Christian Eriksen

[Matt1882]

It's straight forward... We're due to pay him until the end of the season.

If we loan him to his destination team early they'll have to cover his wages and save us a few quid.

And if we release him early, we don't pay him anything, we can wipe our hands of him and the net result is exactly the same.
There is no need to loan him out. If we use Juve as an example, if they agree a pre contract with him in January, we could suggest they pay us a pound to take him now rather than wait. We would be a pound better off than if we loaned him out.
The only way to benefit from a loan is to charge a loan fee and transfer his wages to that team. They aren't gonna be too keen to pay a loan fee as it would be the same a transfer fee.

We need to just get rid.

 

[Matt1882]

We won't have to pay his wages for the last 6 months of his contract.
And we would have to pay his wages if we agree a free transfer in January?
Meaning we have wages available to spend on someone else.
See above
He's not anywhere near our squad, stinking up the place.
He'd be even further from the squad if he gone permanently
We might get a bit of money for a loan fee.
Could ask the same as a small transfer fee to take him now rather than in June (Lewis Holtby?)
Frees up an overseas CL spot.
Same as releasing him permanently.
His new club gets to bed him in for 6 months before the new season starts.
Same as releasing him permanently.
That's 5 benefits of the top of my head
So no benefits over a permanent release of the player.

Obviously not going to happen though.

 

[stevee]

I think we're at cross purposes here.

The discussion was about if he signed a pre contract deal with another club and that being the case, sending him on loan and the benefits of doing that, which I listed.

This is of course assuming that he was still with us. He could refuse to move till the end of the season.

Yes, we could and should fuck him off but that would mean that we still have to pay his wages

 

[Shotgunofmichalebrow]

Bin the bloke off he has soured a great career with us. Bad apples rot the barrel. Its simply not worth having him round.

 

[Airfixx]

And if we release him early, we don't pay him anything, we can wipe our hands of him and the net result is exactly the same.
There is no need to loan him out. If we use Juve as an example, if they agree a pre contract with him in January, we could suggest they pay us a pound to take him now rather than wait. We would be a pound better off than if we loaned him out.
The only way to benefit from a loan is to charge a loan fee and transfer his wages to that team. They aren't gonna be too keen to pay a loan fee as it would be the same a transfer fee.

We need to just get rid.

What you've described doesn't constitute what is typically described as an early release....

Beyond that see stevee 's post....

 

[Yid91]

And if we release him early, we don't pay him anything, we can wipe our hands of him and the net result is exactly the same.
There is no need to loan him out. If we use Juve as an example, if they agree a pre contract with him in January, we could suggest they pay us a pound to take him now rather than wait. We would be a pound better off than if we loaned him out.
The only way to benefit from a loan is to charge a loan fee and transfer his wages to that team. They aren't gonna be too keen to pay a loan fee as it would be the same a transfer fee.

We need to just get rid.

Doesn't work that that, he's entitled to his wages. If we want to release him we pay him up. He would be entitled to refuse and stay or take the offer the club make to him. But we can't just release him and pay him nothing.

 

[Matt1882]

You can give players a free transfer.
It's in his interest as his new club would pay him more than we would.

 

[Yid91]

You can give players a free transfer.
It's in his interest as his new club would pay him more than we would.

Yes you can offer them it but it's still up to them to go. Player can sit tight and pick wages up unless it's a sacking as in case of gross misconduct. No club can rip up a contract for no reason.

 

[Matt1882]

Yes you can offer them it but it's still up to them to go. Player can sit tight and pick wages up unless it's a sacking as in case of gross misconduct. No club can rip up a contract for no reason.

Why the FUCK would he agree to that rather than take a 100% payrise from his soon to be new club now?

I can't believe so many people think loaning him to the new team makes more sense than just agreeing to let him go there now. There's nothing in it for him or us that favours the loan over a permanent transfer now.

 

[Yid91]

Why the FUCK would he agree to that rather than take a 100% payrise from his soon to be new club now?

I can't believe so many people think loaning him to the new team makes more sense than just agreeing to let him go there now. There's nothing in it for him or us that favours the loan over a permanent transfer now.

I haven't mentioned a loan deal merely pointing out no club can boot a player out the door if the player doesn't agree to it.

 

[Matt1882]

I haven't mentioned a loan deal merely pointing out no club can boot a player out the door if the player doesn't agree to it.

I agree we can't terminate his contract no. But if he signs a pre contract with a team, it stands to reason he wants to play for them and they want him. We can suggest to him and the new team he goes now and waive a fee, or make it a small token amount. That is a better deal for us and for Eriksen.
The new team might be have to pay him more between now and his official date in June, but they get him now.

The loan makes no sense unless we could squeeze a loan fee bigger than a transfer fee, which is laughable really.

