Leicester have decided not to sell their best players

A lot of people were saying that the only reason Leicester didn't sell their best players last summer was because nobody wanted them. But, this summer they do. Arsenal have bid for Vardy but Leicester are not selling. They have a rich owner so they don't need to.

I wonder if Markus Liebherr had still been alive if he'd have been the same? Sadly, we'll never know. But, I get the impression that our current owner sees the club as a business rather than a football team (in fact, it's the only one of her father's businesses left that she hasn't sold yet) and is keen to sell our best players and that Les Reed has made himself indispensable to her by carrying out her instructions. We sell the players we can get the most money for every summer. It's almost inevitable that next summer Van Dijk and Forster will be the next in line for sale.

Of, course, our league places in the last few years have been exceptional. Leicester, on the other hand, might regret keeping last year's team together. Only time will tell.

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10322534/jamie-vardy-agrees-new-four-year-contract-extension-with-leicester

It's different though isn't it?

They've won the league with Champions League football next year. We hadn't won the league and we didn't have any European football (although last year we could have had more).

As much as we hate them, Lallana and Lovren wanted to move to a bigger club to play European football and get more money. Chambers wanted to go to Arsenal and Morgan and Shaw wanted to go to Man Utd - you can't turn those sort of clubs down, as annoying as it is.

Vardy is 29 (?) and probably quite settled, he has Champions League football, he probably has now managed to negotiate a similar level of pay to what Arsenal were offering and for 4 more years, bank-rolled by income from the Champions League, income Saints don't have.

So - what is the difference between a business and a football club? At the end of the day, in order to survive both have to either break even or make a profit - it really is that simple.

You seem to be under the illusion that her father would have thrown money at the club hand over fist, I doubt it - money does not guarantee success.

If you really cannot see the investment and improvement both in terms of infrastructure and performance since the takeover by Markus and Kat then you would appear to be somewhat short sighted.

We are a well run, stable club - I would much rather we run within our means (I have no problems with owners making a profit either) - than throw money around and end up back in administration.

But have they refused to sell? Sounds to me that the player decided to stay rather than go to Arsenal. They were given permission to speak to him so it would seem from that they would have sold him had he wanted to go. Very different to our situation I would have thought.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leicester didn't decide anything - Vardy had a release clause, therefore a clear price tag on his head. They'd decided what they would sell him for six months ago when he signed his last contract.

Vardy himself decided to stay, for various reasons.

They've got revenue from winning the Premier League and now playing in the Champions League!

To develop our squad we have to sell our top players and reinvest it. Yes, we'd like to have a settled squad but we finished in 6th place, so it can't be all bad news.

Erm Leicester gave Vardy a release clause and if he'd decided to go he would have gone.

If Mahrez and Kante want to move, they will go.

Players have the power, not clubs. Just Leicester have champions league football something players often move to get.

A lot of people were saying that the only reason Leicester didn't sell their best players last summer was because nobody wanted them. But, this summer they do. Arsenal have bid for Vardy but Leicester are not selling. They have a rich owner so they don't need to.

 

I wonder if Markus Liebherr had still been alive if he'd have been the same? Sadly, we'll never know. But, I get the impression that our current owner sees the club as a business rather than a football team (in fact, it's the only one of her father's businesses left that she hasn't sold yet) and is keen to sell our best players and that Les Reed has made himself indispensable to her by carrying out her instructions. We sell the players we can get the most money for every summer. It's almost inevitable that next summer Van Dijk and Forster will be the next in line for sale.

 

Of, course, our league places in the last few years have been exceptional. Leicester, on the other hand, might regret keeping last year's team together. Only time will tell.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10322534/jamie-vardy-agrees-new-four-year-contract-extension-with-leicester

You're turning more into a wetter version of Alpine by the post. You don't like Les Reed, we get it.

Erm Leicester gave Vardy a release clause and if he'd decided to go he would have gone.

 

If Mahrez and Kante want to move, they will go.

 

Players have the power, not clubs. Just Leicester have champions league football something players often move to get.

and I'm betting they have upped his salary way beyond anything we will pay (probably north of 100K a week) which may seem great right now but will seem much harder to justify should they have a bad season and Vardy go off the boil!

You're turning more into a wetter version of Alpine by the post. You don't like Les Reed, we get it.

Have to agree, although I would put him on the same level as Pluto.

Alternatively the thread title could be:

"Leicester pay player who is over 30 in six months' time and has only ever had one good season in excess of £100k per week"

oh dear.

Players don't move for champions league, they don't move for europe, they move for money- the way of the world.

Originally, Vardy was on £70k a week (he signed a contract last year I believe worth that), and signed a new one today worth £100k. This is the same as what Arsenal were offering and not a penny more.

If Arsenal came in with say £120k, 9/10 times he would have gone.

