Kyle Walker

[Cornpattbuck]

He's been a great servant but sounds like it was the right time to move on for everyone - and that fee is just phenomenal.

Said it last night but it still sounds right in the light of day: not so long ago we were selling the best players in our team for much less - and normally there was only one standout star anyway! To sell one of our two really good right backs for a fee that would usually be paid for a match winner/leader is insane...

 

[Garbob]

Disappointed to see him go but as this is a sale Poch sanctioned i think we will be okay. Will be weird to see him in a rival shirt

 

[Cornpattbuck]

Got to love the press. The BBC have just taken their headline figure down to £45m while The Guardian have put there's up to £53m, haha. No idea...

 

[Stamford]

Utter disaster? Listen to yourself. However you rate Walker, we just got a world record fee for a player who wasn't in our starting XI at the end of the season. It can't even remotely be described as a disaster.

It's possible that he wasn't in the side because city had turned his head and not because of his ability. It's by no means a disaster but weakening our squad and strengthening a rival is hardly cause to be happy

 

[SUIYHA]

I wonder if our fans will boo him when we play City?

 

[sparx100]

I wonder if our fans will boo him when we play City?

I hope not. I think he has given enough service to the club to warrant a warm reception from the fans. We are getting a record fee for him as well and we bought him for peanuts plus it's not like he is running his contract down either so I just feel he deserves a bit more respect.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Got to love the press. The BBC have just taken their headline figure down to £45m while The Guardian have put there's up to £53m, haha. No idea...

The Times say this is the breakdown of the fee, so I suppose it can be interpreted in different ways:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-to-sign-50m-kyle-walker-from-spurs-k8wf88vtx

The Times understands that City have agreed to pay Spurs an initial fee of £45 million. In 12 months’ time, City will pay the London club an instalment of £5 million, with another £4 million due in add-ons

 

[Cornpattbuck]

The Times say this is the breakdown of the fee, so I suppose it can be interpreted in different ways:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-to-sign-50m-kyle-walker-from-spurs-k8wf88vtx

The Times understands that City have agreed to pay Spurs an initial fee of £45 million. In 12 months’ time, City will pay the London club an instalment of £5 million, with another £4 million due in add-ons

True, but that still makes the fee £50m as it's a definite instalment, so not sure why the BBC would have dropped their headline price this morning other than to stir the pot - or City having a friendly word for PR reasons...

Doesn't really matter, just got a day off and too much time on my hands, haha.

 

[dazzle]

https://twitter.com/SunMartinB/status/885764567481159680

#Mcfc say walker fee is £45m to be paid in instalments. Then max £5m in add ons. So it won't top £50m

 

[Deleted member 27995]

City seem to be trying hard this morning eh?

 

[double0]

So why not play him at the end of last season? Poch is a bit like Fergie, basically cross him and u can fuck off. Ur a fool if u think this is solely Levy's doing. Something went on, Poch said fuck you and here we are. Do you really think we sold Walker against his wishes?

For the record I am not a fool. I never insulted you so lets not get facety .

It's seems more likely that City tapped Walker up via his agent then let it be known he'd like to moved on at the end of season If Spurs weren't willing to match ManC , who obviously are prepared to double he's wages maybe spurs weren't willing to match that....so Poch rotated.

 

[E17yid]

https://twitter.com/SunMartinB/status/885764567481159680

#Mcfc say walker fee is £45m to be paid in instalments. Then max £5m in add ons. So it won't top £50m

With £5m going to Sheffield doesn't sound so great now. Especially as Everton netted £50m for Stones.

Fuck it. It's done now. Hopefully we can get a few quid off Perrera.

 

[fecka]

For the record I am not a fool. I never insulted you so lets not get facety .

It's seems more likely that City tapped Walker up via his agent then let it be known he'd like to moved on at the end of season If Spurs weren't willing to match ManC , who obviously are prepared to double he's wages maybe spurs weren't willing to match that....so Poch rotated.

Isn't the word that Walker had a falling out with Poch due to fitness issues? Poch saying that Walks had gotten a bit of a tummy and wanted him to lose it and Walker not taking it well. That together with City maybe tapping him up wouldn't surprise me seeing Poch's history with letting players go when he feels they're not giving a 100% for the team anymore.

 

[fecka]

With £5m going to Sheffield doesn't sound so great now. Especially as Everton netted £50m for Stones.

Fuck it. It's done now. Hopefully we can get a few quid off Perrera.

Trix(?) said something about sell-on clauses usually having an expiry date. It's been 9 years since he left Sheffield, are they really getting 10%?

 

[degoose]

It's possible that he wasn't in the side because city had turned his head and not because of his ability. It's by no means a disaster but weakening our squad and strengthening a rival is hardly cause to be happy

Near the end of the season and actually in the middle when Trippier was getting games a lot of it from what was being rumoured was Poch not believing that Walker could play 2 games a week to the high end that he wanted so needed to play Trippier. Supposedly Walker wasn't happy with this along with the fact he missed out on some champions league games and the FA cup semi final as well. I have a feeling Walker was not happy having to compete and possibly expected to be first in for the RB spot.

 

[Maxtremist]

With £5m going to Sheffield doesn't sound so great now. Especially as Everton netted £50m for Stones.

Fuck it. It's done now. Hopefully we can get a few quid off Perrera.

As much as a lot of of aren't that keen on Stones, to be fair to him Stones was more of the potential, thus that big a fee. 50mil for a 22 year old VS 50 mil for a 27 year old.

Not saying that I agree with it but that's part of the factor

 

[Cornpattbuck]

As much as a lot of of aren't that keen on Stones, to be fair to him Stones was more of the potential, thus that big a fee. 50mil for a 22 year old VS 50 mil for a 27 year old.

Not saying that I agree with it but that's part of the factor

Agreed. At the end of the day Rio Ferdinand went for around £30m 17 odd years ago. You can't compare transfers like for like really.

Whether Stones goes close to reaching his potential is beyond the point. City felt it was worth a punt on 'the future England captain' as a fair few were billing him.

 

[Challows]

With £5m going to Sheffield doesn't sound so great now. Especially as Everton netted £50m for Stones.

Fuck it. It's done now. Hopefully we can get a few quid off Perrera.

Barnsley had a pretty substantial sell on clause as well (plus Stones was £47.5m + Add Ons). So Everton didn't net that much

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-john-stones-sell-clause-11724342

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Trix(?) said something about sell-on clauses usually having an expiry date. It's been 9 years since he left Sheffield, are they really getting 10%?

This sell-on is too widely reported for it to be likely that it has expired. Even United's manager alluded this summer to being hopeful about getting the windfall.

 

[Ben1]

I don't believe a word City say about the price, seems the PR department is working overtime with the media. With us trying to buy replacements and city with a reputation to protect, slightly bumping down the fee to the media would be logical.