£40M bid rejected for Siguardsson

Because they don't take any money out of the club for themselves because they don't need it. That's the beauty of having so much money, the football club is paying them and it's not relining their pockets either, the money goes back into the club which means we can afford to spend more.

That's why it's important that they're so wealthy.

 

Not judging by the way they've been "seen" to do business, couldn't be further from it.

 

But anyway I told you that Leicester would outbid Everton and we did so what do you have to say about that?

I'll continually be proven right because I know what I'm talking about. I'd say offering £40m is a little more ambitious than the rest don't you reckon or are you still blind to the fact that we have more ambition and more money than the clubs you reckon are way ahead of us?

 

So their mate the king protecting them and making sure they will never be found guilty doesn't sound dodgy then?

 

I reckon it's a lot of money to throw at someone who failed at Spurs and not many others seem that interested in.
That said, you haven't got him yet and Everton may be as daft as you.

 

I dont care how rich they are £50M is not small change to anyone. If they started throwing £50M around like its "small change" they will be backrupt before the end of the week

Yes their very rich and the reason there still rich is because they are clever and dont throw around large amounts of money like its "nothing"

 

Back on points. We should walk away from this deal. Money has gone stupid

 

Totally agree, I just posted on another thread that it's getting silly now.
Cracking player but not worth more than 30m. If he was 22 or something it would be different.
Let's move on. Excited to hear we are close to signing Iheanacho
What a coup that will be for us.

 

Look at the bigger picture, will Sigurdsson be worth an extra £20m over the course of four years if we qualify for Europe every year? My opinion is absolutely, no doubt about it. In fact just finishing four places above would have given us £10m extra so even if we only finished 8th for two years he'll have justified the £20m. I mean 8th is absolute lowest we would be.

Yes of course it's a lot of money but he's the ideal replacement for Okazaki and the difference he'll make to our team is well worth the extra £20m.I don't think we should just chuck silly money around but there's huge value in Sigurdsson and there isn't a better choice anywhere across the leagues as far as I'm aware. Certainly nobody else in the PL fits the bill. Ilheanacho isn't the answer because he's not got Okazaki's work rate and that's arguably more important than the creative side, we need that more than we need someone with creative flair in that role. He's got both which is extremely rare. So what's the point spending less money on someone who'll do a subpar job? We moan about wasting money on players who aren't good enough so instead of wasting money on them we should spend more to buy better players who we know will do what we want.

Think about this, you have a round hole but the round pegs are £50 because they're made of gold and the square pegs are £30 made of silver. The square pegs will work, they'll keep the tent secure but you'll constantly have to go outside to keep hammering them back in but it works and gets the job done. Which would you choose, the pegs that do the job but not as well for a saving of £20 or the ones that fit perfectly and you won't have any hassle with? I'd go for the round ones.

I'm sure you'll say yeah but £20 is a bit different to £20m but it's all relative. If you've only got £60 then £50 isn't affordable and you'll make do with the inconvenience of hammering at all hours but if you've got thousands then you're not worrying about it and you pay the extra £20.

I'm not talking about Ilheanacho by the way, I really want him but I don't see a one or the other here, I think we want both because they're different players but Sigurdsson is the one who we really need in my opinion, as much as I want Ilheanacho.

So I definitely think we should spend it because we can afford it no problem and if we want to be a top six club then he's worth a couple of players so I think we should.

 

He's ideal for the way we play that's why, perhaps he's not so suited elsewhere but we need players who aren't necessarily suited elsewhere because we play a different style of football.

It's like Okazaki, he wouldn't get into many other teams in the top 10 but he has to be one of the first names on the teamsheet because he's instrumental in the way we play. Without his work rate and dropping back into midfield we struggle and we've been crying out for an "answer to Okazaki" and Sigurdsson is it, the only player suited to that role.

 

Crazy money. Why are there no top sides in Europe in this debate? Because he's not worth it. Yes he is a good player but that's in a poor side and debatable he would be so influential in a team with other better players. Ridiculous this conversation is even happening.

 

I agree the fee is ridiculous but we're in a new era and if we want to move to the next level then we're going to have to start paying big money for the targets we want, that's just a reality.

I think he's massively underrated and think he'll do better in a better team with better players around him rather than worse. I mean if he can perfom like that in a crap team why won't he do better with us?

As for other clubs interest, there are better creative players available for a lot less which is why he's not being looked at by other clubs but we're looking at his work rate and the amount of ground he covered first and then his creativity, which I believe I heard was the highest in the league or second, one of the two but it was well up there. That on top of his creativity means he's the perfect replacement for Okazaki and the only player who can do what Okazaki does as well as Mahrez. There simply isn't another answer to the Okazaki question.

And it's not that he's worth £50m, he's just worth it to them and fair play to them but if we want him then we should just pay the money and get him. Look what happened last summer when we stalled on deals because of money, we struggled and we all moaned because we didn't bid what the selling clubs wanted. Fact is without Okazaki's work rate we struggle but he offers nothing going forward and we need a better alternative so for me it's better to spend the extra money to get a proper replacement than it is to spend less and get someone who simply doesn't work in that role because it's arguably the most difficult role in our team.

 

can't disagree with any of this.

Disagree with you calling yourself an oracle. Bet you didn't see Ranieri winning the league pre-season and then Ranieri stuffing it all up last season

 

I see that Leicester are selling their long scouted player Silimani to fund a move for the city player.

What happened to the rich owners??

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/spo...s/west-brom-transfers-what-leicester-13312537

 

Eh? We don't need to sell him for the money - if we did then we would have offloaded him before we made the bids for everyone.

If we are selling him, it is because we don't want him any more - it could be the case as we would have too many #9s if we bring in Iheanacho.

Dunno where the cut price part is coming from in that article either as we rejected £32M for him last season - most likely will go back to Sporting as we would add a premium for Premier League clubs like we have with Mahrez.

 

Hard to believe isn't it, I got told by a ITK that Slimani was top class and they wouldn't be selling any of their "best" players

All those years and years of watching wasted

 

Never have enough No.9's pal, goal scorers, game winners.

Why look to offload

 

Was the big money bid form an English/European club?

 

Can't always sign a Jamie Vardy, sometimes you get a Ade Akinbiyi.