Hmmm....Does the latest Tarkowski bid of £35m (inc add ons) tell us the Board are planning to sell Rice?

[terrya1965]

In a very unpleasant moment, the horrible thought (headline above) just occurred to me.... My thinking:

£35m on just 1 player? What about the others we need - LB especially? We only got 26 odd milllion for players who have been sold, so there's a big shortfall - especially if we are to buy a LB...and reserve striker....all which, I suspect, would be funded by the sale of Rice....It is the only scenario that seems to make sense.... What do you reckon?
I HOPE I'M WRONG!

Rice has become SO good, he's basically been doing the job of 2 midfielders IMO = all the way across the defensive midfield (left, right and centre)....in that, if you wanted to find a replacement, it would probably need 2 midfield players.... Yes?

IE At the end of last season, with Rice, I think we were basically able to play 4-1 (= Rice) - 4 (= Fornals, Soucek, Noble, Bowen) - 1 (= Antonio/Haller).
This allowed us to be very attack minded, and we scored pot-fulls of goals.

HOWEVER, without Rice we'd need to be, say, 4-2 (= Cullen Soucek) - 3 (= Fornals/Anderson, Noble/Lanzini, Bowen/Yarmolenko - 1 (= Haller/ Antonio)
= Far less attack minded, and could cost us at both ends: Continuing to let in goals but not scoring as many....Oooh dear; NOT good!

So Rice leaving could well turnout to be disastrous.

And, could Cullen step up to the plate now? He's been v impressive, but good enough for the Prem? As such, I do have quite high hopes for him; Cullen could turn out to be a revelation...but not likely to be as good as Rice, eh?

I also do have high hopes for Johnson. I think Johnson's woeful performance v Bournemouth was a protest at Grady going. He was impressive again v Charlton

No good crying over spilt milk, BUT I wish we'd not sold Grady, and struggled on by scoring more goals than we concede this season, and then looking to re-enforce the defence next summer. Agree? ....(Too late now of course.... Grrrrr!)

Well, what do you reckon on that little lot, folks?

Rice will leave one day either this summer or in one of the next two windows. It will always happen to players like him. Players like that leave Leicester to go to top 4 clubs so its not like we are any different.

We may or may not sell Rice but the above has absolutely no bearing on whether we do. As for him being SO good. He is a good player yes but I believe we hype him up because he is at our club and shines in that MF. I believe Chelsea are not convinced he is worth £80m. I think he probably is but mainly because of the English tax that seems to be on players.

You mention £35m on one player. That is not a huge amount for an English capped player. There is always a premium on players who are English and I just think Moyes wants the player.

As for Johnson playing badly v Bournemouth as a protest ? Thats laughable conspiracy theory. Its more likely that he is a young player and will have good and bad games.

Grady Diangana may turn out to be a good player or a poor one....time will tell. My guess is he will be like Stanislas and be an average PL player. I wouldn't have sold him but I wont lose sleep over it.

As for Cullen....too early to tell but a different type of player in my opinion.

There is a lot of difference between Leicester and us though.

They have an infrastructure. When they sell,they have a ready made replacementAs you know,we just buy anyone that will come to us for a substantial wage. That`s how they do business...25 years,they have been in the game and on the Footballing side,they still have no idea.Pretty damning tbh.

[Flairon]

The answer would be:

NO, it does not.

[h69]

Rice will leave one day either this summer or in one of the next two windows. It will always happen to players like him. Players like that leave Leicester to go to top 4 clubs so its not like we are any different.

We may or may not sell Rice but the above has absolutely no bearing on whether we do. As for him being SO good. He is a good player yes but I believe we hype him up because he is at our club and shines in that MF. I believe Chelsea are not convinced he is worth £80m. I think he probably is but mainly because of the English tax that seems to be on players.

You mention £35m on one player. That is not a huge amount for an English capped player. There is always a premium on players who are English and I just think Moyes wants the player.

As for Johnson playing badly v Bournemouth as a protest ? Thats laughable conspiracy theory. Its more likely that he is a young player and will have good and bad games.

Grady Diangana may turn out to be a good player or a poor one....time will tell. My guess is he will be like Stanislas and be an average PL player. I wouldn't have sold him but I wont lose sleep over it.

