Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
CP Hammer
6:33 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Maybe Mahrez didn't like how much his chairman was spending on wine?
|
Russ of the BML
6:14 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Sven Roeder 5:22 Fri Feb 2
He was being bought to cover Sane who got injured last week.
I mean, fuck me, £60m on a player to come in as cover. A club with Silva x 2 (David and Bernado), Sane, De Bruyne, Sterling and Gundogan can spend £60m on an attacking midfielder.
Bloody hell. That's properly taking the piss.
|
beni
5:57 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
I don't have that much sympathy for players who can't force through their moves.
Mahrez was happy to sign a new contract in August 2016, only 18 months ago. He choose to sign a 4 year contract which didn't have a release clause. He was more than happy for better wages and the security of 4 years of salary.
From what I understand no one forced him to sign that contract, but now he's decided he wants to go to Man C, which is more than understandable.
My problems is the players can't have it both ways. Enjoy the security of a long(ish) contract but want to break it as soon as it suits them.
If he thought he might want to leave he should have signed a shorter contract, or let his existing deal run out.
|
Sven Roeder
5:50 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Would be nice to buy a £60m cover player wouldn’t it?
I’m hoping Mahrez runs away and refuses to play for the rest of the season.
|
On The Ball
5:40 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Sven - I don't think Sane was injured then!
|
13 Brentford Rd
5:25 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Yep Sullivan would have taken 20m plus add-ons, and then been wanking over what a great businessman and DOF he is.
|
Sven Roeder
5:22 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
He should have put his transfer request in on Jan 1 and Man City should have bid on the same day.
Why was it all happening on Jan 30 & 31?
Should have taken the money though.
When it gets to July reckon Man City will look elsewhere for better value.
|
Lily Hammer
5:13 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Club and player have both fucked up here.
Mahrez for not being professional enough to turn up to training like he managed the first time he failed to get a move last summer, but his strop is a result of Leicester not seeing the better sense to take the £60 million that was offered.
UNLESS they manage to get more good service from him and sell him in the future for at least £60 million plus inflation.
|
Hermit Road
4:36 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
We would have sold Mahrez for 20 million if it had gone down to deadline day.
He hasn't gone about it the right way. He signed a contract for a certain amount of money for a period of time. Going about it the right way would be to honour that contract. This isn't Martin Luther King here, it's a millionaire trying to force himself out of a contract that he signed of his own free will in his own interest.
|
Russ of the BML
4:10 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
"He has gone about trying to leave in the right way. He has handed in two transfer requests now....."
Well he hasn't gone about it the right way has he?
Leicester made this geezer famous and a millionaire. He's there asset so they what the fuck they want. They pay him. He is there's to play for them.
If they have broken some gentleman's agreement then so be it. Nobody knows if that's true anyway.
But the mark of a man is how they deal with disappointment. He obviously isn't a man as he is acting like a spoilt little cunt.
But why should we expect anything else from the cunts that now play top level football.
|
Ron Eff
3:57 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
It's up to them how much they value their player at, and good luck to them.
It's absolutely irrelevant how much they bought him for.
|
Mart O
3:54 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
His agent is Kia Joorabchian so he definitely wants shooting (he may not have been his agent when the player signed his contract; he still wants shooting).
|
JonWHUFC
3:47 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
I am glad there is a post on this as I was pondering yesterday. My take is Mahrez has done wonders for Leicester. No one had heard of him and they got him for £400K or something. He helped them win the league and then stayed when others left. He has gone about trying to leave in the right way. He has handed in two transfer requests now and before when being refused to be sold he has continued to give his all for the team and played well. I think that this move is one he wanted and when refused again because Leicester now value him at 95m enough is enough. I hated what Payet did to us but Mahrez has not exactly got what he wanted by behaving has he? I don't condone players effectively striking but I think there has to be a certain amount of give and take on both sides. If City bid £65m than that is £64.5m profit for a player and good business for a team who are not going to win anything but are not going to go down. It will be interesting to see what they get for him in the Summer as he will definitely go then. One other point though, his agent needs shooting for not putting a buy out clause in his contract.
|
One McAvennieeeeee
3:41 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
If we had done what Leicester City done, there is no way in gods earth would we have kept Vardy and Mahrez the next season.
|
Ron Eff
3:38 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
It's about time a club stood up like this.
They didn't refuse to sell him, they would have sold him if Man City met their valuation, which they didn't.
The fact is, Man City only wanted him to replace Sane whils the is out. Why should clubs roll over and let them buy a player every time one of theirs gets injured?
Yeh he's done well for them, but where was he before Leicester took a punt? He's got a lot to thank them for too, and should act with more dignity. He's also signed the contract, so suck it up.
|
alfie romeo
3:27 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
I agree with the player here. he's served them well and clearly some gentleman's agreement has been broken. £60m for someone who cost £400k and helped them win an improbably title is very fair to all. At the end of the day, they are just Leicester city. a small provincial club who got very very fortunate.
|
Lily Hammer
3:24 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
LCFC could have taken £60million for him, but priced even Man City out, just so they could hold onto their star man, despite him clearly wanting away and handing in a second transfer request.
I blame Brady. If the Leicester owner wasn't so pissed off with her, he may have felt more charitable towards Mahrez.
|
Mart O
3:17 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
I'd normally cunt the player off but Leicester have taken the piss here. That's 4 windows they've refused to let him leave and they want 95 million for a player they got for peanuts.
Let's hope the cunt hacks his own foot off to spite them and watch the cunts tumble down the table.
|
El Scorchio
3:02 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
They should have sold him. Never keep an unhappy player.
No way on earth is he worth 95 million, which is what I've just seen him rated as...
|
cornish
3:02 Fri Feb 2
Re: Mahrez
|
Upset he didn't get his big money move to Man city,Leicester or Man city hmmm that's a hard one.
|
| 
