Abacus

There are obviously gaps all over the squad, so I'm not saying this is a priority, but I wouldn't mind some of these left sided midfielders we've been linked with, especially if they can be versatile and play on the other side too. We talk about Wilson being injured so striker is a priority position (agreed), but St Max has a few spells out too. Nowhere near as long, but on the other hand, in addition to that he has little patches of poor form too, or playing when carrying knocks. On the right, Trippier is arguably better going forward than in defence, and can pose a threat from the right to partly make up for weaknesses there. But on the left, Targett is primarily a defensive LB, so without St Max you'd wonder where the threat comes from on that side. Cover on the left is maybe a luxury we can't afford yet, I'm just saying there is a risk with an over-reliance on Maxi. Especially if he tries to reverse park and scratches Eddie's car.

The ridiculous thing is, he wasn't even a 'mag'. So they've (apparently) claimed to chin a fan from a non rival lower league club just because they didn't like being laughed at. Stay classy

Haha, yes it's come to something where I'm starting to think of £3bn as 'not being very rich' as well.

I'll bow to your knowledge on that. I'd read the owner was worth about £3bn which isn't far off Ashley levels, but who knows what's behind that or whether it's even accurate at all when it comes to offshore wealth, but I didn't really look any further.

Harrison mainly plays on the left as well - of those two I'd rather Barnes if there's anything in either link. But then yes, St Max does then become a bit of a puzzle. Although, when isn't he? So, at that point I'd probably just say - over to you Eddie.

Had a quick look on one of their fans forums. They haven't actually spent much on transfers, net as ON says, so I was also wondering why they were so cash strapped. I don't think it's anything FFP related - I think it's literally that they don't have all that much money, having just spent £100m on training ground redevelopment (great for the future, but takes time to pay back) but also some poor short term squad management. They are also looking to spend a lot on a stadium expansion to take them to 40,000 capacity. In itself, that should indicate why they might be struggling now - a club of Leicester's size and attendances needs to box clever in the transfer market, buying low, developing and selling high, or gravity will reassert itself. They obviously had a one off boost with that incredible league win and CL campaign after, but realistically that was only ever a one off. However, it probably also set an expectation that they could build on that in order to carry on competing towards the top end of the table. A few fans seem to blame Rodgers for the current squad being a little bit of mess. Lots of players coming into the last 24 months of their contracts (10 of them within 12 months, by one count), all ageing and on high wages, with some of the worst ones being his buys. Perez is usually cited as an example of a poor player on £70k a week. NB, our old pal Choudhury on £50k a week is another example. Not a Rodgers signing here, but he did extend his contract for 4 years, with neither player contributing much and nobody much wanting them. Some say there's been a departure from bringing in younger players, developing them and selling them on. So, there seem to be a fair few players they want rid of, and not the money or wage room to buy again until they clear out the unwanted ones first. And given those short remaining contract situations, there's not much leverage to negotiate decent transfer fees even if there was interest. So, they end up losing players they don't want to instead which is where our ears should prick up, with the likes of Barnes. Plus, this isn't a club with hugely wealthy owners (they're rich, but not mega rich). Or a consistent record of success, large attendances or huge commercial revenues as well as coming off the back of two years of Covid losses and a nondescript season - which bigger clubs would be able to absorb better. That's my impression anyway - I'm sure it's not as doom and gloom as all that.

Bet he parked his car in the disabled bay too, and then rolled around on the ground when he got a ticket.

From what I can understand, the position has always been that we follow our transfer strategy, but that if an opportunity elsewhere comes up that is too good to pass up, we wouldn't. Probably a lot of people on here put Paqueta into that category, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Not least because we apparently enquired about him in January, and we've gone back to both our other big January targets already. Not saying we're likely to be in for him - I don't know. But I also don't think it's daft for people to think or hope that we will.

And it seems they had basically agreed to pay a similar amount for Ekitike as well, in the only other potential transfer that looks like it was a solid link.

I wonder if Cornet is playing for Burnley? Given his release clause, be interested to see how he does, if so.

They did the same with the installments due on Chris Wood's transfer fee. https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/burnley-accounts-macquarie-bank-pace-23880335

It makes no real difference. If you're committed to pay £10m, then it doesn't matter too much as to when you actually hand over the money. So, it would be £10m over 5 years no matter how you structure the payments. There are other benefits to paying later - like if you had to borrow the cash to pay upfront and got charged interest on that borrowing. That interest would affect FFP. But assuming you don't need to borrow, no. The other thing with paying up front is that you might get them cheaper to start with if the selling club needs cash. I.e. if you're paying up front, a club might be happier to sell for £9m rather than £10m in the first place.

