Kyle Walker

[Spur of the moment]

If it isn't, we've fudged up. We set a base price of 50m, as per most journos covering the story. That's 50m as the base fee, without addons (see Hytner's Graun articles on 'Levy's balancing act' and the new one on Walker). If that's true, it's a world-record for a defender, even including the price paid for David Luiz.

If it's 45 + 5m in add-ons, we have f*cked up, because we haven't gotten to the 50m base fee we wanted despite City being desperate after Alves' rejection.

I highly, *highly* doubt Levy f*cks up anything to do with getting maximum value from sales - even in this case where we might have gotten more had we waited, I think he would at least have wanted the basic fee set in stone.

So yes, I think the journos (and City, by extension) are talking rubbish. So we should call them out on it - when mentioning Walker's departure on the OS, just say that 'he moves to City for a world-record transfer fee for a defender, and we wish him all the best in his future career.' Simple as.

You are far too focused on the transfer fee my friend. Yes it was disappointing but there are other far more potent nuances to all of this, not least the morale of the squad going into what hopefully will be our most momentous season since 60-61.

 

[Jordinho]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jul/13/manchester-city-kyle-walker-tottenham

Meanwhile the Graun are sticking with 53m in 50m + add-ons (which seems like a strangly specific amount in terms of add-ons, but whatever). So it could be anywhere from 45 + 5, to 50 + 3, to 50 + 5.

Also, apparently Sheffield United are owed about 5m in terms of a sell-on fee - any official news on this?



Ah, sorry - I thought it was still Stones.

I've also seen 45 million up front, 5 million next year and then some add-ons.

 

[StephenH]

I've also seen 45 million up front, 5 million next year and then some add-ons.

I've seen £1.50 + free Sky sub for 1 year!

It is what it is.........history.

But now!
Do we need to 'buy' a replacement......I'm not sure?

 

[DubaiSpur]

You are far too focused on the transfer fee my friend. Yes it was disappointing but there are other far more potent nuances to all of this, not least the morale of the squad going into what hopefully will be our most momentous season since 60-61.

Transfer fee is more important as a proxy for how much we make other clubs bleed, tbh. A low transfer fee indicates willingness to sell, which ideally should never be a thing in terms of us and the top six. Ever.

45m + optional add-ons is letting City get away easy, and is dirt cheap for a player of Walker's ability. So I really don't think Levy of all people would countenance that - or pass up the opportunity to make City bleed.

 

[Jordinho]

I've seen £1.50 + free Sky sub for 1 year!

It is what it is.........history.

But now!
Do we need to 'buy' a replacement......I'm not sure?

A direct replacement, no, but another prospect in his early 20s like Perreira that will start pushing Trippier once he is up to speed. Just keep that production line going.

 

[Modric THFC]

I've also seen 45 million up front, 5 million next year and then some add-ons.

The Evening Standard's Tom Collomosse will come out and say its 9 million a season.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Why do you hope we say it!

Its done, its history. Walker is an ex player.
And thus should always be given the normal courtesies as a loyal player.

Sure, not arguing that - but it's not doing him a discourtesy if we mention that he's leaving for a world-record fee for a defender, or whatever. Or even just mentioning the fee in this instance. If City are putting out FUD about how much they paid, it affects us - it makes us look like a reasonable, supplicant target for the loaded clubs circling our assets. Letting them know that we gouged City that much on even a player we were *willing* to let go sends its own message, imo.

I've seen £1.50 + free Sky sub for 1 year!

It is what it is.........history.

But now!
Do we need to 'buy' a replacement......I'm not sure?

Yes, I think we do need to buy a replacement. Trippier's good, but as we saw in the United game last season, he has a tendency to be left for dead by anyone with a bit of pace (in that case, Martial). He also is much shorter and a good deal slower than Walker - if we want to keep that pace down our flanks that Walker brought to the team, we'll need an addition.

(The same objections to making Trippier our default option, btw, apply to making KWP our backup *straight away* - too physically slight, not particularly rapid, and untested against the pacy, physical players plying their trade in the Premier League.)

 

[Finney Is Back]

You can buy skills and ability but you cannot buy attitude.

We have seen it many times now that if you do not buy into Poch's philosophy you are gone. Granted Walker is better than the rest but remember Townsend's hissy fit with the coaches? Gone! Lennon and Ade's attitude? Gone!

Walker was told he was not fit enough to play two games a week. His reaction was throwing his dummy out of his pram. The moment the player thinks he knows more than the manager. Gone!

I believe we wanted him to go and then it was over to Levy to do what he does best and maximise the deal. There is a debate about us selling to a rival but on the flip side to this the fact we are says to me we don't care because of where we are right now. Take City's money away and they go back to the championship side with the odd season in the Prem. We are the 2nd best team in the league built on talent. We don't have the money City have and look where we are.

If Walker is a problem. Then he is now Pep's problem.

