Daz wrote:

It's called a contract for a reason Flobs.

I understand that. But still. Contracts shouldn’t (and usually don’t) mean you have signed your life and future away. They are just documents which increase or limit the amount of control the club has on the player. Things change, situations around you change, your ambitions and opportunities change. The club can choose to let a player who has become disillusioned and dissatisfied with his situation move on- that’s what we did with Sanchez, that’s what Dortmund has done with Obama. We can’t turn around and get hypocritical now can we? Mahrez essentially is going to be a liability for the rest of the time he’s with Leicester, so what’s the point?

As an addendum, I don’t know Mahrez’ contract situation- how long he had left or whatnot. I don’t know if he had a gentlemen’s agreement with the club. I just feel it could’ve been handled much better by both parties.

I agree it could be handled better, but Mahrez signed a contract which sees him get paid very handsomely I'm sure. The club is entitled to not sell him for the duration of the contract (I also don't know any details about his contract so will assume no other clauses or gentlemen's agreements were broken), and particularly in Jan when they have fewer options and time to get a replacement. That's the risk for the player (not being free to do whatever the fuck they want while they're contracted), and the reward is a big, fat paycheck. No one forced him to sign and he should act like a professional and get on with it. And I don't think it's hypocritical because we got Auba. Dortmund were entitled to keep him but decided not to. That's their decision.

Poor Mahrez. Now he must go back to his six figure a week long term contract that he AGREED to.

Daz wrote:

And I don't think it's hypocritical because we got Auba. Dortmund were entitled to keep him but decided not to. That's their decision.

Dortmund held pretty firm on their price and eventually we coughed up enough to get the deal done. Leicester were doing the same with City but City wouldn't come close to their valuation. And City came in for Mahrez a lot later than we started dealing for Auba. The situations are similar, the details differ. There is no hypocrisy there.

Dortmund did not hold firm though, the eventual fee was a good 10m off their original valuation

Not sure we're in a position to judge what Mahrez is doing. I remember earlier this season Leicester fans (and others as well) were heaping praise on him for staying with the club and playing out of his skin despite being denied his move to Roma which was pretty close to being finalised at some point - Leicesters valuation of his being the eventual reason it fell through. Now he sees another CL club coming in for him and after the praise he's got and the performances he's put in he again is denied by the club

It's understandable as it was way too late in the window and LC are entitled to look out for the club's interest first, his departure would've seriously derailed their season. At the same time he's right to feel hard done by as he most likely will have heard promises from the club that the next club with a reasonable offer will be listened to

His salary at Leicester does not come into this at all. That's money the club only has because of his performances over the last three years, he's entitled to it 100% even if he throws a tantrum to leave

Apparently someone close to him leaked that's he's been told he'll be allowed yo leave for the past 4 transfer windows. If that's true you can see why's he's angry. They really got a great offer for him.

Fuck City. They think they can bully every team in the league into handing over their players. I’m glad they didn’t get Sanchez or Mahrez this window. We enabled them all those years ago by giving them so many of our players. We helped legitimize them by giving them every b-grade player they came asking for, helping them evolve from a team of Irelands and SWPs. Now they just go around with a bag of cash, buying £50m fullbacks. And their beady-eyed manager refuses to name a full squad because he can’t field enough galactico types. Bravo Leicester. Mahrez must see out his contract. He shouldn’t sign contracts he doesn’t intend to fulfil. Until it expires, Leicester is at liberty to Bame any price, no matter how ludicrous

Claudius wrote:

Guck City. They think they can bully every team in the league into handing over their players. I’m glad they didn’t get Sanchez or Mahrez this window. We enabled them all those years ago by giving them so many of our players. We helped legitimize them by giving them every b-grade player they came asking for, helping them evolve from a team of Irelands and SWPs. Now they just go around with a bag of cash, buying £50m fullbacks. And their beady-eyed manager refuses to name a full squad because he can’t field enough galactico types. Bravo Leicester. Mahrez must see out his contract. He shouldn’t sign contracts he doesn’t intend to fulfil. Until it expires, Leicester is at liberty to Bame any price, no matter how ludicrous

We set them back years. Our players were awlful for them

Kolo
Ade
Nasri
Clichy
All horrific

Sanga (bang average)

They were on their way up when we sold them most of those players. They had to buy their way onto our level before they could overtake us.

You can't go from Darius Vassell and Joey Barton straight to Sergio Agüero and Yaya Toure, you need the likes of Adebayor and Nasri for a gradual transition.

Nasri wasn't part of any sort of transition. He went straight into a team with Silva, Aguero and Dzeko. His sale was the one that marked the shift in power in my opinion. They took from us a player integral to our first team and won the league with him playing more than 30 games for them.

The reason its taking them so long to look as good as they do now is due to us selling them so many flops. Mancini said he really wants to punch nasri in the face. thats now little effort he put in for them. He took zero responsibility on the pitch.

If they didn't buy those flops from us they could have got far superior players elsewhere. We held them back years. sanga the only one who was half decent for them was bought to replace zabeleta because his legs were gone arteta style. Even still they were both in and out of the team.

Tambourine Man wrote:

Nasri wasn't part of any sort of transition. He went straight into a team with Silva, Aguero and Dzeko. His sale was the one that marked the shift in power in my opinion. They took from us a player integral to our first team and won the league with him playing more than 30 games for them.

What you're describing there is the transition. It's the very last part of it, but it's still part of their transition from a lower-half/midtable club to a serious contender/title winner.

speedy wrote:

The reason its taking them so long to look as good as they do now is due to us selling them so many flops. Mancini said he really wants to punch nasri in the face. thats now little effort he put in for them. He took zero responsibility on the pitch.

If they didn't buy those flops from us they could have got far superior players elsewhere. We held them back years. sanga the only one who was half decent for them was bought to replace zabeleta because his legs were gone arteta style. Even still they were both in and out of the team.

The first part is because players went there mostly because of the money. They didn't have a winning culture within the club. That's not something that you can create overnight.

I'm not sure about the bolded bit. The players they got from us were already accustomed to the league and by buying from us, they directly weakened their rival. It doesn't really matter that they didn't perhaps perform to their best of abilities, it established them as one of the big boys in the league. Sent a message out to top players looking towards the PL from the outside.

Adebayor was decent for them in his first season there and irrelevant in his second. Nasri had his moments too. Clichy was better than Gibbs and Santos. Its not like we sold them a bunch of Welbecks.

Est is right, we helped them along their transition. Thats why they paid decent money for most of those players.

jones wrote:

Dortmund did not hold firm though, the eventual fee was a good 10m off their original valuation

How much higher was it than Arsenals first bid? You understand what negotiations are right?

Holding firm means not moving from your point of view or valuation, Zorc explicitly said either meet the figure of 70m+ Euros or no deal, we eventually paid 63m. That's textbook negotiation but obviously not "holding firm" in any sense of the word

Don't be so pedantic, they held firm until they got a bid that suited them, that was the point.

fuck off I'm not being pedantic. Dortmund have said from day one the price is 70m and kept leaking to the press that our negotiation tactics were insulting, eventually they caved in. That's literally the exact opposite of holding firm on your valuation.

I don't think it's especially hypocritical or anything, I'm saying the situations are different. Dortmund didn't sell him because we met their valuation but because they wanted to start over without Aubameyang ruining the dressing room, Watzke's comments in the media today confirm it.

jones doesn't like Dortmund. :doh: