I think every club is a selling club for the right price.
Agree with the above post, most clubs are selling clubs really, very few in this world aren't. If you define "selling club" as losing your best players for a big fee that is anyway. But that seems to be a modern and successful model these days anyway.
I read an article once saying that Liverpool were "the Sevilla of the Premier League" in terms of how they operate. Sell their most expensive asset and then reinvest and improve. Leicester seem to fit this mould as well and clearly it has been successful for both clubs.
Years ago it was seen as a negative to lose your best players to rival clubs as clubs often struggled to replace them. I think the wider range of scouting knowledge clubs have in general now as well as better finances due to TV money and ridiculous player prices has also supported a clubs scouting network to be able to identify good replacements at a better price as well. It's very much a sustainable model these days to sell your most valuable assets but replace with good quality.
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real and Barca.
I wouldn't say you were a selling club, it is as you have said, players will have their heads turned by lucrative contracts that the likes of Man City can offer, along with a better chance of winning trophies and CL qualification in the majority of cases. The so called bigger clubs are only doing to you, what you are doing to lesser clubs when you lure young players with potential from wherever they are.
comment by Sgt Wilko 92 (U5983)
posted 5 minutes ago
I wouldn't say you were a selling club, it is as you have said, players will have their heads turned by lucrative contracts that the likes of Man City can offer, along with a better chance of winning trophies and CL qualification in the majority of cases. The so called bigger clubs are only doing to you, what you are doing to lesser clubs when you lure young players with potential from wherever they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That made me smile, yes I admit I had it in mind when I typed it, although maybe they do actually need the cash from the sale, I know Fleetwood made good use of the £1 Million we paid for Vardy
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real and Barca.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayern gotta be close to them.
Don't think Bayern have that pull. Domestic bullies, obviously, but they aren't taking the best players at English clubs the way Barca or Real do (or did anyway).
No, I don’t think we have ever been a “selling club”. There have been those who wished to pursue a career elsewhere and gain recognition amongst the “bright lights” and good luck to them, I have said, as I gave them a all a virtual wave goodbye.
I've said for a while you're like the English Dortmund, just in a much, much more competitive league.
I think that you are a selling club, but that this isn't a bad thing. I think any club that is likely to lose a key player to mother club are a selling club and this covers most clubs (including Liverpool). I would say the only club in the UK who currently aren't a selling club is Man City who have the combination of enough money to outbid any rival poachers, and the success that key players aren't thinking of moving to win more.
Leicester have a nice new training complex.
I dunno really. I'd say selling Mahrez is the only real loss and you kept him for an extra year. Some deals are too good to turn down too, most clubs are selling clubs if that's the case. Either way it's working.
To echo some of the points above, I’m not sure why we’d be mocked for it. Those who wanted to go over recent years have gone and we’ve got good whack for them. Others have not been banging on the door to leave, though. So we’re not an absolute selling club either.
A big part of our progress over recent years has been finding the right balance, being a good place to stay but not holding anyone back who wants to leave - except maybe Mahrez for a season or so.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
We’re not a “selling club” in that we bring players through knowing we are going to move them on for a big fee.
However, we are happy to sell top assets if we believe we’ve identified suitable replacements.
For Kante there was Ndidi
For Drinkwater (lol) there was Tielemans
For Maguire came Soyuncu and Fofana
For Chilwell there was Castagne
After Mahrez there was... well, that’s the one we’ve not really replaced like for like and are still trying
So, after Kante and Mahrez, we’ve learned abs we’ve only really let players leave when we’re comfortable we have an alternative to being in. The Maguire and Chilwell business has been obscene to be honest!
Now the question always comes, can we sustain it? In the long term I’m sure it will backfire eventually, it always does, but for well over 5 years now we’ve had a scouting network and transfer policy that’s been utterly superb. Long may it continue!
Are we a selling club - yes, but when the time is right.
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
We’re not a “selling club” in that we bring players through knowing we are going to move them on for a big fee.
However, we are happy to sell top assets if we believe we’ve identified suitable replacements.