Looking at our team. Remember when we bought Trippier? Who would have thought he would end up as the first choice RB with an England cap. That says as much about the player, his attitude and our manager.

One could also argue that what we lose from Walker, mainly pace, we gain in Trippier. No doubt Trippier is the better ball player. In fact, if you look at the stars comparisons there is not much in it. When you also consider Trippier has played less games than Walker that says it is not as bigger loss as some might suggest.

Last season when we got tonked 5-1 away to 10 man Saudi Sportswashing Machine and lost out on second place Poch was angry, very angry and said "This will never happen again". In that game Walker was subbed after 71 mins to Chadli.

A season on and we finish our last game of the season winning away to Hull 7-1. Trippier played in that game and was not subbed.

Of course this is not just about the one player but it shows you how when Poch said it would never happen again it didn't. That's because players are buying into what we are doing and have the right attitude for it. Even at 7-1 in that game in added minutes we were still closing down Hull on the edge of their box.

Finally, Poch said you buy players to train. From that he picks the match day team. That's quite telling really and when you think about it right. No one should walk into a team. No matter who you are you need to earn it.

Walker believe he had the right to play but didn't have the desire to train for it.

Gone!

Wasnt Walker subbed in the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game because:

a) He wasn't able to fully recover from a horrific knee high two footed challenge that resulted in the perpetrator getting a straight red.

and

b) To get another attacker on to try to rescue at least a point.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Transfer fee is more important as a proxy for how much we make other clubs bleed, tbh. A low transfer fee indicates willingness to sell, which ideally should never be a thing in terms of us and the top six. Ever.

45m + optional add-ons is letting City get away easy, and is dirt cheap for a player of Walker's ability. So I really don't think Levy of all people would countenance that - or pass up the opportunity to make City bleed.

But you are talking plus or minus £5m my friend - mere peanuts in this context! Even if it *is* a record it'll be gone before the season kicks off. Whereas getting the squad in the right frame of mind for the start of what could be a crucial season is absolutely paramount. As is giving Poch enough time to spend on other players and get them bedded in before the season kicks off.

 

[Daisuk]

Wasnt Walker subbed in the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game because:

a) He wasn't able to fully recover from a horrific knee high two footed challenge that resulted in the perpetrator getting a straight red.

and

b) To get another attacker on to try to rescue at least a point.

Yeah, and we were only 2-1 down chasing an equalizer when Chadli came on, so can't really blame Walker's supposed bad attitude for that defeat at all.

Lots of rumours of this bust up between Walker and Poch this spring, and usually there's no smoke without fire, but it's hard to tell. As opposed to a few other rebels, Walker did feature quite a lot for us all the way up to the end of the season. Either way, it doesn't matter, he seems to be gone now. He did a good job for us - we just need to move on as quickly as possible, maybe get a replacement in, if we don't think Walker Peters can cut it just yet as Trippier's understudy.

 

[DubaiSpur]

But you are talking plus or minus £5m my friend - mere peanuts in this context! Even if it *is* a record it'll be gone before the season kicks off. Whereas getting the squad in the right frame of mind for the start of what could be a crucial season is absolutely paramount. As is giving Poch enough time to spend on other players and get them bedded in before the season kicks off.

It isn't the peanuts, mate, it's the principle. We had them over a barrel and settled for less than we wanted up front, if that quoted price is true (and I highly doubt it is) - if that's true, we obliged City. You can say we did it to give Poch funds to play with or time to bed in the new signings we will now presumably make, but that is the bitter tradeoff in the unlikely event that the fee is true - that we have signalled that we're willing to compromise in our quoted prices, and (by extension) negotiate with our rivals when it comes to them signing our players.

It's not the peanuts, as I said - it's the principle. According to Iheanacho's agent, City did not want to sell to a rival at any costs, so any deal with the likes of us was out (I believe he said this last month while taking about a move to West Ham or something). We apparently can't be as obdurate with City, but if we also deem to lower the price of our players in the bargain...it rankles, is all. Mind, I really don't think it's true.

 

[Rorschach]

Levy is going to try sneak something extra in at the end and the whole deal will collapse.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Levy is going to try sneak something extra in at the end and the whole deal will collapse.

So long as we make City bleed, I don't care if Levy personally drives him all the way up to the Etihad and then locks the doors as Walker's about to get out, before silently reversing and driving all the way back to London as Mansour and the rest of the welcoming committee stand out in the open, shocked and at a loss as to what just happened.

 

[DeleHarry]

Jeez all these knickers in a twist over a few million.

Let's move on, now it's all about who we bring in

 

[Gazza]

Agree the fee and at the last minute say no deal unless nacho and sancho are thrown in for free

 

[Spur of the moment]

It isn't the peanuts, mate, it's the principle. We had them over a barrel and settled for less than we wanted up front, if that quoted price is true (and I highly doubt it is) - if that's true, we obliged City. You can say we did it to give Poch funds to play with or time to bed in the new signings we will now presumably make, but that is the bitter tradeoff in the unlikely event that the fee is true - that we have signalled that we're willing to compromise in our quoted prices, and (by extension) negotiate with our rivals when it comes to them signing our players.