As for Cullen....too early to tell but a different type of player in my opinion.

There is a lot of difference between Leicester and us though.

They have an infrastructure. When they sell,they have a ready made replacementAs you know,we just buy anyone that will come to us for a substantial wage. That`s how they do business...25 years,they have been in the game and on the Footballing side,they still have no idea.Pretty damning tbh.

Yes but my point is that even with all that, they lose players to the top 4 so if we do, its not something that is shocking or even unexpected.

Rice will leave one day like Chilwell and Kante left Leicester.....it is the way the PL works now. With all the money up the top end, we are all feeder clubs for the teams in the European League (Still laughably called the Champions League) but hey, at least we get Red Mondays and Super Sundays eh ?

[Whiskyman]

There is a lot of difference between Leicester and us though.

They have an infrastructure. When they sell,they have a ready made replacementAs you know,we just buy anyone that will come to us for a substantial wage. That`s how they do business...25 years,they have been in the game and on the Footballing side,they still have no idea.Pretty damning tbh.

Yes but my point is that even with all that, they lose players to the top 4 so if we do, its not something that is shocking or even unexpected.

Rice will leave one day like Chilwell and Kante left Leicester.....it is the way the PL works now. With all the money up the top end, we are all feeder clubs for the teams in the European League (Still laughably called the Champions League) but hey, at least we get Red Mondays and Super Sundays eh ?

It's the way the PL works now ?. Has the top division not always worked like that ? Did Spurs not take Martin Peters from us back in the early 70s ? The top players have always gravitated toward the top clubs. And I suspect they always will. Money has always talked. Clubs like West Ham have never been able to compete financially with the Manchester Uniteds of the world. When they come knocking the Paul Inces will leave.

Even great club sides like the Manchester United so called "Class of 92 team" with a core of home produced players and, more recently the Barcelona side that won the Champions League in 2009 and 2011 with 5 La Masia produced players were supplemented by expensive signings. It has always been that way hasn't it ?

[h69]

Yes but my point is that even with all that, they lose players to the top 4 so if we do, its not something that is shocking or even unexpected.

Rice will leave one day like Chilwell and Kante left Leicester.....it is the way the PL works now. With all the money up the top end, we are all feeder clubs for the teams in the European League (Still laughably called the Champions League) but hey, at least we get Red Mondays and Super Sundays eh ?

It's the way the PL works now ?. Has the top division not always worked like that ? Did Spurs not take Martin Peters from us back in the early 70s ? The top players have always gravitated toward the top clubs. And I suspect they always will. Money has always talked. Clubs like West Ham have never been able to compete financially with the Manchester Uniteds of the world. When they come knocking the Paul Inces will leave.

Even great club sides like the Manchester United so called "Class of 92 team" with a core of home produced players and, more recently the Barcelona side that won the Champions League in 2009 and 2011 with 5 La Masia produced players were supplemented by expensive signings. It has always been that way hasn't it ?

No mate....it is very different

Players have always been cherry picked of course but the issue now of course is that players are hoarded at the top 4 clubs. I am pretty sure that Liverpool, Leeds and Spurs did not have 45 young kids on their books out on loan like Chelsea (almost 50), Man City (40) and Liverpool (35)

In the early days, more clubs had a tilt at the European trophies and especially at the FA cup. Look at the number of FA cup winners that were from outside the top 4 and then look at how many there have been since about 1995. Same with UEFA football.

As for Man United - Some of their players like Beckham were farmed from other parts of the country but I dont see that any more do you ? Chelsea tried it last season because they had a ban but low and behold have replaced them with expensive foreign players.

Barcelona are really the last team that really try and produce players from La Masia but you can already see change there.

I get you like the game now and we wont agree on this. I think it is the sport that has been removed from the game now. No fans, no atmosphere and no competition really. What do teams like us and everyone else below the top 6 have to play for other than to stay up and even if you get into Europe, there are so many games that it is geared towards the richer clubs and do CL teams drop in still just to give them more of a chance of getting richer ?

[Whiskyman]

It's the way the PL works now ?. Has the top division not always worked like that ? Did Spurs not take Martin Peters from us back in the early 70s ? The top players have always gravitated toward the top clubs. And I suspect they always will. Money has always talked. Clubs like West Ham have never been able to compete financially with the Manchester Uniteds of the world. When they come knocking the Paul Inces will leave.

