Transfer discussion thread.

[Jatz]

Leicester would be mad not to include a guaranteed transfer clause in it.

Chelsea would be mad to accept it though.

 

[SM]

That's why I don't want him though. The player wants to be at Chelsea. I'd prefer we buy someone that wants to be with us.

I've already mentioned I want us (Leicester) to have nothing to do with it.

You're just not getting it...

Oh well. You were convinced Chelsea wouldn't want to send him to you guys anyway.

 

[Bardo State]

Except that it isn't.

If he comes to us and performs terribly, are Chelsea still going to stump up the 12mil or so? I doubt it.

I would think Chelsea would have seen enough of the lad to not lose faith after his first 6 months of the PL in a relegation scrap. Chelsea have nothing to gain by pulling something shifty over Leicester other than a bad reputation.

 

[SM]

Chelsea would be mad to accept it though.

Why? If there's no guarantee that Chelsea would buy why would there be a guarantee you'd sell? If he comes in and scores 20 goals in half a season what would force you to sell? Chelsea wouldn't want to risk that he could do well, and 12m is nothing for them.

 

[Bardo State]

That's why I don't want him though. The player wants to be at Chelsea. I'd prefer we buy someone that wants to be with us.

I've already mentioned I want us (Leicester) to have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't you say that for any loan player?

 

[SM]

Couldn't you say that for any loan player?

Boy I hate Gaston Ramirez, the prick is clearly going back to Southampton at the end of his loan.

 

[Bardo State]

Boy I hate Gaston Ramirez, the prick is clearly going back to Southampton at the end of his loan.

I bet West Brom fans were really sour about having Lukaku bang in goals for them.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Neil Etheridge finally has a new club ...

 

[SM]

I bet West Brom fans were really sour about having Lukaku bang in goals for them.

Great comparison because it's almost exactly the same situation with the same parent club.

 

[Jatz]

Why? If there's no guarantee that Chelsea would buy why would there be a guarantee you'd sell? If he comes in and scores 20 goals in half a season what would force you to sell? Chelsea wouldn't want to risk that he could do well, and 12m is nothing for them.

And if he scores 1 goal in 17 appearances, Chelsea are expected to just stump up 12 mil are they? I'm sure they'd love that.

 

[Jatz]

Couldn't you say that for any loan player?

We aren't trying to loan a player. I'm not sure why that's relevant.

We made a 9 mil bid to his current club. Not a loan deal.

 

[SM]

And if he scores 1 goal in 17 appearances, Chelsea are expected to just stump up 12 mil are they? I'm sure they'd love that.

Again. There would be a purchase clause in there. If there isn't you should be pissed at Leicester not Chelsea. I've already pointed out the exact opposite could happen and he could do great and you'd have no imperative to sell if there was no mandatory purchase clause.

 

[SM]

We aren't trying to loan a player. I'm not sure why that's relevant.

We made a 9 mil bid to his current club. Not a loan deal.

And Chelsea would pay you back the 9m at the end of the 6 months. Meaning there would be a net spend of 0 pounds for Leicester except for his wages.

Loan deal.

 

[chef]

So Jatz, if Chelsea bought him outright and just loaned him to you guys for 6 months would you still be upset?

 

[FAITH]

Messi started following Felipe Luis and Courtois on instagram too.

i started following messi and neymar, you know what that means..

 

[Jatz]

And Chelsea would pay you back the 9m at the end of the 6 months. Meaning there would be a net spend of 0 pounds for Leicester except for his wages.

Loan deal.

That's not what we wanted. We never wanted a loan deal. Hence us bidding 9 mil.

Its only that the player wants to be at Chelsea that Chelsea are involved at all. So just let him go there and we can focus our attention elsewhere.

 

[chef]

And if he scores 1 goal in 17 appearances, Chelsea are expected to just stump up 12 mil are they? I'm sure they'd love that.

I'm sure we've already decided on him and would take him regardless, £9m or whatever he'll end up costing isnt a great worry to us.

 

[SM]

That's not what we wanted. We never wanted a loan deal. Hence us bidding 9 mil.

Its only that the player wants to be at Chelsea that Chelsea are involved at all. So just let him go there and we can focus our attention elsewhere.

So you'd rather not have him at all than to get him for 6 months that could potentially keep you up?

Ridiculously spiteful.

 

[Jatz]

So you'd rather not have him at all than to get him for 6 months that could potentially keep you up?

Ridiculously spiteful.

I don't believe there is only one player that could keep us up. Especially when that player is untried.

Someone that wants to play with us > someone that doesn't.

 

[SM]

I don't believe there is only one player that could keep us up. Especially when that player is untried.

Someone that wants to play with us > someone that doesn't.

Your club clearly thinks he will if they're willing to pay 9m for him. Then you get that 9m back in the summer whether or not you stay up which you can reinvest in said other player you're encouraging them to find now.

It'd be like Fulham getting a refund for that Greek striker they bought. They'd have loved that.

EDIT: E.g. We bought Shane Long for 7.5m in January. He scored 4 goals which kept us up. We then basically got a refund for him with interest which we spent on Diame and Hernandez who have 7 goals this season. We stayed up, got Long's goals, then he left and we got other players in. Win-win.

 

[Magma]

totally agree with jatz.

 

[SM]

totally agree with jatz.

So you're against loaning players in because they don't want to stay at your club beyond that playing year?

 

[Jatz]

Your club clearly thinks he will if they're willing to pay 9m for him. Then you get that 9m back in the summer whether or not you stay up which you can reinvest in said other player you're encouraging them to find now.

It'd be like Fulham getting a refund for that Greek striker they bought. They'd have loved that.

EDIT: E.g. We bought Shane Long for 7.5m in January. He scored 4 goals which kept us up. We then basically got a refund for him with interest which we spent on Diame and Hernandez who have 7 goals this season. We stayed up, got Long's goals, then he left and we got other players in. Win-win.

My club and I regularly disagree.

Its alright we disagree but you won't change my mind that its a shit deal for us. We're nothing more than puppets for Chelsea.

 

[Magma]

So you're against loaning players in because they don't want to stay at your club beyond that playing year?

it's not a loan. that's the key difference

leicester are taking the risk because chelsea aren't sure. they're going to pay about 9 mil, a club record fee, to someone who may or may not end up at chelsea depending on further conditions that we don't know about.

however if leicester agree to it, then it's all on leicester.

 

[SM]

My club and I regularly disagree.

Its alright we disagree but you won't change my mind that its a shit deal for us. We're nothing more than puppets for Chelsea.

And that's different to any club taking a player on loan how?

We've already established this deal wouldn't be going ahead without a guaranteed purchase from Chelsea, so you're essentially baulking at taking a player on loan from Chelsea just because they're going to go to Chelsea at the end of the season and not sign for you permanently.

Keep in mind this also works out well for you as you now have an extra loan spot to use on another player.