What happened to the Leicester "Deal"?

Correct me if i'm wrong but weren't City supposed to get 50k a year under this "deal/contract"? I think CCFC were supposed to pass a few quid onto St. Marys but wheres the cash gone?

Surely City got the 1st years installment upfront?

Also (to continue the rant) wheres Delaneys transfer & subsequent cash gone?

To finish off, i'm still completely opposed to the whole thing but can anyone say how the clubs benefitted so far? All I can think of is got Welsh & training facilities kinda out of the deal whereas Leicester are about to get McSweeney for pittance (be big surprise if they don't)

(rant over.....)

Delaney's fee = Mountie's payoff.

As for how else we've benefitted we're waiting...

yea didnt they also promise a friendly match every pre-season.

forget the $eltic game i'd spend a mint to go to a city Leceister match, if only to shout abuse at Colin judas Murphy for leaving us in the lurch so close to a crucial Uefa match.

No to Leceister

Quote:

---

Originally posted by James
i'd spend a mint to go to a city Leceister match, if only to shout abuse at Colin judas Murphy for leaving us in the lurch so close to a crucial Uefa match.

---

agreed, but even if they did send a team - I doubt if there would be any first teamers (City probably forgot to stipulate that in the contract). I'd be very surprised if 'Judas Colin' turned up either. [couldn't call him 'Judas Murphy' - we have our very own one a dem now]

Murphy OUT!

actually I think that was stipulated in the contract, that is the verbal one anyway...you know the one that you can change or forget about or walk out on at a moments notice

NO To LECEISTER

Do you guys not remember that whole thing last summer when they actually tried to fix a date but couldn't agree how the financial aspect of the matches should be split...Leicester in a way is like City. They both have to watch their money...

Colin Murphy has been back at Turners Cross. He was at the Galway United match towards the end of the season. Sitting in front of the press box...

I know he was back I met him coming out of the ground on my way into the horseshoe and myself and a mate gave him some abuse for walking out on us etc etc to which he replied and said didnt he set up the Leceister deal and that we should be greatful to him for that!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

I mean we should be grateful to him for giving us hope of a new era, then running out on us leaving us with Mountfield. Then setting up this "wonderful" association with a quality and internationally known club (that's Leicester) who precede to further the football skills of our youngsters in Leicester permanently and then pull out of the promised friendly (just in case we make too much money and we wouldn't know what to do with it). You shouls have Thanked him and kissed the rings on his fingers...

actually not sure who has read this but here is a link to the press release given out in Guinness House when the deal was announced..Press Release

Quote:

---

Originally posted by neil

agreed, but even if they did send a team - I doubt if there would be any first teamers (City probably forgot to stipulate that in the contract).

---

they'd probably just do what celtic have promised, ie 'to bring a full squad of available first-teamers'

but at least Celtic have the whole tour thing going on and it is a warm up for the pre-round Champions League thing. Although that would be ironic. All those Cork Celtic fans paying a fortune for tickets and then not recoignising a single player. hehe....

In the first paragraph you'll the mention of "Leicester investing in the Cork City youth setup...." This is exactely like the $hel$/Manchester Utd deal where ManU have ZERO interest in the 1st team & meerly want cheap access to a youth scouting scheme in Dublin (substitute Cork). At least we not as bad (yet) as $hel$ whose underage teams have the ManU crest on their jerseys :puke:

That press release take me back to a time when we actually had a chief executive :rolleyes: although still not sure what he did :confused:

Finally $hel$ like ourselves get a measly 50k a year to basically to scout & train the best local young players. I suppose could possible accept if was maybe 200k a year or some decent figure..... BTW you'll notice Shel$ first team have not benefitted at all from their deal & our 1st team won't either.

You'd have to wonder how much research our Board did before signing on the dotted line..... :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joe
'bring a full squad of available first-teamers'

---

It would be the job if a load of unknowns and rejects were playing for Celtic! Imagine the murmur in the crowd... "Did Henrik get his hair dyed foxy lads..... Eh, No that's Tommy Johnson!"

Waaaaa!!!!

i have to say in relation to young players and the city/leicester, shels/utd link ups, the chances are that those young fellas would go over anyway and i reckon its not a bad way of helping them to develop and, more importantly, keeping them for a few years anyway.

i mean we lost bbm, gamble and plenty more b4 them for a lot less (nothing in the case of gamble and bbm). at least with this deal, young lads might be incouraged to stick with city till 18-20 and we'd get to watch them for a few seasons. if the lads good enough to make it in the premiership (ie delaney), your fooling yourself you think hes gonna stick with city or any el team.

we need to stop being naive and take what we can get for young players. remember its their careers, their the ones that decide to go. if arsenal cant hold onto viera what chance do we have of hanging onto people like leon mcsweeney (no relation).

Ah! someone talking sense and making a good point...
You are right of course b_mcsweeney but if the league actually moved forward maybe we could hold onto them for a little longer...

The really sad thing is the number of young players who will jump at the first opportunity rather than hang on for a better offer.

BBM - let on a 'bosman' free transfer so City go nothing, if this happened today City would also get nothing.
Gamble - he also left on a free transfer & City got nothing. However in the meantime UEFA/FIFA have put in place rules whereby players trained by clubs up to the age of 22/23 with get 'development' compensation therefore City cannot loose any plaers in that age category for free anymore. Remains to be seen how much the compensation is but i'd guess no worse than we receive in "transfers". I believe the system is run on the basis of what level of football the layer was playing.

Therefore the Leicester 'deal' does not ensure City get money for players they otherwise wouldn't get.

I believe we will not see a single young player left with City for a couple of years before moving to Leicester - you are naive if you believe this will EVER happen. If Leicester spot a good young player they will take to Leicester immeadiately.
e.g. $hel$ have not got 1 player on loan from ManU as they're only interested in the youth players!

Also I severely doubt theres any obligation by Leicester to pay a higher fee (for McSweeney for example) than they would under the c'compensation' scheme.

AFAIK City did receive 'compensation' for BBM because he had been with the club since a youth. Also, Gamble was only with us for a few months before leaving so City would never be entitled to anything for him.

Joe,
It might be easier if you just quarantiened (speelig???) my posts & edit them before they released? That way might save the rest of the forum from reading my rantings ;(

BBM must have been under 23 when he left so?

Its probably hard for the club to keep players from progressing to a big club. IMO the only way to justify keeping players is to provide them with a football career @ home. If a proper bid comes in then the club should be able to choose to sell the player instead of feeling obliged not to "...hold the lad back..."

If my memory serves, some rather clever journalist wrote an inciteful piece about BBM's move being the 'perfect 21st birthday present' - I think he signed the week before his birthday or something like that.

The impression I get from City is that they 'won't stand in a young lad's way of going across', but whether they are interested in providing a viable alternative ..........

Quote:

---

The impression I get from City is that they 'won't stand in a young lad's way of going across', but whether they are interested in providing a viable alternative ..........

---

Yup heard that on numerous occasions too. Sums it all up really.

No To Leicester

Don't know why, just wanted to be heard or something, I'm baaaaaack

[
[B]BBM - let on a 'bosman' free transfer so City go nothing, if this happened today City would also get nothing.
Gamble - he also left on a free transfer & City got nothing. \


Makes you wonder why City don't try and extend their contracts so they might get something for the player if other clubs are interested.