Even great club sides like the Manchester United so called "Class of 92 team" with a core of home produced players and, more recently the Barcelona side that won the Champions League in 2009 and 2011 with 5 La Masia produced players were supplemented by expensive signings. It has always been that way hasn't it ?

No mate....it is very different

Players have always been cherry picked of course but the issue now of course is that players are hoarded at the top 4 clubs. I am pretty sure that Liverpool, Leeds and Spurs did not have 45 young kids on their books out on loan like Chelsea (almost 50), Man City (40) and Liverpool (35)

In the early days, more clubs had a tilt at the European trophies and especially at the FA cup. Look at the number of FA cup winners that were from outside the top 4 and then look at how many there have been since about 1995. Same with UEFA football.

As for Man United - Some of their players like Beckham were farmed from other parts of the country but I dont see that any more do you ? Chelsea tried it last season because they had a ban but low and behold have replaced them with expensive foreign players.

Barcelona are really the last team that really try and produce players from La Masia but you can already see change there.

I get you like the game now and we wont agree on this. I think it is the sport that has been removed from the game now. No fans, no atmosphere and no competition really. What do teams like us and everyone else below the top 6 have to play for other than to stay up and even if you get into Europe, there are so many games that it is geared towards the richer clubs and do CL teams drop in still just to give them more of a chance of getting richer ?

Tbh it's not about liking or disliking today's game, it's about the fact that money has always been the determining factor in football. No, young players were not hoarded and loaned out pre PL. And if young players actually prefer going to clubs like Chelsea and being hired out, rather than a club lower down the food chain and maybe breaking through into the first team, well, isn't it their right ? Freedom of choice is still alive and well and if a kid decides he's rather go somewhere where he might make quicker progress he can do so.

Granted a contract worth, say, £250k a year, particularly when offered to a promising 17 year old, is more attractive than a £100k one. But if clubs find it worthwhile to act as footballing factory farms one must assume it's financially viable, maybe even lucrative, for them to do so. And if the young players in question are hired out in a professional manner their development on the field can only be improved.

And the three elements you claim are missing from today's game, fans, atmosphere and competition can't all be attributed to the evils of finance, can they ? We all know why fans aren't allowed in grounds at the moment, wrongly imo but that's another issue, and most will point to the imposition of all seater stadia, by governmental dictat, as the main reason for a reduction in atmosphere. And football success seems to be cyclical. Back when I started taking an interest there was a so called Big 5. Man United, the Liverpool duo and the North London teams. Today we refer to a big 6, which includes 4 of those big 5. So maybe things haven't changed that much.

[only1salty]

Tbh it's not about liking or disliking today's game, it's about the fact that money has always been the determining factor in football. No, young players were not hoarded and loaned out pre PL. And if young players actually prefer going to clubs like Chelsea and being hired out, rather than a club lower down the food chain and maybe breaking through into the first team, well, isn't it their right ? Freedom of choice is still alive and well and if a kid decides he's rather go somewhere where he might make quicker progress he can do so.

Granted a contract worth, say, £250k a year, particularly when offered to a promising 17 year old, is more attractive than a £100k one. But if clubs find it worthwhile to act as footballing factory farms one must assume it's financially viable, maybe even lucrative, for them to do so. And if the young players in question are hired out in a professional manner their development on the field can only be improved.

Of course players have the right to choose what they do within the rules of the sport and society, but that does not mean it adds to the spectacle. Sounds like a devils advocate argument to me.

How can Chelsea hoarding 50 players and loaning them all around Europe be good for the balance of competition in English football? It is simply nonsense to suggest that the Sport would not be better off with them at other clubs.

Money has always determined success to a certain degree but the difference between the haves and the have-nots was not as cavernous as it is today. I suppose it just replicates society. we are all rich compared to 100 years ago but some people are richer than entire countries.

To bridge the economic gap was not as much of an ask as it is today and it has a material impact on the sport, its integrity and its ability to attract young viewers.

Like a movie, if you know the ending what's the point in watching.