For Kante there was Ndidi
For Drinkwater (lol) there was Tielemans
For Maguire came Soyuncu and Fofana
For Chilwell there was Castagne
After Mahrez there was... well, that’s the one we’ve not really replaced like for like and are still trying
So, after Kante and Mahrez, we’ve learned abs we’ve only really let players leave when we’re comfortable we have an alternative to being in. The Maguire and Chilwell business has been obscene to be honest!
Now the question always comes, can we sustain it? In the long term I’m sure it will backfire eventually, it always does, but for well over 5 years now we’ve had a scouting network and transfer policy that’s been utterly superb. Long may it continue!
Are we a selling club - yes, but when the time is right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it doesn’t work.. we replaced Mahrez with Ghezzal!
I wouldn’t say you are in the context of you don’t need to sell in order to create a revenue stream. That’s partly why you always get good deals for your players.
To be honest a lot of it is down to simple economics. Our turnover is much smaller than that of any of the established rich six.
Consequently the wages we pay as a percentage of our revenue is also higher than any of the rich six teams. It was something like 86% in 18/19 and over 100% in 19/20. In other words we're paying our players more than we actually earn. That's simply not sustainable.
So we can either pay less wages or increase revenue. Selling players is one way of achieving both. Another way is qualifying for the Champions League or increasing commercial revenue.
If anything we've done really well to only lose one player a season and, in the cases of Maguire and Chilwell, have managed to do it and still achieve a net improvement in the areas they vacated. We've ultimately achieved the same with Drinkwater and got close with Kante. Only Mahrez is badly missed in terms of the capability of the squad.
Overall, in answer to the original question: yes we are a selling club - everyone is - but we've done it better than most and are now ourselves much higher up the food chain as a result.
PSG taking Neynar off Barca fully against their will shows that with the right offer every team is/can be a selling team. Same thing happens with Ronaldo deal from Manchester United to Real Madrid.
Leicester doesn't need to sell to survive and they wanted to keep all those players that have gone with the big money. And managers at Leicester doesn't need to sell before buying. So yes our prayers can lured like all teams in the world but we're not selling for financial profits.
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
comment by Double Decker Fox (U2980)
posted 38 minutes ago
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put DDF.
Why did we not sell Vardy to Arsenal?
Chelsea are somewhat stunted in that table as well due to their transfer ban.
How impressive is it when you look at Liverpool and what they’ve achieved with similar spending to us! Just goes to show that the “big rich” 6 can still attract talent for less if done well.
Much more important than worrying about whether yours is a selling club or not, is examining how well it invests.
Leicester fans can be very, very happy about how the club has determined targets and spent the funds made available in recent years, and should be praying that Jon Rudkin isn’t going anywhere any time soon.
comment by Double Decker Fox (U2980)
posted 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Spend is a useful barometer, but it has a context within a range of other indicators.
The rich six have a much higher net spend because they can afford it as their revenue is so much higher than everyone elses. Arsenal currently rank sixth in terms of revenue, but it's still about double what we rake in and Manchester United's is closer to 3.5 times ours.
I doubt there are many clubs who sell to cover transfer losses as such because of the way transfer fees are accounted. It's more that they need to sell to get players off their books to lower liabilities and increase revenue for future purchases. That's why it was important to get Slimani off our books even without a transfer fee, although getting some of the £30m back would have been nice.
I think by far the biggest factor for us and our potential spending in the next window was to get Slimani, Gray and Silva off the wage bill. Coupled with getting European qualification again (hopefully Champions League) might mean we don't have to sell before buying in the next window. Unless we want to recoup some of the Covid losses, but everyone is in the same boat with that.
Sign in if you want to comment
Are we a selling club?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 28/3/21
I think every club is a selling club for the right price.
posted on 28/3/21
Agree with the above post, most clubs are selling clubs really, very few in this world aren't. If you define "selling club" as losing your best players for a big fee that is anyway. But that seems to be a modern and successful model these days anyway.
I read an article once saying that Liverpool were "the Sevilla of the Premier League" in terms of how they operate. Sell their most expensive asset and then reinvest and improve. Leicester seem to fit this mould as well and clearly it has been successful for both clubs.