Our club won't offer 100k a week for a while to come, because our business isn't like that.

I don't think Saints have sold any player who wanted to stay. We've got pretty good money for all the players we've sold in the circumstances they were sold. We've invested lots of money back into the team too.

Only complaints I have, and they are small really:

1. I wish we wouldn't be so easy to target in the media - there may be dignity in silence but the media are a part of the game and I'd wish we'd fight back more. Whether or not we are, the media portray us as weak and that does impact perceptions of the club.

2. I wish we wouldn't talk about ambition on one hand and then on the other talk about us being a 'showcase' club etc. State your ambition by all means but don't undermine it by then acknowledging you are a stepping stone club for talent. It doesn't sit well.

Alternatively the thread title could be:

 

"Leicester pay player who is over 30 in six months' time and has only ever had one good season in excess of £100k per week"

"Leicester decided that they would sell Jamie Vardy for £20m in February 2016 when it was included in his contract extension"

They have also "decided" to do this with other players. Their best players in fact. In fact, they have decided to sell their best players.

Leicester didn't decide anything - Vardy had a release clause, therefore a clear price tag on his head. They'd decided what they would sell him for six months ago when he signed his last contract.

 

Vardy himself decided to stay, for various reasons.

Not quite that simple. They decided to offer him another "new and improved" contract when they could have done nothing. After all, Vardy had only recently signed a new contract in February in recognition of the season's achievements. No doubt many clubs would have decided that this was enough and not done anymore.

When Markus took over the club it was explicitly stated that the aim was to make the club self financing. Kat is only carrying on her father's wishes. I suspect that, financially, Kat can stagger by without the profits from SFC so we can confidently expect them to be ploughed back into the club. What you won't see is the board hurling money that they have not got (as a business) at overpaid, overhyped players or managers.

and I'm betting they have upped his salary way beyond anything we will pay (probably north of 100K a week) which may seem great right now but will seem much harder to justify should they have a bad season and Vardy go off the boil!

They were already paying him £80k a week, he's gone up by £20k apparently but we don't really have any players worth £100k a week IMO.

Plus paying a guy who's nearly 30, relies on pace for most of his game and from reports smokes, drinks, doesn't eat healthy and doesn't do gym work a £100k a week seems a risk to me.

If we had a player that was worth paying £100k a week I reckon we'd pay it and we can afford it as well, but it just isn't our way to pay so much in salary.

Not quite that simple. They decided to offer him another "new and improved" contract when they could have done nothing. After all, Vardy had only recently signed a new contract in February in recognition of the season's achievements. No doubt many clubs would have decided that this was enough and not done anymore.

Many clubs would be right to do that.

They were already paying him £80k a week, he's gone up by £20k apparently but we don't really have any players worth £100k a week IMO.

 

Plus paying a guy who's nearly 30, relies on pace for most of his game and from reports smokes, drinks, doesn't eat healthy and doesn't do gym work a £100k a week seems a risk to me.

 

If we had a player that was worth paying £100k a week I reckon we'd pay it and we can afford it as well, but it just isn't our way to pay so much in salary.

I think we've sold a couple of players who were worth 100K a week (Schniderlin, Clyne) but it doesn't seem to be in our model to pay that and for more it is a potential snowball effect as once one player gets it others will start asking.

A lot of people were saying that the only reason Leicester didn't sell their best players last summer was because nobody wanted them. But, this summer they do. Arsenal have bid for Vardy but Leicester are not selling. They have a rich owner so they don't need to.

 

I wonder if Markus Liebherr had still been alive if he'd have been the same? Sadly, we'll never know. But, I get the impression that our current owner sees the club as a business rather than a football team (in fact, it's the only one of her father's businesses left that she hasn't sold yet) and is keen to sell our best players and that Les Reed has made himself indispensable to her by carrying out her instructions. We sell the players we can get the most money for every summer. It's almost inevitable that next summer Van Dijk and Forster will be the next in line for sale.

 

Of, course, our league places in the last few years have been exceptional. Leicester, on the other hand, might regret keeping last year's team together. Only time will tell.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10322534/jamie-vardy-agrees-new-four-year-contract-extension-with-leicester

I don't agree. If Kat wanted to sell SFC, surely the business would be worth considerably more with its best players, who are mostly international stars. If she sold them the club's fortunes would likely vere downwards and SFC would not be such a good investment.

I don't think this will happen.

I do very much admire Leicester for it's determination to keep Vardy and co. Why can't Les simply say we are not selling? Rumours of a possible fire sale can only gather pace in the media and is not going to entice ambitious prospective managerial candidates.

Money talks. I think Saints have the right approach. Every player (and Manager!) has a limited "shelf life" and its down to the club to determine what that is and to make appropriate contract offers. Its also the players' right to seek out alternative offers. I am more than happy with the balance Saints are achieving right now.