[BlackDiamond]

Tbh it's not about liking or disliking today's game, it's about the fact that money has always been the determining factor in football. No, young players were not hoarded and loaned out pre PL. And if young players actually prefer going to clubs like Chelsea and being hired out, rather than a club lower down the food chain and maybe breaking through into the first team, well, isn't it their right ? Freedom of choice is still alive and well and if a kid decides he's rather go somewhere where he might make quicker progress he can do so.

Granted a contract worth, say, £250k a year, particularly when offered to a promising 17 year old, is more attractive than a £100k one. But if clubs find it worthwhile to act as footballing factory farms one must assume it's financially viable, maybe even lucrative, for them to do so. And if the young players in question are hired out in a professional manner their development on the field can only be improved.

Of course players have the right to choose what they do within the rules of the sport and society, but that does not mean it adds to the spectacle. Sounds like a devils advocate argument to me.

How can Chelsea hoarding 50 players and loaning them all around Europe be good for the balance of competition in English football? It is simply nonsense to suggest that the Sport would not be better off with them at other clubs.

Money has always determined success to a certain degree but the difference between the haves and the have-nots was not as cavernous as it is today. I suppose it just replicates society. we are all rich compared to 100 years ago but some people are richer than entire countries.

To bridge the economic gap was not as much of an ask as it is today and it has a material impact on the sport, its integrity and its ability to attract young viewers.

Like a movie, if you know the ending what's the point in watching.

Good point and well argued btw. More true in the other big leagues less so in the Prem. Although we might concede in the Prem - to use your analogy, -the ending might be obvious after an hour, but every now and then someone unfancied clinches the Oscar.

[Hammertime]

I will also posit a theory that our owners have learned a valuable lesson in dealing with players and their agents - ACT SKINT!

This theory will be fulfilled if they sign Tarkowski, Henry, another striker and get a couple of loan deals for depth in positions without flogging Rice. To spend that money, they would probably extend beyond their budget, but with the pressure of the opening month or so of games, they would be wise to instill some confidence in this squad and manager. So if they are doing this, why on earth would they advertise that they're spending more money than we all believe they are?

I'm quick to lambaste these owners for their many transgressions, but also willing to praise them if they at least attempt to do good business, like we all did over Haller and Anderson ! I simply can't believe they don't see the urgency in the fortifying of this squad, to fall from the premier league would be disastrous for whatever plans they have for the club moving forward and they were faced with that very possibility for months during a covid break while the window was shut. Now it's open, it's time to act and I think they will. They know the Rice money will be there, there's a good chance if we get some defenders, there will be better roles for some our attackers and that will create value in them as well.

[Whiskyman]

Tbh it's not about liking or disliking today's game, it's about the fact that money has always been the determining factor in football. No, young players were not hoarded and loaned out pre PL. And if young players actually prefer going to clubs like Chelsea and being hired out, rather than a club lower down the food chain and maybe breaking through into the first team, well, isn't it their right ? Freedom of choice is still alive and well and if a kid decides he's rather go somewhere where he might make quicker progress he can do so.

Granted a contract worth, say, £250k a year, particularly when offered to a promising 17 year old, is more attractive than a £100k one. But if clubs find it worthwhile to act as footballing factory farms one must assume it's financially viable, maybe even lucrative, for them to do so. And if the young players in question are hired out in a professional manner their development on the field can only be improved.

Of course players have the right to choose what they do within the rules of the sport and society, but that does not mean it adds to the spectacle. Sounds like a devils advocate argument to me.

How can Chelsea hoarding 50 players and loaning them all around Europe be good for the balance of competition in English football? It is simply nonsense to suggest that the Sport would not be better off with them at other clubs.

A considerable number of them are at other clubs. Albeit still contracted to Chelsea but out on loan. It may be a devil's advocate argument but if those players were essentially obliged to sign for other clubs, because Chelsea had reached some sort of imposed quota, they would potentially be deprived of the higher earnings they are presumably achieving.

Money has always determined success to a certain degree but the difference between the haves and the have-nots was not as cavernous as it is today. I suppose it just replicates society. we are all rich compared to 100 years ago but some people are richer than entire countries.

To bridge the economic gap was not as much of an ask as it is today and it has a material impact on the sport, its integrity and its ability to attract young viewers.

That I agree with. And one thing the football authorities could do is remove the stupid FFP regulations which basically prevent any potential new entrants from "doing an Abramovich" .