Aymeric Laporte

[Ron Burgundy]

Before going to Saudi, he could play at the top level for a few more years. I don't see any player going off to Saudi and returning at a competitive level.

You are effectively going to Saudi for the money; what else does it offer that you can't get where you currently are, as a rich footballer?

Beheadings?

 

[ButchCassidy]

Haven't we already done that in the key areas:

Attacking midfield
Winger
Centre back
Goalkeeper

Yes we could do with a another attacker and centre back but we've been fairly decisive sorting our key positions this window. Trying to flog our deadwood now before a final splurge in the last week(when the majority of business is always done by most teams) or so is not the disaster all you doom mongers are making out to be.

Selling Kane changed the math though. Before that it was shaping up to be a really solid window and I would have had no issue with a couple opportunistic additions after outs. Now we’ve lost our only superstar and despite it taking weeks it doesn’t actually look like we had a real plan to replace him which is pretty shit.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Selling Kane changed the math though. Before that it was shaping up to be a really solid window and I would have had no issue with a couple opportunistic additions after outs. Now we’ve lost our only superstar and despite it taking weeks it doesn’t actually look like we had a real plan to replace him which is pretty shit.

Ange seemed to intimate that we had been shaping the squad for life after Kane while he was still here. We probably will spend more but it seems there was a plan on what direction to take the squad already.

 

[ButchCassidy]

Ange seemed to intimate that we had been shaping the squad for life after Kane while he was still here. We probably will spend more but it seems there was a plan on what direction to take the squad already.

Sure but there should have been a plan for spending this windows budget and a plan for spending Kane’s fee if Bayern came up with the money. Our existing business could have been one or the other but it certainly isn’t both.

 

[kd2000]

This is beginning to shape into one of the biggest fluster clucks of Levy's reign. Selling Kane. And then not having ducks in a row, is poor planning. Yes, there is two weeks of the window to go, but if the hold-up is getting players out... that's criminally incompetent on Levy's behalf. As we should be front-and-center for Laporte, given our recent windfall. But instead of seizing the moment, we've handicapped ourselves with unrealistic expectations.

I know Levy has fiscal responsibilities. But at what cost? There comes a point where you have to simply accept a loss, and move on. Rather than wait for the right price, and lose out on targets in the process. He's not making life easy for the new manager, that's for sure. And the fans are feeling the brunt of his ongoing limitations when it comes to the footballing side of the club.

There are no excuses. No forgiveness.

He has to go.

Maybe the ducks were in a row in the form of Vicario, VDV and Madison plus an added bonus of Soloman?
Maybe the recent windfall wasnt such a windfall and Baldy is using that to help account for previous purchases which we all assumed were already accounted for such as Kulu and Porro.
Also, how creative have we been with other deals? maybe we are paying big chunks of older transfers this summer?

Who knows how Levy justifies things?

 

[canadacelt]

Time to start ripping up contracts

Agreed, but may as well wait until all other options exhausted, Saudi window closes later too so some teams there may want to fill out their squads with some better known names

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Sure but there should have been a plan for spending this windows budget and a plan for spending Kane’s fee if Bayern came up with the money. Our existing business could have been one or the other but it certainly isn’t both.

How do you know there isn’t a plan for spending more money? Seems to me we’re just trying to trim our squad down from it’s ridiculous number it has got to before committing anymore money. I know we’re all having fun discussing money that isn’t ours but it seems pretty sensible to get rid of players off the wage bill first before spending more tens of millions

 

[danny32]

Sure but there should have been a plan for spending this windows budget and a plan for spending Kane’s fee if Bayern came up with the money. Our existing business could have been one or the other but it certainly isn’t both.

I thought it was mentioned somewhere that 'Project Kane' would be put into operation once Kane was sold. Didn't realise that the project was to sell more players.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I thought it was mentioned somewhere that 'Project Kane' would be put into operation once Kane was sold. Didn't realise that the project was to sell more players.

"Project Kane" was something someone made up - it was not from the club.

 

[sundanceyid10]

This is beginning to shape into one of the biggest fluster clucks of Levy's reign. Selling Kane. And then not having ducks in a row, is poor planning. Yes, there is two weeks of the window to go, but if the hold-up is getting players out... that's criminally incompetent on Levy's behalf. As we should be front-and-center for Laporte, given our recent windfall. But instead of seizing the moment, we've handicapped ourselves with unrealistic expectations.