Years ago it was seen as a negative to lose your best players to rival clubs as clubs often struggled to replace them. I think the wider range of scouting knowledge clubs have in general now as well as better finances due to TV money and ridiculous player prices has also supported a clubs scouting network to be able to identify good replacements at a better price as well. It's very much a sustainable model these days to sell your most valuable assets but replace with good quality.
posted on 28/3/21
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
posted on 28/3/21
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real and Barca.
posted on 28/3/21
I wouldn't say you were a selling club, it is as you have said, players will have their heads turned by lucrative contracts that the likes of Man City can offer, along with a better chance of winning trophies and CL qualification in the majority of cases. The so called bigger clubs are only doing to you, what you are doing to lesser clubs when you lure young players with potential from wherever they are.
posted on 28/3/21
comment by Sgt Wilko 92 (U5983)
posted 5 minutes ago
I wouldn't say you were a selling club, it is as you have said, players will have their heads turned by lucrative contracts that the likes of Man City can offer, along with a better chance of winning trophies and CL qualification in the majority of cases. The so called bigger clubs are only doing to you, what you are doing to lesser clubs when you lure young players with potential from wherever they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That made me smile, yes I admit I had it in mind when I typed it, although maybe they do actually need the cash from the sale, I know Fleetwood made good use of the £1 Million we paid for Vardy
posted on 28/3/21
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
There are only a few clubs that are seen as the pinnacle of a players career.
I’d place Leicester in the current same bracket as Ajax, AC Milan, Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real and Barca.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayern gotta be close to them.
posted on 28/3/21
Don't think Bayern have that pull. Domestic bullies, obviously, but they aren't taking the best players at English clubs the way Barca or Real do (or did anyway).
posted on 28/3/21
No, I don’t think we have ever been a “selling club”. There have been those who wished to pursue a career elsewhere and gain recognition amongst the “bright lights” and good luck to them, I have said, as I gave them a all a virtual wave goodbye.
posted on 28/3/21
I've said for a while you're like the English Dortmund, just in a much, much more competitive league.
posted on 28/3/21
I think that you are a selling club, but that this isn't a bad thing. I think any club that is likely to lose a key player to mother club are a selling club and this covers most clubs (including Liverpool). I would say the only club in the UK who currently aren't a selling club is Man City who have the combination of enough money to outbid any rival poachers, and the success that key players aren't thinking of moving to win more.
posted on 28/3/21
Leicester have a nice new training complex.
I dunno really. I'd say selling Mahrez is the only real loss and you kept him for an extra year. Some deals are too good to turn down too, most clubs are selling clubs if that's the case. Either way it's working.
posted on 28/3/21
To echo some of the points above, I’m not sure why we’d be mocked for it. Those who wanted to go over recent years have gone and we’ve got good whack for them. Others have not been banging on the door to leave, though. So we’re not an absolute selling club either.
A big part of our progress over recent years has been finding the right balance, being a good place to stay but not holding anyone back who wants to leave - except maybe Mahrez for a season or so.
posted on 28/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/3/21
We’re not a “selling club” in that we bring players through knowing we are going to move them on for a big fee.
However, we are happy to sell top assets if we believe we’ve identified suitable replacements.
For Kante there was Ndidi
For Drinkwater (lol) there was Tielemans
For Maguire came Soyuncu and Fofana
For Chilwell there was Castagne
After Mahrez there was... well, that’s the one we’ve not really replaced like for like and are still trying
So, after Kante and Mahrez, we’ve learned abs we’ve only really let players leave when we’re comfortable we have an alternative to being in. The Maguire and Chilwell business has been obscene to be honest!
Now the question always comes, can we sustain it? In the long term I’m sure it will backfire eventually, it always does, but for well over 5 years now we’ve had a scouting network and transfer policy that’s been utterly superb. Long may it continue!
Are we a selling club - yes, but when the time is right.
posted on 28/3/21
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
We’re not a “selling club” in that we bring players through knowing we are going to move them on for a big fee.
However, we are happy to sell top assets if we believe we’ve identified suitable replacements.
