Other than that wonderful cross his passing was mostly very poor for him. His corners and free kicks continue to disappoint as well.Apart from his pinpoint cross to set up our equaliser yesterday?
Clown
I love Eriksen, I've always recognised him as our best player since he signed. But this has, bar a brief few months some years ago, always been the case.Other than that wonderful cross his passing was mostly very poor for him. His corners and free kicks continue to disappoint as well.
From the last games it feels like eriksen already is in Madrid. So for me it's better to sell him and try to bring in someone that want to play for us because now eriksen don't do much
We won’t- we’ll have to tailor our style for whoever we spend his money onI shudder to think how we would even attempt to replace him.
We won’t spend a dime of itWe won’t- we’ll have to tailor our style for whoever we spend his money on
We do normallyWe won’t spend a dime of it
he often goes through spells of average and then a spree of the fantastic. often is the case in creative players like he is. then, as people have said, even when his play seems average, he can suddenly conjure the exotic moment that leads to a goal.He's a quality player, but on the whole this season I'd say he's been poor bar a run of 3 or 4 games. He'd be lucky to get a 6 out of 10 for me. We need this contract situation sorted because its definitely effecting his game. Either that or he's still carrying that hip/stomach problem. He might not be over that.
And if he got injured and couldn't play for us?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?
I'd reluctantly take £100m for him and try to get 2 in to replace him
Actually, a couple of top-level full-backs could ease the pain![]()