Grealish or Maddison - who is better?

[Bill 1,788]

eh ?

what shortfall

do explain

figures, and such like

[GJP 79]

His potential is not massive. He''s got a shot at being a decent Premier League player - which is a still a very high level. But he''s not top, top drawer.

[king canary 7,578]

It has been explained about 50 times City1st...

[king canary 7,578]

@GJP

I''m sure people didn''t think Mahrez or Vardy could be top Premier League players when they were in the Championship.

[city4eva 207]

[quote user="GJP"]His potential is not massive. He''s got a shot at being a decent Premier League player - which is a still a very high level. But he''s not top, top drawer.[/quote]

I disagree, I think he has massive potential and is worth 30 million today

[Icecream Snow 761]

[quote user="Mr Ben"]

eh ?

what shortfall

do explain

figures, and such like

[/quote]

Wage bill is currently £32 million, which isn''t sustainable now that the Championship payments have gone.

Naismith, Jarvis, McGovern, Pinto, Klose and Wildschut all have a year left on their contracts and are in the group that was averaging 28k per week. So are Josh Murphy and Oliviera but they have longer contracts.

So unless most of that group leave, the Maddison money is going to have to subsidize their wages.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"][quote user="Mr Ben"]

eh ?

what shortfall

do explain

figures, and such like

[/quote]

Wage bill is currently £32 million, which isn''t sustainable now that the Championship payments have gone.

Naismith, Jarvis, McGovern, Pinto, Klose and Wildschut all have a year left on their contracts and are in the group that was averaging 28k per week. So are Josh Murphy and Oliviera but they have longer contracts.

So unless most of that group leave, the Maddison money is going to have to subsidize their wages.

[/quote]

It''s certainly not rocket science and no surprise that the money will be largely used to keep finances on an even keel - unless a few leave.  I would be happy if all those players on your list left the club (apart from Klose) including Murphy and Oliveira who should command bigger fees - then there would be money available for new players.  Should be an absolute priority of the club to get these players moved on to make the most of the Maddison transfer income.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Maddison isn’t worth £30m, which is evident by the fact no clubs are prepared to bid £30m for him.

All of the ‘top 6’ have had a look and Maddison and it seems as if all 6 of them are going to pass on making an offer for him - that alone should tell you something about how his potential is rated by Premier League clubs.

A mid-table club seems his natural destination, although as seen this season no one outside the top few clubs are safe from a relegation scrap. I wouldn’t have been particularly shocked if he’d ended up at Huddersfield or Wolves.

£20m is still a hell of a price for a player who has done one season at Championship level.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

he has a choice first team at Leicester or someone like Liverpool and maybe a loaned out or sitting on bench

if he goes to Leicester and Performs the Big clubs will come in for him in a season or so

all a Gamble for him i still think Liverpool will come in for him and they have wanted him from Coventry days

[GJP 79]

It''s not like he''s unheard of. All the big clubs have had a look and not been desperate to go for him.

Just go back to January, he was already having a good season (and didn''t get better 2nd half of season) yet nobody in the Prem thought "This is the lad to keep us out the bottom 3" and certainly nobody thought "This is the lad to get us into Europe".

So people are thinking the lad is a good player but nobody is thinking the lady is outstanding. Getting £20m (or more) for someone in their 20s who has only got 1 good season on their CV is good business.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="GJP"] the lady . [/quote]

Lad

[ron obvious 1,499]

There are two stories going on here.

There is the press version, whipping up all sorts of hyperbolic statements about who''s after him & how much they''ll pay (not discouraged by his agent I would imagine). They love doing this, it''s no lose however well he eventually performs (Maddison flop! Maddison Messiah!).

Meantime clubs will be making their own assessments in a much colder, harder rational way. No club - even a rich one - is going to splurge money on a player they have doubts about. The fact nothing''s happened yet suggests doubts exist.

The real story will be known soon enough.

Which player is best suited to the Premiership? Personally I''m not sure. I''d say James is the better footballer, but are his shortcomings (lack of pace, power & heading ability) enough to make Grealish the more effective against the top teams? Tricky one.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Grealish looks a very similar player to Maddison, both really quick feet and clever on the ball and deliver quality passes, but for me Maddison has the edge.  Beckham had the quality that put the fear of God into goalkeepers at set pieces and Maddison has that - and that ability will show itself even more in the top league. He is also more clincal in front of goal in outfield play, so for me, Maddison gets the nod, mainly for his goal scoring and threat from free kicks. 

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"][quote user="Mr Ben"]

eh ?

what shortfall

do explain

figures, and such like

[/quote]

Wage bill is currently £32 million, which isn''t sustainable now that the Championship payments have gone.

Naismith, Jarvis, McGovern, Pinto, Klose and Wildschut all have a year left on their contracts and are in the group that was averaging 28k per week. So are Josh Murphy and Oliviera but they have longer contracts.

So unless most of that group leave, the Maddison money is going to have to subsidize their wages.

[/quote]

Where does that figure come from ?

[king canary 7,578]

If anything I''d guess £32m is aittle on the low side.

