Quote Originally Posted by GT49er View Post
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
No, I didn't say that. I have always been careful never to put a monetary value on any player - the world of football finance is mad anyway.

BUT if you accept the premise that Dunk isn't as good as Maguire, then he has to be at least partly as good as him. Do you seriously think Maguire is worth two Dunks? Well, if you do, don't keep reading this ............. you'll only get yourself into a stupid argument you can't win!

Let's say Dunk isn't quite as good as Maguire, but nearly. Three quarters as good? Maybe - I'd say a bit more. But in terms of agreeing terms with Leicester (if that is what we do) then the fee has got to be linked with what they get for Maguire. If ManU get Maguire for £50M, our price for Dunk would start at £37.5M. If they get £80M, we'd want £60M. If ManU go mad and stump up £100M, then it's £75M for Dunk.

Not figures - percentages, and that's what our demands to Leicester should be. Is Maguire worth £80M? - no, probably not, but if that's what Leicester get for him, why should we let them keep half of it, or more? No, they can have Dunk (if he wants to go) and keep a quarter - not half - of the booty they get from ManU. That's nothing to do with whatever figure you - or anybody else - thinks Dunk's price should be.

Maguire's price - whatever. However much it is, it our price should be 75% of that (and not a penny less) to buy Dunk.
Totally understand where you are coming from. I think the best example I can think of was Andy Carroll's move to Liverpool a few years ago. Liverpool only paid £35m for him because they had just received £50m for Torres and Newcastle rightly held out for the money.

If Leicester want Dunk and he wants to go that's fine, but if they receive a huge wedge for Maguire then we need to hold out for a significant portion of it.