It's not the peanuts, as I said - it's the principle. According to Iheanacho's agent, City did not want to sell to a rival at any costs, so any deal with the likes of us was out (I believe he said this last month while taking about a move to West Ham or something). We apparently can't be as obdurate with City, but if we also deem to lower the price of our players in the bargain...it rankles, is all. Mind, I really don't think it's true.

Pah! I still say you are putting too much on this supposed principle. None of us knows exactly what has been going on behind the scenes but it seems likely there was quite a bit:

• pressure from Poch to get the deal done - he has been quoted as saying it was critical to get things sorted before the players returned for pre-season and who would argue with that when you think about the disruptive impacts of protracted negotiations in the past over Berbatov, Modric and Bale
• inside info suggesting there was intense pressure from Walker's missus to return north, so reading between the lines their marriage may even have been at stake. I believe there are laws nowadays about managing human relations
• no other club coming in for him, thus weakening Levy's bargaining power

 

[Rorschach]

Jeez all these knickers in a twist over a few million.

Let's move on, now it's all about who we bring in

fudge no. We'd all have to work or something equally horrible. Twist those knickers

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Transfer fee is more important as a proxy for how much we make other clubs bleed, tbh. A low transfer fee indicates willingness to sell, which ideally should never be a thing in terms of us and the top six. Ever.

45m + optional add-ons is letting City get away easy, and is dirt cheap for a player of Walker's ability. So I really don't think Levy of all people would countenance that - or pass up the opportunity to make City bleed.

You can't make City bleed when it comes to money.. their owner earns 50m every 5 minutes in interest on his wealth

 

[DubaiSpur]

Pah! I still say you are putting too much on this supposed principle. None of us knows exactly what has been going on behind the scenes but it seems likely there was quite a bit:

• pressure from Poch to get the deal done - he has been quoted as saying it was critical to get things sorted before the players returned for pre-season and who would argue with that when you think about the disruptive impacts of protracted negotiations in the past over Berbatov, Modric and Bale
• inside info suggesting there was intense pressure from Walker's missus to return north, so reading between the lines their marriage may even have been at stake. I believe there are laws nowadays about managing human relations
• no other club coming in for him, thus weakening Levy's bargaining power

To counter your points, I would suggest -

• Poch pressuring Levy to get the deal done doesn't mean Levy has to compromise over the price, per se. Poch wanted him gone, that's happening - but how that happens is surely as important to Poch as it is to Levy, and the departure happening in a way that signals vulnerability is not what either of them would want, imo.
• Sure, I get that Walker wanted to go back up north for personal reasons - doesn't mean his personal concerns are worth opening the door for all the rest of the Premier League to start barging in making bids for our players under the assumption that we'll be 'reasonable' (read: ready to bend over and take it up the rear end). 5m makes that difference, imo - indicates our intent.
• He likely wouldn't have gone anywhere else. But if Levy was weakened by that fact, he was strengthened by the fact that City's other RB target, Alves, trash-talked them and turned them down before swanning off to PSG - they were desperate, and Levy likely knew it.

Anyway, we're arguing over an unknown at present - this is all on the assumption that City's press briefing is correct, and I really don't think it is. I think they've lied. But I'd like us to confirm that, for our own purposes, if possible.

You can't make City bleed when it comes to money.. their owner earns 50m every 5 minutes in interest on his wealth

Okay - so why were they reluctant to pay the 50m that was being bandied about for a month and a half?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

To counter your points, I would suggest -

• Poch pressuring Levy to get the deal done doesn't mean Levy has to compromise over the price, per se. Poch wanted him gone, that's happening - but how that happens is surely as important to Poch as it is to Levy, and the departure happening in a way that signals vulnerability is not what either of them would want, imo.
• Sure, I get that Walker wanted to go back up north for personal reasons - doesn't mean his personal concerns are worth opening the door for all the rest of the Premier League to start barging in making bids for our players under the assumption that we'll be 'reasonable' (read: ready to bend over and take it up the rear end). 5m makes that difference, imo - indicates our intent.
• He likely wouldn't have gone anywhere else. But if Levy was weakened by that fact, he was strengthened by the fact that City's other RB target, Alves, trash-talked them and turned them down before swanning off to PSG - they were desperate, and Levy likely knew it.

Anyway, we're arguing over an unknown at present - this is all on the assumption that City's press briefing is correct, and I really don't think it is. I think they've lied. But I'd like us to confirm that, for our own purposes, if possible.



Okay - so why were they reluctant to pay the 50m that was being bandied about for a month and a half?

Because they thought they had a better player lined up... maybe it was that simple???