No, what I'm saying is, if you bought 10 players for £100m, the minute you do that is when it gets recorded for FFP reasons regardless of whether you pay the cash up front or in installments later on. For FFP, it's treated more or less identically. There are complications of course, but this is why I thought of a different thread, rather than bore the arse off everyone with numbers chat.

Yep. There are complications, of course, but basically that's right.

He is correct here, though. When you actually pay the cash doesn't matter. Likewise people talking about debt with Chelsea etc. I'm wondering if a separate FFP or football finances thread might help, as it seems to derail other threads quite often and means most people can ignore it if they're not interested. There might already be one mind - I'll have a look first.

He might well believe that, but I think Howe was just saying what he has to re strikers. If you come across as desperate then you're held over a barrel in negotiations, for one thing. Besides, whatever he does privately think, he couldn't very well come out and say that he can't rely on Wilson and doesn't rate Wood, or else what sort of message would that send? Likewise re saying St Max and Joelinton are options, when they probably aren't. We might well not be able to get the right striker this summer, or at a price we're willing to pay, so we might well need to rely on some or all of those options for at least a while. If so, for squad morale, then there's no point in him publicly saying he doesn't think that's good enough.

How's the crusts, did ye say? Anyway, from Birmingham live - a quote from Bruce about a youth team goalkeeper they were thinking of sending on loan. “I’ve wanted to see the young one. I’ve not seen him play either. He’s going to be some goalkeeper, the young lad, I have to tell you. Really, really pleased. Everything about him. He’s got a wonderful stature...he’s done very, very well.” 1. Really non-specifically pleased with him and he's going to be some keeper (although he's just said he's not seen him play). 2. Seemingly doesn't know his name (the Bruce brain clicks in, saying "just call him the young lad"). 3. Wonderful stature. (? I don't know either) 4. I have to tell you. (No, you don't Steve. You don't have to tell me anything. You really don't).

RTG fan fiction really should be a new Kindle category.

Ah man! I'd never watched one of his videos before. I didn't like the idea of him hanging around the training ground pestering players, so I was expecting to hate him. But he's actually very likeable. In the earlier video on his way to the friendly, I just loved the roundabout route he had to take to get to the game, how he got to the airport hours before he had to and then starts commentating on Greggs and WHSmiths, before dissing the duty free prices on Baileys. And his trip to the Eiffel tower ? The whole thing made me laugh, so good luck to the fella, it's obviously something he loves doing.

It was really interesting reading his comments on working with Levy. I can't stand Levy and would be very wary of dealing with him on any player transfers, but you can't deny that he's effective. From that article, Eales also seems to have been a bit of an all round fixer for him, sorting out difficult or complex contract and transfer negotiations as well. So there may be a bit of that too, good to get more experience and know-how. Anyway makes a difference from Charners and his special unplugged transfer phone. What's that you say? A cow says moo? Here a moo, there a moo, everywhere a moo-moo? Looks like you win this round Mr Agent MacDonald. Now I'd like to enquire about Mr Duck.

I'm sure that's the party line - tempering expectations and sending out the message that we won't overpay. I'd be worried if he'd come out and said, flipping heck lads I've got a big secret I can't tell you about!

Well, I think it's very sad that him and his agent have been killed in a drunken car crash. And the political correctness brigade can take that in the eye.

I don't think there was any excitement when he joined. On page 10 of this thread you had Mick MacCarthy giving him a glowing recommendation. But I seemed to remember he actually played pretty well in his first match and I remember thinking we might have a decent player after all. In fact, looking back, you can see that reaction here from page 12. Unfortunately, he then carried on playing and ruined all his good work.

Short answer is, probably not. We bought him for £10m on a 5 year contract back in 16/17. (Edit, I'm talking about Gayle here rather than Clark. Clark was £5m but the same applies.) So that fee should all be written off by now and it shouldn't affect us if he goes for nothing. There's just the complication of any wages on the remainder of their contracts. If you take Gayle, on £2m a year, I'd be surprised if all those were covered by the buying club and so you might take a one-off hit for the difference. But you never know - depends on the deal.

Even leaving aside FFP, I'm not sure we have much option other than a slow build. Top players will be hesitant to join us, and you can't blame them until we get some sort of European spot. Anyway, I'm quite enjoying the sensible approach taken so far - seems the opposite of the scattergun recruitment that caused Everton a lot of bother. At the same time as starting to sort out the infrastructure and the back office, it just feels like we're going in the right direction. A couple of exciting attacking players and I'd be very happy indeed.