What's new

Player watch: Christian Eriksen

TheAmerican

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2012
6,909
18,760
When we signed Eriksen for the paltry sum of £10m, there was always a mixture of "What? How have we pulled this off" vs. "Is there something about him that has meant the big clubs didn't go for him?"

He's really grown at Spurs into one of the world's best midfielders and unfortunately for us, with our financial restrictions we may not have peaked when he has. He's at the stage of his career where "the big move" is now ripe for him to take and the contract scenario has fallen in his favour. The fact he has not signed a new contract is ominous and certainly unless we show some significant level of ambition in the short term (investing to win the league or even progressing far into the CL), we won't be able to convince him to stay.

And I don't think we will be able to match his ambition now. Perhaps in a year, or two but not right now. And it's likely the Big Boys (Madrid, Barcelona or even the likes of Juve or PSG) will come calling. But that's ok. What we need is to plan for that eventuality and identify a top, top quality replacement. It may turn out to be a good thing.

On Isco - I was never convinced he actually wanted to come to Spurs. Has there been any sign of that at all? Forget the ££, does he want to come to the Premier League or to Spurs?
Per many Ajax fans on reddit, they have a 20% sell on clause, hence the low fee (at the time).
 

Primativ

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
3,229
12,486
Per many Ajax fans on reddit, they have a 20% sell on clause, hence the low fee (at the time).

I'm not sure if it was posted here, but there an an article in the Mail I think, which said we are considering letting Eriksen go on a free in 2020 if he doesn't sign a new deal, rather than selling him in the summer. The reasoning is, he is basically irreplaceable, and to attempt to replace him would cost at least 50 million, plus wages and signing on fee's which would probably total another 10 million over 5 years. Set against that would be the low balling offer which Madrid will propose, seeing as Eriksen will have just 12 months left on his contract.

If the 20% sell on clause is true, that makes it even less appealing to sell him in the summer, as the money we will get will be negligible, say it costs us 70 million to replace Eriksen in total, we may only pocket around that from Madrid, so there is no incentive. When you consider the value to having Eriksen in the side for another 12 months, the fact that we signed him for such little money originally, and all the other variables, and the fact any new signing we make could equal chance be a flop or a success, it makes little sense to cash in (in the loosest possible term) in the summer.

I could very well see us letting him go on a free if he doesn't extend his contract. I would be interested to know the financial incentives if Levy did cash in on him, because form the outside looking in, I don't see any advantages whatsoever.

In essence, there are huge sporting advantages in letting Eriksen wind down his contract, and there are zero financial incentives to selling him in the summer. The only possible reason to sell would be if we had indentified a ready made younger replacement for Eriksen who would slot straight in and be brilliant, but I find that hugely unlikely, especially with our recent track record of failing to secure our primary targets.

What do the rest of you think?
 
Last edited:

DJS

A hoonter must hoont
Dec 9, 2006
31,261
21,760
I'm not sure if it was posted here, but there an an article in the Mail I think, which said we are considering letting Eriksen go on a free in 2020 if he doesn't sign a new deal, rather than selling him in the summer. The reasoning is, he is basically irreplaceable, and to attempt to replace him would cost at least 50 million, plus wages and signing on fee's which would probably total another 10 million over 5 years. Set against that would be the low balling offer which Madrid will propose, seeing as Eriksen will have just 12 months left on his contract.

If the 20% sell on clause is true, that makes it even less appealing to sell him in the summer, as the money we will get will be negligible, say it costs us 70 million to replace Eriksen in total, we may only pocket around that from Madrid, so there is no incentive. When you consider the value to having Eriksen in the side for another 12 months, the fact that we signed him for such little money originally, and all the other variables, and the fact any new signing we make could equal chance be a flop or a success, it makes little sense to cash in (in the loosest possible term) in the summer.

I could very well see us letting him go on a free if he doesn't extend his contract. I would be interested to know the financial incentives if Levy did cash in on him, because form the outside looking in, I don't see any advantages whatsoever.

What do the rest of you think?

I'd say keep him.

The quality he brings to the team will not be easily replaced where we are at moment.

But in another 18 months hopefully we will have stepped up even more so will have more financial muscle and be even more appealing so able to both afford and attract a quality replacement.
 

Primativ

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
3,229
12,486
I'd say keep him.

The quality he brings to the team will not be easily replaced where we are at moment.

But in another 18 months hopefully we will have stepped up even more so will have more financial muscle and be even more appealing so able to both afford and attract a quality replacement.

Exactly. Also, keeping Eriksen for next season makes it even more likely for us to achieve sporting success, and also gives us more time to identify a hopefully secure his replacement.
 

MarkyP

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2008
555
955
Makes no sense for the stuff in the press to be coming from Eriksen's side. Why would they be doing it? if he has rejected our contract and has his heart set on leaving - Its not like his people would be using it to drum up more money from Levy, as apparently money isnt the issue. And its not like Madrid/Barca etc wouldnt know his contract situation.
 

robertgoulet

SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2013
3,610
12,552
Makes no sense for the stuff in the press to be coming from Eriksen's side. Why would they be doing it? if he has rejected our contract and has his heart set on leaving - Its not like his people would be using it to drum up more money from Levy, as apparently money isnt the issue. And its not like Madrid/Barca etc wouldnt know his contract situation.

They don't want it to look like he's being greedy and leaving bc he's not getting paid, so they say he's been offered enough but his dream has always been to eventually play for RM or Barca.
 