I know Levy has fiscal responsibilities. But at what cost? There comes a point where you have to simply accept a loss, and move on. Rather than wait for the right price, and lose out on targets in the process. He's not making life easy for the new manager, that's for sure. And the fans are feeling the brunt of his ongoing limitations when it comes to the footballing side of the club.

There are no excuses. No forgiveness.

He has to go.

Levy has a plan? news to me. He makes it up as he goes along.

 

[ItsBoris]

Ha! That's how my wife goes shopping. She gets a good deal on a handbag, so then spends more on shoes (so never actually realises any kind of saving)

I wish she was running the club tbh

 

[spursville]

Ha! That's how my wife goes shopping. She gets a good deal on a handbag, so then spends more on shoes (so never actually realises any kind of saving)

Are the shoes a metaphor for Spence and Richarlison is the handbag or is it the other way round?

 

[Neon_Knight_]

This is beginning to shape into one of the biggest fluster clucks of Levy's reign. Selling Kane. And then not having ducks in a row, is poor planning. Yes, there is two weeks of the window to go, but if the hold-up is getting players out... that's criminally incompetent on Levy's behalf. As we should be front-and-center for Laporte, given our recent windfall. But instead of seizing the moment, we've handicapped ourselves with unrealistic expectations.

I know Levy has fiscal responsibilities. But at what cost? There comes a point where you have to simply accept a loss, and move on. Rather than wait for the right price, and lose out on targets in the process. He's not making life easy for the new manager, that's for sure. And the fans are feeling the brunt of his ongoing limitations when it comes to the footballing side of the club.

There are no excuses. No forgiveness.

He has to go.

I'm not content with how this window is going either, but...

Anyone reading your post who didn't know better would think Levy has been operating a strict "one in, one out" policy, which really isn't the case.
Over the last four transfer windows (including this summer), we have recruited twice as many players as we've sold / released. Rather than new signings being embargoed, our squad has grown in each of those windows.
There has to be some limit on how many players we can sign without moving anyone on though and it appears that we've probably now reached that limit.

You've mentioned that Levy needs to "simply accept a loss". I'm struggling to think of the last player we moved on without it being for below the player's market value (I would guess that either Poch or Mourinho would have been manager at the time).
This window and last:

• Moura released due to contract expiring.
• Winks sold for a fraction of what he would be worth if starting in a CM3 regularly, due to being out of form and out of favour.
• Kane sold for below market value, due to running down contract / transfer request.
• Rodon loaned out again, without an obligation to buy, because we couldn't sell him.
• Doherty released (paid to leave), to facilitate the signing of Porro that our manager wanted so desperately.

There's a difference between accepting calculated losses (which Levy has done, as is clearly evidenced by recent departures) and habitually accepting lowball offers without robust negotiations (which Levy will not and should not do). The latter is not sustainable and would set a precedent that makes it harder for us to sell players at (or close to) market value in the future.

You've mentioned a "recent windfall", but realistically Levy had already factored a transfer fee for Kane into his budgeting, so it is expected revenue rather than a windfall.
Our net spend over the past two years is almost £200m (nearly half of that incurred summer). I don't know about you, but I think a net spend of £100m per year is roughly what we should be spending.

You've stated that "not having ducks in a row is poor planning", but perhaps we're not actively wanting to sign Laporte (we've already signed a LCB this month) or to replace Kane with a proven player (we already spent big money on a CF last summer, which I've long thought was our succession plan for Kane despite personally not thinking Richarlison is prolific enough, plus have already signed Maddison who replaces some of Kane's creativity).
The ITK and rumours about Laporte started before Ange's time. What makes you so confident that Ange is desperate for us to sign Laporte? What makes you so confident that Ange didn't choose VDV over him, due to his youth and superior pace? What makes you think we spent circa £35m on VDV with the intention of him being our back-up LCB?
The fact that you (we) would like the club to sign Laporte doesn't mean that the manager wants him. The fact that you (we) think the squad desperately needs another quality CB doesn't necessarily mean that it's something the manager sees as a priority. Maybe Ange doesn't see Laporte as the ideal LCB for his team and is not only content with VDV starting but asked the club to prioritise him as his top LCB target - after all, we know Ange likes working with young players and that .
Maybe if we sold a CB who Ange doesn't want to keep (e.g. Dier), our manager's priority would be to sign a young LCB as back-up to VDV, rather than an older more proven player who would only be content with displacing VDV.