Why can't Les simply say we are not selling? Rumours of a possible fire sale can only gather pace in the media and is not going to entice ambitious prospective managerial candidates.

Because then when we inevitably sold players everyone would be screaming about how he lied when he said we weren't selling, d'oh! We don't want or have to sell anyone but we don't keep players who don't want to be here and we don't let them run contracts down and leave for free seems like sensible business to me!

Only complaints I have, and they are small really:

 

1. I wish we wouldn't be so easy to target in the media - there may be dignity in silence but the media are a part of the game and I'd wish we'd fight back more. Whether or not we are, the media portray us as weak and that does impact perceptions of the club.

 

2. I wish we wouldn't talk about ambition on one hand and then on the other talk about us being a 'showcase' club etc. State your ambition by all means but don't undermine it by then acknowledging you are a stepping stone club for talent. It doesn't sit well.

Good points

Because then when we inevitably sold players everyone would be screaming about how he lied when he said we weren't selling, d'oh! We don't want or have to sell anyone but we don't keep players who don't want to be here and we don't let them run contracts down and leave for free seems like sensible business to me!

But a simple 'he is not for sale' statement is a standard tough negotiating tactic, and necessary right now. This is very different from a weak silence that can suggest we are open for offers.

In the long term when we have our new manager in place he will eventually want to discuss with the board player purchases and sales. But my strongly expressed view is that we should not sell players before he is in place and has had time to assess the squad.

But a simple 'he is not for sale' statement is a standard tough negotiating tactic, and necessary right now. This is very different from a weak silence that can suggest we are open for offers.

 

In the long term when we have our new manager in place he will eventually want to discuss with the board player purchases and sales. But my strongly expressed view is that we should not sell players before he is in place and has had time to assess the squad.

How do you know how we are negotiating and what our tactics are? We've done very well negotiating up to now.

Les making faux-tough statements publicly make no difference at all to any negotiations and just provides a stick for people like you to beat him with when we do sell.

And the new manager is irrelevant in most cases - if Victor has said to Saints I am going to Spurs whoever the new manager is and whatever you offer me, then what is this new manager going to "assess"? He is going and that's it. Bizarre.

Leicester are taking a gamble on him. He'll probably come good and score quite a few goals next season, but the trouble with paying 100k a week is that other players in their squad will want similar. Being a team sport other first team players might not be happy on a great deal less than him. The other thing to remember is if they finish 7th next season they've got a guy on the books they're giving out 100k a week for.

Don't know why people are trying to dampen this deal.

Good luck to Leicester. They've got their way of working, we've got ours.

Good luck to them, good luck to us.

I do very much admire Leicester for it's determination to keep Vardy and co. Why can't Les simply say we are not selling? Rumours of a possible fire sale can only gather pace in the media and is not going to entice ambitious prospective managerial candidates.

So, in Victor's case, we keep a player who doesn't want to be here until his contract runs out next summer and he walks away for nothing.

Current comparisons with Leicester are largely irrelevant because of the freak season they have just had !

They will need a brand new (sustainable) business plan because the chances are that they will slide quite quickly back to normality and risky deals such as a 5 year, 25 million contract with the likes of Vardy could backfire spectacularly !

This coming season will define them as a club but personally I think they'll struggle to achieve anything because of the much greater challenges they now face !

Breaking the mould once is possible but keeping up with the giants is nigh on impossible these days !!

Does anyone other than Leiceste fans actually give a flyin` ****

I suspect Vardy (newly married) thought Arsenal , will I get a game , will they change their philosophy of keep passing before you get to the 6 yard box before you shoot ,what did they do for Walcott , Chambers , etc ? Then thought £100K a week and nothing changes ! I'm with MLT on this one easy life and football !

No mods around to correct the thread title one assumes?

Good effort though. Some decent bites. #respect

When Markus took over the club it was explicitly stated that the aim was to make the club self financing. Kat is only carrying on her father's wishes. I suspect that, financially, Kat can stagger by without the profits from SFC so we can confidently expect them to be ploughed back into the club. What you won't see is the board hurling money that they have not got (as a business) at overpaid, overhyped players or managers.

Was it? Don't recall any such explicit statement at the time and there was no evidence of this being the case either during his all too brief stay with us or the following 3 years or so until the current owner finally took the reigns. The real problem at the moment is not that wentrybto sell though, rather that our current board seem to have a knack of ****ing some.people.off so that they don't feel inclined to stay. Working with Uncle Les is clearly not the most pleasant experience for some.

So, in Victor's case, we keep a player who doesn't want to be here until his contract runs out next summer and he walks away for nothing.

Too late, he's gone

No mods around to correct the thread title one assumes?

 

Good effort though. Some decent bites. #respect

Yes, at first glance I saw the value-laden title and thought it was from Alpine...