For Kante there was Ndidi
For Drinkwater (lol) there was Tielemans
For Maguire came Soyuncu and Fofana
For Chilwell there was Castagne
After Mahrez there was... well, that’s the one we’ve not really replaced like for like and are still trying
So, after Kante and Mahrez, we’ve learned abs we’ve only really let players leave when we’re comfortable we have an alternative to being in. The Maguire and Chilwell business has been obscene to be honest!
Now the question always comes, can we sustain it? In the long term I’m sure it will backfire eventually, it always does, but for well over 5 years now we’ve had a scouting network and transfer policy that’s been utterly superb. Long may it continue!
Are we a selling club - yes, but when the time is right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it doesn’t work.. we replaced Mahrez with Ghezzal!
posted on 28/3/21
I wouldn’t say you are in the context of you don’t need to sell in order to create a revenue stream. That’s partly why you always get good deals for your players.
posted on 28/3/21
To be honest a lot of it is down to simple economics. Our turnover is much smaller than that of any of the established rich six.
Consequently the wages we pay as a percentage of our revenue is also higher than any of the rich six teams. It was something like 86% in 18/19 and over 100% in 19/20. In other words we're paying our players more than we actually earn. That's simply not sustainable.
So we can either pay less wages or increase revenue. Selling players is one way of achieving both. Another way is qualifying for the Champions League or increasing commercial revenue.
If anything we've done really well to only lose one player a season and, in the cases of Maguire and Chilwell, have managed to do it and still achieve a net improvement in the areas they vacated. We've ultimately achieved the same with Drinkwater and got close with Kante. Only Mahrez is badly missed in terms of the capability of the squad.
Overall, in answer to the original question: yes we are a selling club - everyone is - but we've done it better than most and are now ourselves much higher up the food chain as a result.
posted on 29/3/21
PSG taking Neynar off Barca fully against their will shows that with the right offer every team is/can be a selling team. Same thing happens with Ronaldo deal from Manchester United to Real Madrid.
Leicester doesn't need to sell to survive and they wanted to keep all those players that have gone with the big money. And managers at Leicester doesn't need to sell before buying. So yes our prayers can lured like all teams in the world but we're not selling for financial profits.
posted on 29/3/21
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
posted on 29/3/21
comment by Double Decker Fox (U2980)
posted 38 minutes ago
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put DDF.
Why did we not sell Vardy to Arsenal?
posted on 29/3/21
Chelsea are somewhat stunted in that table as well due to their transfer ban.
How impressive is it when you look at Liverpool and what they’ve achieved with similar spending to us! Just goes to show that the “big rich” 6 can still attract talent for less if done well.
posted on 29/3/21
Much more important than worrying about whether yours is a selling club or not, is examining how well it invests.
Leicester fans can be very, very happy about how the club has determined targets and spent the funds made available in recent years, and should be praying that Jon Rudkin isn’t going anywhere any time soon.
posted on 29/3/21
comment by Double Decker Fox (U2980)
posted 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
You might find this table interesting - it shows the net transfer spend of clubs over the last five years. There are some eye-watering sums spent by the usual suspects. Leicester are 14th in the 'net spending' league, versus their average league position of 8th during this time. Net spend however is still £96M, so are any teams really 'selling clubs'? Aside from Man City/Utd, pretty much every club has to sell in order to cover losses made on transfers that don't work out....and of course, we've had plenty of those over the years, albeit at a lower % than most clubs. UTF.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Spend is a useful barometer, but it has a context within a range of other indicators.
The rich six have a much higher net spend because they can afford it as their revenue is so much higher than everyone elses. Arsenal currently rank sixth in terms of revenue, but it's still about double what we rake in and Manchester United's is closer to 3.5 times ours.
I doubt there are many clubs who sell to cover transfer losses as such because of the way transfer fees are accounted. It's more that they need to sell to get players off their books to lower liabilities and increase revenue for future purchases. That's why it was important to get Slimani off our books even without a transfer fee, although getting some of the £30m back would have been nice.
I think by far the biggest factor for us and our potential spending in the next window was to get Slimani, Gray and Silva off the wage bill. Coupled with getting European qualification again (hopefully Champions League) might mean we don't have to sell before buying in the next window. Unless we want to recoup some of the Covid losses, but everyone is in the same boat with that.
posted on 29/3/21
Yes
Page 1 of 2