Jack Grealish

[kramer]

I should also add - I think we’ll get a reasonable price because he’s bought in.

If he wants this move, City aren’t really holding any cards except reintegrating him into the squad.

[AjaxAndy]

His game’s not dependent on pace which is the number one thing that tends to erode with age.

The only against argument I’m properly sympathetic to is potential injuries as he ages. He’s been kicked a lot and will continue to get kicked a lot. Really hard to say if this season’s injury is a freak thing or a feature.

I still say go for it as long as the price is reasonable. You can’t make tons of signings like this but you can make one. He’s still top quality, he’s an exemplar of the work rate you need even as a top creative player, and he’s brought joy back to watching Everton as much as any other player.

We can probably manage his fitness more cautiously with another year of development from Dibling and George too.

I think whether his injury was a freak one or not, you can't sign him at this age and expect him to play more than 20-25 games a season. His injury record over the past 2-3 seasons has been pretty poor, and he's not looked after himself off the pitch. That only goes one way for an athlete.

So it just comes down to cost, especially as the new cost ratio cap is 75% - 85% of income depending on if you qualify for Europe.

If we have to pay £20m and he wants £200k+ wages it's really hard to find an argument for that imo, mainly because you don't just have to buy Grealish but also a backup for the other 40-50% of the games he won't be fit for.

Also imagine being hamstrung by a £200k+ a week wage for a player if his involvement stats drop below that.

There's lots of positives to signing Grealish that have been highlighted previously, but it really for me just comes down to the cost. I'd have little argument for him on a free and £150k a week wages, but anything else especially over a 3 year contract would be risky, and probably not how we progress long term as a club if we want to build in the right way.

[Bumble]

I think most clubs outside the top few are going to more cautious with their expenditure from now on.

Villa are a perfect example as they still seem to have legacy PSR issues and they have qualified for Europe the past few years.

I think there's a deal to be done for Grealish but not at his current wages with a hefty fee too.

[777Kidnappings]

I should also add - I think we’ll get a reasonable price because he’s bought in.

If he wants this move, City aren’t really holding any cards except reintegrating him into the squad.

Whats reasonable? I think the problem is both the fee and the length of the contract.

20m doesn't seem awful but the flip side of that is do we really want to be committing to more than 2 years given his age and massive wages. We dont want to get stuck with a reserve earning mega money in 3 or 4 years time.

I feel like he should be on a free. I think we quickly get into dangerous territory when its 20m+10m a season over a long contract. Do think we are going to struggle to get any value out of the deal unless he costs nowt or plays really well for a full 4 or 5 years

[TheRam]

People are talking like £20m is a lot of money.

It isn’t, especially for a player like Grealish.

We paid more than that for Theo Walcott eight years ago.

[Gash]

Why are people convinced we're going to buy him, we'll probably just loan him again? That would be the sensible option, it was reported at somewhere around £12-15m including wages for this season, do that again, or preferably less given he's older and missed nearly half the season then we can see how things are at the end of next season and take it from there. We hold the cards, not City or Grealish.

Personally I don't mind if we sign him or not, I don't think he's a big marquee signing. Decent player but even fit he probably wasn't going to the WC and he fell well out of favour at City and hasn't exactly been the model professional at times. We'll take him on our terms or let him go elsewhere if we've learned anything over the last few years.

[AjaxAndy]

People are talking like £20m is a lot of money.

It isn’t, especially for a player like Grealish.

We paid more than that for Theo Walcott eight years ago.

£20m isn't huge money but when you add in wages that break our structure it adds up.

[Bluebridge]

He won’t cost us anything transfer fee wise, we’ll “loan” him again but pick up 100% of his wages, City don’t really hold any aces with this and they know it.

[kramer]

Whats reasonable? I think the problem is both the fee and the length of the contract.

20m doesn't seem awful but the flip side of that is do we really want to be committing to more than 2 years given his age and massive wages. We dont want to get stuck with a reserve earning mega money in 3 or 4 years time.

I feel like he should be on a free. I think we quickly get into dangerous territory when its 20m+10m a season over a long contract. Do think we are going to struggle to get any value out of the deal unless he costs nowt or plays really well for a full 4 or 5 years

I think £10-15m and a wage maybe slightly beyond whoever our current top earner is for 4 years.

City not holding any cards to get a bigger fee. Grealish needs nothing else from the game so I think he’d take a wage cut.

I think it happens.

It’s certainly money we’ll never get back but I think the value of our squad is fairly healthy overall. If you can do this for one player, why not for someone who’s proven himself to be top quality?

This isn’t like any of the dead money we’ve thrown around before. He’s that good and could still be a regular at a CL club if he felt like moving his life. He doesn’t appear to and that’s our win.

[AjaxAndy]

I think £10-15m and a wage maybe slightly beyond whoever our current top earner is for 4 years.

City not holding any cards to get a bigger fee. Grealish needs nothing else from the game so I think he’d take a wage cut.

I think it happens.

It’s certainly money we’ll never get back but I think the value of our squad is fairly healthy overall. If you can do this for one player, why not for someone who’s proven himself to be top quality?

This isn’t like any of the dead money we’ve thrown around before. He’s that good and could still be a regular at a CL club if he felt like moving his life. He doesn’t appear to and that’s our win.

Could not be more against giving Grealish a 4 year deal beyond our current top earner. You'll be wasting at least 2 years of wages on him given his decline will be fast.

3 years maybe but with some heavy appearance based structure, but ideally 2 years.

Zero point having an albatross of a player hung around our neck for several years soaking up a good chunk of our cost ratio spending.

[Bumble]

Permanent deal this summer is unnecesary sunk cost, with a year left on his deal.

Maintain the current arrangement and revisit next summer.

Works for everyone bar City, who don't hold any cards in this situation.

[AjaxAndy]

Permanent deal this summer is unnecesary sunk cost, with a year left on his deal.

Maintain the current arrangement and revisit next summer.

Works for everyone bar City, who don't hold any cards in this situation.

Exactly, if he plays 30+ games next season we have more confidence offering a 2 year deal with a one year option.

If he plays 15 we know not to sign him permanently or at a very reduced wage if we do as we'd hold all the cards.

I think we paid city £15m for the loan this year, same again next and they've received a decent wedge for him over the 2 years. Everyone wins.

[777Kidnappings]

Exactly, if he plays 30+ games next season we have more confidence offering a 2 year deal with a one year option.

If he plays 15 we know not to sign him permanently or at a very reduced wage if we do as we'd hold all the cards.

I think we paid city £15m for the loan this year, same again next and they've received a decent wedge for him over the 2 years. Everyone wins.

I thought we just paid 10m in wages. So really city paid 5m to get him off their books for a year. Which does make the 50m or even any fee seem a bit daft. He was worth less than nothing to them last season

[TheRam]

I feel like people are getting stressed over made up numbers again.

[AjaxAndy]

I thought we just paid 10m in wages. So really city paid 5m to get him off their books for a year. Which does make the 50m or even any fee seem a bit daft. He was worth less than nothing to them last season

No we definitely paid between £10m & £15m loan fee if the reports at the time were correct.