It is simple. We don't pay the salaries that other clubs are willing to pay. So our star players are going. If you were any of them, you will follow suit. Leicester is willing to pay the same salaries as others are willing to pay. So Vardy stays.

It is simple. We don't pay the salaries that other clubs are willing to pay. So our star players are going. If you were any of them, you will follow suit. Leicester is willing to pay the same salaries as others are willing to pay. So Vardy stays.

Do Bournemouth?

Was it? Don't recall any such explicit statement at the time and there was no evidence of this being the case either during his all too brief stay with us or the following 3 years or so until the current owner finally took the reigns. The real problem at the moment is not that wentrybto sell though, rather that our current board seem to have a knack of ****ing some.people.off so that they don't feel inclined to stay. Working with Uncle Les is clearly not the most pleasant experience for some.

Most definitely, although to be precise the phrase used was financially sustainable and more recently termed sustainable growth. Technically this could be interpreted differently to self financing but the net effect is the same in that we won't throw money away in transfer fees or excessive salaries.

Whatever statement Les Reed may make it only fuels the media and they then twist it around for their own agenda Why should he make any statement when there really is not much to say, recruitment in any big business takes time, certainly more than the week or so we have been managerless.

I don't think Saints have sold any player who wanted to stay.

 

Yes they did, James Beattie under Lowe. Disgraceful.

A lot of people were saying that the only reason Leicester didn't sell their best players last summer was because nobody wanted them. But, this summer they do. Arsenal have bid for Vardy but Leicester are not selling. They have a rich owner so they don't need to.

 

I wonder if Markus Liebherr had still been alive if he'd have been the same? Sadly, we'll never know. But, I get the impression that our current owner sees the club as a business rather than a football team (in fact, it's the only one of her father's businesses left that she hasn't sold yet) and is keen to sell our best players and that Les Reed has made himself indispensable to her by carrying out her instructions. We sell the players we can get the most money for every summer. It's almost inevitable that next summer Van Dijk and Forster will be the next in line for sale.

 

Of, course, our league places in the last few years have been exceptional. Leicester, on the other hand, might regret keeping last year's team together. Only time will tell.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10322534/jamie-vardy-agrees-new-four-year-contract-extension-with-leicester

I havent read the rest of this thread so apologies if anyone else shot this down earlier as a pile of cräp sttacking the club.

Leicsters owners actually did accept the bid for Vardy, they never turned it down. They had to as Arsenal hit Vardy's release clause - Vardy however, decided the grass isn't greener on the otherside all the time (must have seen our ex players thread) and decided to stay and sign a new deal.

That second part I think may be worth a discussion as that is something I wish our players would do for once! But this BS you're spouting twisting it to fit your agenda when your facts are wrong is pretty idiotic if you can't even get the fact they didnt reject the bid right! Lol

Was it? Don't recall any such explicit statement at the time and there was no evidence of this being the case either during his all too brief stay with us or the following 3 years or so until the current owner finally took the reigns. The real problem at the moment is not that wentrybto sell though, rather that our current board seem to have a knack of ****ing some.people.off so that they don't feel inclined to stay. Working with Uncle Les is clearly not the most pleasant experience for some.

As Mowgli said - most definitely; and it was the fact that there was "no evidence that this was the case" that caused Kat to intervene. Staplewood costs were escalating and a couple of large but unsuccessful signings perhaps reinforced her case

Was it? Don't recall any such explicit statement at the time and there was no evidence of this being the case either during his all too brief stay with us or the following 3 years or so until the current owner finally took the reigns. The real problem at the moment is not that wentrybto sell though, rather that our current board seem to have a knack of ****ing some.people.off so that they don't feel inclined to stay. Working with Uncle Les is clearly not the most pleasant experience for some.

Yes it was. Repeated over and over again.

If you're talking about "explicit statements" and "evidence" would you mind telling me who specifically has left because they specifically don't like working with "Uncle Les" or find it not pleasant?

And how might this compare with a similar level of discontent with a Jeremy Peace or a Franco Baldini or any other senior manager at any football club in Britain?

I havent read the rest of this thread so apologies if anyone else shot this down earlier as a pile of cräp sttacking the club.

 

Leicsters owners actually did accept the bid for Vardy, they never turned it down. They had to as Arsenal hit Vardy's release clause - Vardy however, decided the grass isn't greener on the otherside all the time (must have seen our ex players thread) and decided to stay and sign a new deal.

 

That second part I think may be worth a discussion as that is something I wish our players would do for once! But this BS you're spouting twisting it to fit your agenda when your facts are wrong is pretty idiotic if you can't even get the fact they didnt reject the bid right! Lol

I'm not sure I would be happy if Saints started chucking 4 year contracts at £100,000 a week at players on the strength of one good season that came pretty much out of nowhere. That's a high risk £20million