 

[kd2000]

I'm not content with how this window is going either, but...

Anyone reading your post who didn't know better would think Levy has been operating a strict "one in, one out" policy, which really isn't the case.
Over the last four transfer windows (including this summer), we have recruited twice as many players as we've sold / released. Rather than new signings being embargoed, our squad has grown in each of those windows.
There has to be some limit on how many players we can sign without moving anyone on though and it appears that we've probably now reached that limit.

You've mentioned that Levy needs to "simply accept a loss". I'm struggling to think of the last player we moved on without it being for below the player's market value (I would guess that either Poch or Mourinho would have been manager at the time).
This window and last:

• Moura released due to contract expiring.
• Winks sold for a fraction of what he would be worth if starting in a CM3 regularly, due to being out of form and out of favour.
• Kane sold for below market value, due to running down contract / transfer request.
• Rodon loaned out again, without an obligation to buy, because we couldn't sell him.
• Doherty released (paid to leave), to facilitate the signing of Porro that our manager wanted so desperately.

There's a difference between accepting calculated losses (which Levy has done, as is clearly evidenced by recent departures) and habitually accepting lowball offers without robust negotiations (which Levy will not and should not do). The latter is not sustainable and would set a precedent that makes it harder for us to sell players at (or close to) market value in the future.

You've mentioned a "recent windfall", but realistically Levy had already factored a transfer fee for Kane into his budgeting, so it is expected revenue rather than a windfall.
Our net spend over the past two years is almost £200m (nearly half of that incurred summer). I don't know about you, but I think a net spend of £100m per year is roughly what we should be spending.

You've stated that "not having ducks in a row is poor planning", but perhaps we're not actively wanting to sign Laporte (we've already signed a LCB this month) or to replace Kane with a proven player (we already spent big money on a CF last summer, which I've long thought was our succession plan for Kane despite personally not thinking Richarlison is prolific enough, plus have already signed Maddison who replaces some of Kane's creativity).
The ITK and rumours about Laporte started before Ange's time. What makes you so confident that Ange is desperate for us to sign Laporte? What makes you so confident that Ange didn't choose VDV over him, due to his youth and superior pace? What makes you think we spent circa £35m on VDV with the intention of him being our back-up LCB?
The fact that you (we) would like the club to sign Laporte doesn't mean that the manager wants him. The fact that you (we) think the squad desperately needs another quality CB doesn't necessarily mean that it's something the manager sees as a priority. Maybe Ange doesn't see Laporte as the ideal LCB for his team and is not only content with VDV starting but asked the club to prioritise him as his top LCB target - after all, we know Ange likes working with young players and that .
Maybe if we sold a CB who Ange doesn't want to keep (e.g. Dier), our manager's priority would be to sign a young LCB as back-up to VDV, rather than an older more proven player who would only be content with displacing VDV.

Good Job

 

[philll]

 

[robotsonic]

Welp, not much you can do against that kind of ridiculous wage.

 

[PaulThurston]

I suppose he plays for City so has won everything and already processed the moral arguments so it's just about where he wants to play his football and how much money he can make in the rest of his career. If the money is his priority then a project with us is unlikely to be enough of a pull, sadly.

Pity. I think he'd have been good for us.

 

[Japhet]

Obscene money and blatant sports washing. I hope to fuck they never get into any major tournaments.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Obscene money and blatant sports washing. I hope to fuck they never get into any major tournaments.

The transfer fee is pretty modest and seems in line with market rates. The salary is triple what Man City was paying him though.

 

[Dirty Ewok]

I suppose he plays for City so has won everything and already processed the moral arguments so it's just about where he wants to play his football and how much money he can make in the rest of his career. If the money is his priority then a project with us is unlikely to be enough of a pull, sadly.

Pity. I think he'd have been good for us.

From what a City supporter told me.

He wanted to go back to Spain to play. But ran into the problem that there is exactly 1 team that wouldn't have to sell players and get creative with accounting to bring him in, and that 1 team that can afford him doesn't want him.

So, when Saudi came in and offered him a king's ransom he took the king's ransom.