JayB

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,652
26,046
Makes no sense for the stuff in the press to be coming from Eriksen's side. Why would they be doing it? if he has rejected our contract and has his heart set on leaving - Its not like his people would be using it to drum up more money from Levy, as apparently money isnt the issue. And its not like Madrid/Barca etc wouldnt know his contract situation.
Let's say he desperately wants to move to one of the Spanish giants as the final stage of his progression as a player (going back to his quotes when he joined us in 2014, this has always been the plan), and Madrid are at a crossroads. By investing overwhelmingly in young talents over the past few years they've demonstrated that even they are operating on something of a budget in the absurdity of the current market, and as it stands they could direct those resources to any number of positions. They could really do with replacements for all of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale, and Modric, none of which will come cheap.

By putting this stuff out there in the press, Eriksen's camp are signaling to Madrid to take a look at bringing him in as opposed to some of the other mega-signings they might be weighing up as alternatives.
 

MarkyP

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2008
555
955
Let's say he desperately wants to move to one of the Spanish giants as the final stage of his progression as a player (going back to his quotes when he joined us in 2014, this has always been the plan), and Madrid are at a crossroads. By investing overwhelmingly in young talents over the past few years they've demonstrated that even they are operating on something of a budget in the absurdity of the current market, and as it stands they could direct those resources to any number of positions. They could really do with replacements for all of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale, and Modric, none of which will come cheap.

By putting this stuff out there in the press, Eriksen's camp are signaling to Madrid to take a look at bringing him in as opposed to some of the other mega-signings they might be weighing up as alternatives.

Yeah that makes sense, but I doubt that if Eriksen's people wanted to suggest that to Madrid, they would do it via the British media... im sure they are talking direct, or via an intermediary
 

DFF

YOLO, Daniel
May 17, 2005
14,225
6,090
For me it hinges on what we’d do with the money. If we’re guaranteed to plough it all back in to a single direct replacement (yeah I know), then I’d be ok with it. We’d have to replace him in 12 months anyway.

If not, and the money goes into the piggy bank and we take a couple of £30m punts (more likely), then I’d rather just hold on to him.
 

pablo73

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2006
3,978
13,596
I'm not sure if it was posted here, but there an an article in the Mail I think, which said we are considering letting Eriksen go on a free in 2020 if he doesn't sign a new deal, rather than selling him in the summer. The reasoning is, he is basically irreplaceable, and to attempt to replace him would cost at least 50 million, plus wages and signing on fee's which would probably total another 10 million over 5 years. Set against that would be the low balling offer which Madrid will propose, seeing as Eriksen will have just 12 months left on his contract.

If the 20% sell on clause is true, that makes it even less appealing to sell him in the summer, as the money we will get will be negligible, say it costs us 70 million to replace Eriksen in total, we may only pocket around that from Madrid, so there is no incentive. When you consider the value to having Eriksen in the side for another 12 months, the fact that we signed him for such little money originally, and all the other variables, and the fact any new signing we make could equal chance be a flop or a success, it makes little sense to cash in (in the loosest possible term) in the summer.

I could very well see us letting him go on a free if he doesn't extend his contract. I would be interested to know the financial incentives if Levy did cash in on him, because form the outside looking in, I don't see any advantages whatsoever.

In essence, there are huge sporting advantages in letting Eriksen wind down his contract, and there are zero financial incentives to selling him in the summer. The only possible reason to sell would be if we had indentified a ready made younger replacement for Eriksen who would slot straight in and be brilliant, but I find that hugely unlikely, especially with our recent track record of failing to secure our primary targets.

What do the rest of you think?

There is absolutely no way on this earth that Levy will let Eriksen run his contract down. The attempt to replace him is still going to cost as much in 18 months time, maybe more if transfer fees keep increasing. I'd be happy to see him run his contract down to get another 18 months out of him but absolutely zero chance that Levy sanctions that, IMHO.
 

viktorviktor

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2014
398
1,827
swap for modders and Bale? Anyone?

No thanks. We need to invest in young players, not taking in players past their prime. Like it or not, developing players is a part of our business model, and we can't afford to "spend" about 100m (Eriksens value) on players with no resale value.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
May 26, 2004
9,413
11,620
No thanks. We need to invest in young players, not taking in players past their prime. Like it or not, developing players is a part of our business model, and we can't afford to "spend" about 100m (Eriksens value) on players with no resale value.
Not saying it's realistic to have Modric and Bale one bit, on the other hand... what if Madrid refuse to pay in cash? What if Eriksen decides to run his contract down instead and leave on a free or as close to...?

Would we not consider it then? After all, apparently Eriksen only wants one team, so if he doesn't sign a new contract with us, we HAVE to do something and soon.

Just playing devil's advocate though, I for one don't think the above scenario is remotely realistic.
 

DiscoD1882

SC Supporter
Mar 27, 2006
6,934
14,669
No thanks. We need to invest in young players, not taking in players past their prime. Like it or not, developing players is a part of our business model, and we can't afford to "spend" about 100m (Eriksens value) on players with no resale value.
Modric is easily the closest comparrison to Eriksen out there. I would have him. And Bale is Certainly not over the hill bu any strecth of the imagination. Just needs to get Pocky fit. he has lost his vigour out there. he needs a challenge again. I would have them both.
 

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2004
17,799
23,813
Would take Modric back in a heartbeat.

Can't see it happening but would love it.

Isco, is not gonna replace Eriksen going the other way. (although i wouldn't be adverse to having him here either)
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,129
146,008
Hard to see an upside to losing the lynch pin of our team. Yes it will be good to get a top player in return, but it’s still a massive blow imo. Modric is the only player I could see coming from Madrid and filling the same role as Eriksen in the team, and even then it’s going to mean changing how we play.
 

yido_number1

He'll always be magic
Jun 8, 2004
8,645
16,810
Didn't JJ laugh at the prospect of an Isco Eriksen swap? Can't see Modric or Bale coming back either. Going to make interesting watching regardless.
 
Top