Player watch: Christian Eriksen

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
33,893
It's all good. I seem to remember Real selling their city training ground for a (suspiciously) huge sum a few years ago to fund transfers. And I think United service their debt easily due to their massive turnover. Perhaps their lack of activity recently has lulled some people into a false sense of security.
That was 18 years ago. God i feel old.
 

Carson35

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
273
What do you guys think about Havertz of Leverkusen? Should we take a look before big boys like Bayern, PSG, City, Juventus, etc. prepare to make a big offer for him?
 

Cinemattis

Fully Functional Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
208
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?
After the 12 months and Eriksen is gone - we would still have to replace him. In other words - and using your numbers: we can break even, or lose 50 million.
 

Carson35

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
273
Speaking about Leverkusen, Leon Bailey was pretty hot last season. I found that he hasn't played that much regularly this year. What happened to him?
 

Basil Brush

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
941
I have to admit I was EXTREMELY wrong about Eriksen.

I have said he is lazy. Not a 2 way player.

However I now realise we have to do everything to keep him, if possible
 
Top