guaranteed 100k a week for 5 years with upward performance clauses that could see that rise with league titles etc.
Offer 3: 5 year deal, 100k a week if in CL or 60k if not in CL

What does the agent look at and see as best for his client?

Obviously Offers 1 & 2. Did you miss the part where I said I would hope the players would stick with Leicester for a season but that leaving was an entirely viable alternative?

 

[elhadjihenry]

Eh?? I said "If the clause kicks in as well as an automatic reduction in wages." You then said no one was arguing this.

I took that post on the basis that due to the first sentence you were only referring to a clause that had a wage reduction involved if they miss UCL.

So this doesn't go on any longer (I've had the least productive hour at work in history), my only argument is that Leicester should include bonus structures in their pay regarding Champions League qualification, and not include any buyout clauses for their players if they miss it next season. My opposition to your argument is only regarding buyout clauses, which could result in their squad getting gutted of its best players in 2017-18.

 

[jd2010]

Obviously Offers 1 & 2. Did you miss the part where I said I would hope the players would stick with Leicester for a season but that leaving was an entirely viable alternative?

So you do think there is a risk that Leicester lose a few?

 

[SM]

I took that post on the basis that due to the first sentence you were only referring to a clause that had a wage reduction involved if they miss UCL.

So this doesn't go on any longer (I've had the least productive hour at work in history), my only argument is that Leicester should include bonus structures in their pay regarding Champions League qualification, and not include any buyout clauses for their players if they miss it next season. My opposition to your argument is only regarding buyout clauses, which could result in their squad getting gutted of its best players in 2017-18.

Yes, a post that talked about a clause kicking in as well as a wage reduction definitely only meant wage reductions.

I'll say for the last time. For the existing squad, I absolutely agree, and have never said anything to the contrary. For attracting new players of a higher calibre, like a Lukaku, Oscar, or whoever, having clauses allowing them to leave if/when Leicester don't make the CL might make it slightly more appealing. Is that clear enough?

 

[SM]

So you do think there is a risk that Leicester lose a few?

I think if any leave it'll be Kante as he's the only one who has a viable alternative in PSG who could offer him more. I can't see any of the others leaving, at least not this summer, no.

 

[Shoei]

You're a moron if you don't understand the concept of wage reduction clauses in contracts so maybe go do some reading.

I understand it much better than whatever bizarre fantasy world you live in.

 

[Jatz]

I hope you're happy with yourself jod23 ...