 

[Airfixx]

I agree we can't terminate his contract no. But if he signs a pre contract with a team, it stands to reason he wants to play for them and they want him. We can suggest to him and the new team he goes now and waive a fee, or make it a small token amount. That is a better deal for us and for Eriksen.
The new team might be have to pay him more between now and his official date in June, but they get him now.

The loan makes no sense unless we could squeeze a loan fee bigger than a transfer fee, which is laughable really.

Surely we'd just sell him in Jan at that point if the club were willing to pay a significant trf fee....?

 

[spursmalc]

I think I read Levy wants £40m for him in January. He will stay to the summer as Ramsay did last year and play when asked.

 

[Matt1882]

I think I read Levy wants £40m for him in January. He will stay to the summer as Ramsay did last year and play when asked.

I'd take £40m in Dianne Abbots currency, which is about 47p I think.
Levy asking for anything more than 7 digits is ridiculous really.
Mourinho needs to sit down with Daniel and tell him that Eriksen is not playing for him ever again and to take whatever anyone is willing to pay for him.
The way he's playing he wouldn't be worth £40m with 5 years on his contract.

Let him go now for £1m or pay him £2m in salary up to June.

 

[spursmalc]

I'd take £40m in Dianne Abbots currency, which is about 47p I think.
Levy asking for anything more than 7 digits is ridiculous really.
Mourinho needs to sit down with Daniel and tell him that Eriksen is not playing for him ever again and to take whatever anyone is willing to pay for him.
The way he's playing he wouldn't be worth £40m with 5 years on his contract.

Let him go now for £1m or pay him £2m in salary up to June.

Levy is not going to let him go for £1. He will only go if one of the big clubs come in for him which I do not think they will until the summer. He will continue to be used as Jose wants which seems to be as a sub.

 

[Spursidol]

Eriksen could stay until June and come off the bench to help Spurs - noticeable that he has come off the bench a couple of times to change the game, seeming not up to stating games though. But that means no fee.

Or he could go in January, but for that to happen :
1) He agrees to go to another cub
2) Spurs get a fee which we are happy with (maybe £20m) or do that rare Part exchange for a player Spurs want. Eriksen has a value to us for the 2nd half of the season so don't see us releasing him just to save five bob in wages.
3) If Spurs get a fee, we can buy a player or two who Spurs want who can fill a gap in the squad (whether another position such as CB or a direct replacement, even if that is a younger player such as McNeil of Burnley or Eze or Bowen etc). Worth remembering that Eriksen leaving frees up am 'overseas trained' spot in the squad - currently we have none.

Could go either way.

But if the stars align think Spurs would prefer the 2nd option of him leaving in January and instrumental in us getting a player or two.

 

[gurru991]

Am I correct in saying that he doesn't have to accept a transfer if he doesn't want it & he can just play out the season & leave in the Summer ? If so, why would any club pay 20 mill for him in January when all they need to do is tell his agent they'll be in for him in the Summer or just offer a contract now.
I'm a bit confused by the whole thing.

 

[Notabadsquad]

Am I correct in saying that he doesn't have to accept a transfer if he doesn't want it & he can just play out the season & leave in the Summer ? If so, why would any club pay 20 mill for him in January when all they need to do is tell his agent they'll be in for him in the Summer or just offer a contract now.
I'm a bit confused by the whole thing.

It's simply up to Eriksen.

Once we get to January he can sign with a foreign club for a July contractual start.

If a domestic club he would need to wait until his contract ends unless we grant permission.

Eriksen's choice entirely.

 

[harry7]

Our best front 4 at the moment

Alli
Son - Kane - Moura

As rotation, we have Sessengon, Lo Celso, Parott, Lamela and Eriksen.

Sess, Parott and Lo Celso are still learning.
Lamela is usually injured.

If we sold Eriksen and Alli was to get injured we would all be screaming 'crisis'. Lo Celso would be a very busy man indeed, playing 90 minutes every single game across all competitions until Lamela pops back from the physio.

We complained in past seasons that Eriksen had no competition for his spot; and now want to hand that chalice over to Lo Celso?

 

[Jayc1]

If we sold Eriksen and Alli was to get injured we would all be screaming 'crisis'. Lo Celso would be a very busy man indeed, playing 90 minutes every single game across all competitions until Lamela pops back from the physio.

Or we just adapt and play 4-3-3. Or use Ndombele. Or use Parrot and Kane as a front 2.

Celso's competition isn't Eriksen right now, it's Alli.

Besides that, what value is Eriksen actually bringing to the club right now? We wouldn't even notice if he was gone, he's been shocking. We should sell him for anything we can, I'd be fine with £10mil at this point.