http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=108267&start=40 http://www.fansonline.net/leicestercity/mb/view.php?id=386912 http://twitter.com/#!/LcfcInfoMan draw your own conclusions....
I think £2m was added on for Long as, unlike Maynard, he didn't go out on the piste.......... I'll get my coat.
He may have 'recovered well', but the fact is his leg is not going to be as strong as someone who has never had a broken leg (Long for example) and there will always be a risk with Maynard of him having a reoccurance of that injury. £5m for a player who has two, what I would call, 'code red' scenarios (1. having suffered a bad injury and 2. only a year on his contract) is ridiculously OTT.
Fact is, all player values decrease following a bad injury, regardless of the speed or level of quality he has recovered with. That's why IMO £5m+ is an absurd amount for someone who has only just recovered from a serious injury.
I agree it does seem odd, i guess that because he didnt have a whole season, Svens not willing to spend big on him.
Boring fact - but it isn't actually true that a bone becomes permanently stronger after a break. Nor does it become any weaker. During the process of healing; specifically mineralization - the area of the break will become stronger in the latter stages, but this is only really in comparison to the surrounding area of the bone which de-mineralises slightly during this course of action. Ultimately they will both revert to the same density and soundness of structure (if complete healing is successful). I think with knee injuries there is the fear of an initial breakdown which he has successfully avoided and an issue relating to longevity, which may suggest the difference in valuation. But it's all subjective anyway, I imagine the final offer for both would have been around the same figure with add ons anyway.