[Bill 1,788]

At the AGM it was given as £38.9m

since then there have been net sales of

£9.3m

plus whatever Pritchard and Jerome raised against what ever Sir Benny and Odel cost

The net gain from the in and out of those four

plus the removal of those higher wages and those of Tettey and Hoolahan

I expect a couple more high earners will depart this summer so I hardly think it is skid row

far from it

[norfolkngood 1,086]

The Knee injury was very bad timing for us any buying club will use that in their favor to knock the price down

But Sessegnon being rumoured to be worth 50 million after just over 70 games Maddison must be worth 25 Million plus

[king canary 7,578]

Link for that £38m figure?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="king canary"]Link for that £38m figure?[/quote]

https://files.canaries.co.uk/canaries/AGM.pdf

[TIL 1010 4,722]

How do you know that net sales since the AGM have been exactly £9.3 million as the books do not close until the end of this month and the figures for transfers are always undisclosed ?

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

I am coming around to the idea that both the club and Maddison would be best served if the expected transfer were to be postponed until the next Winter window.

The unfortunate injury has changed the landscape somewhat.

Although it seems likely now that the player will be up and running by the beginning of the current season doubts about the time it might take for him to get up to full speed may be dampening interest from other clubs at the moment.

Despite the list of top level clubs who are supposed to be keen on signing him the only concrete advance seems to have been from Leicester City and their estimate of Maddison''s worth, if reports are correct, seems to be on the conservative side.

Give JM time to fully recover and fully show his worth again, whilst continuing to aid the City cause, in the first part of the season and his value will likely increase, interest will be re-generated giving the player more options and the club will likely reap the premium in terms of a greater financial gain.

Of course the board might deem that they need the cash more urgently in order to strengthen the squad as much as they can in time for the season''s kick off, but this could be seen as short term thinking in a situation where a deal of restraint would almost certainly reap a higher dividend. There will be a few worried PL clubs by Xmas and Leicester could well be amongst them.

I, and it seems many others, want to reach that magical £25m figure that has been bandied about for so long. All things being well the club is more likely to obtain that amount, or even more, if they hold now and tell those upstarts at Leicester to do on, for now.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Broadstairs i understand your point

but just say and god forbid for the boy that his Knee really never heals and it happens again between start of season and winter window ? his worth then would be half if not less

so i think it is right with the shortfall and the way the club is now money wise to cash in

leicester are not short of money we should say 25 million not a penny less and chuck in some add ons

i think the extra above the 20 million is important because we have to pay fees / loyalty bonus Coventry etc so we would expect to clear 20 million then we might have a couple of million to buy some players after any shortfall etc

[Bill 1,788]

"so i think it is right with the shortfal"

what ''shortfall''

explain yourself

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Drop in income against the wage bill

do you think that everything is rosy ? do you think that the club would be ok if it did not sell anyone this year ?

do you think if we sell Maddison we will spend all the 20 millon ?

explain yourself as everyone else seems to get it there will be a shorfall this year

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]Drop in income against the wage bill

do you think that everything is rosy ? do you think that the club would be ok if it did not sell anyone this year ?

do you think if we sell Maddison we will spend all the 20 millon ?

explain yourself as everyone else seems to get it there will be a shorfall this year[/quote]

so what would be the point of the first if you are correct about the 2nd ?

why not put up some suggested figures instead of keep bleating out ''shortfall''

[norfolkngood 1,086]

ok cash will be minus 7 million before we even start

[Bill 1,788]

what cash is that

and why ?

[norfolkngood 1,086]

read the accounts

[Bill 1,788]

I have, that''s why I am asking

So why not tell us what part explains your "cash will be minus 7 million before we even start

"

[king canary 7,578]

Some figures from the document you linked to earlier.

Income (before player trading) = 59.7 (forecast)

Costs (before player trading) = 56.6m (forecast)

We know that TV revenue is predicted to drop from £38m to £7m which would place our income next season at around £30m.

So our by our own reports we dropped the wage bill by about £8.5m in the summer so our costs would then sit at about...

£48m.

We''ve then taken off Pritchard and Jeromes wages while adding Srebeny and Hernandez and apparently making a profit of about £10m in fees (although this is total guess work). Tettey will be on lower wages and Wes will have been on a decent whack before he left too. So lets say we''ve saved another £80k a week with those deals- about another £4m off the costs. I don''t think it is worth trying to get in to how much we saved by loaning out Wildschut, Naismith and Martin vs spent loaning in Leitner and Edwards.

So that is £44m with another £10m in terms of fees ''in the bank'' to cover fees.

So lets say our income comes in at £30m and our costs are £44m but with £10m already to cover some shortfall- that would mean most of the Maddison money would be available to spend IF we wanted to- although I''d expect we may need to ''keep our powder dry'' for covering any losses next season if we can''t get that £44m down to under £30m.

This is all very FPA but without seeing accounts to understand how much has been saved with Pritchard, Jerome and Wes leaving or how much was spent vs received on transfers in January.

So I think it is unlikely there isn''t any shortfall- the question is how much is it and how much might we need to put aside to cover future shortfalls.