Erling Haaland

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

I appreciate it was a simplistic analogy. However. Do you lease a player etc. knowing that at the end of the lease he has no value, or do you go for the option to actually sell the player within the lease period whereby you retain a value, and possibly profit from the lease. With a 5 year contract for Kane or Haaland, Kane in say 4 years will be worth little, but Haaland could be worth considerable sums.City tend to keep their players in the long term, and the point I was trying to make was that 12 years of Haaland is more value than 5 years of Kane for the same price.

I understand that, and yes it would have been absolutely correct in the days when the clubs could tell players what to do.
It was the way of the world but that’s all changed at our level nowadays. The players have savvy agents and only sign good contracts.

At the end of their lease period (so to speak) they can walk away free, the club can’t sell them without their agreement and their savvy agents ensure that they won’t agree to anything unless they can profit handsomely from it.

The only way to extend a players contract is to increase the players salary / bonuses to a point at which the cumulative amount is at least equal, over the extended part of the contract, to the sum that the player‘s agent thinks the player would achieve if he ran down his contract and earned a signing-on bonus and salary elsewhere for that period.

Look at Bale at Real Madrid. £400k a week and the club can’t sell him and he won’t leave because both he and RM fully understand that he earns more where he is than he could earn elsewhere for the period of time in question.
So there’s none of that “give him a 5 year contract, sell him in 3 and make a nice tidy profit - unless, the player (and his agent if he has one) are happy that the transfer is the most profitable path for the player for the time period in question.

I know that’s simplistic, and there are notable exceptions. For instance; Kevin DeBruyne represents himself because he understands that an agent‘s fee is money that the player would receive if he managed his own affairs.
Prior to his last extension, he employed a specialist agency to produce a report that demonstrated his beneficial financial impact for the club.
Armed with the report he told the club what he was worth, he and the club compared their valuations and came to an agreement.
He received the maximum that the club would pay him because he knew his worth, and he pocketed the part of that worth that an agent would have taken.

Sorry about being so long winded, just trying to be clear about why I hold my opinion, but that’s not to say that you need share it.
The point of the forum is the exchange of views and opinions and I appreciate why so many will share your take.

 

[blueparrot]

I have no doubt you are right… But how would Chelsea fare with Haaland on board?

Don’t know, can’t worry a out other teams signing good players , just confident we’ll do okay.

 

[simon23]

Dortmund are going to sell Sancho and Haaland? Having qualified against all expectation for the CL? No way on God's earth.
Sorry lads, it's Kane (or nothing very much).

(I'd be very happy with Kane. He and Sterling were starting to understand each other's game nicely in the latter stages of the Euros. Will the club stump up north of 100 million,though? Doubt it very much. Levy is prepared to have an unhappy player on his hands. That's Levy. I'm presuming that Harry Kane will not kick his club in the bollocks by going to Chelsea, even if they were prepared to offer the money).

are you saying that Dortmund wont reinvest the potential money.....of course they would....If someone offered 150m for Haaland they would take it.....plus 73m for Sancho....223m total and they woudl reinvesst some of that at least.....

We wont get Haaland for the reason that we have our mind for some inexplicable reason set on Kane seemingly. Kane will score plenty for us but he will not improve us beyond where we are now. And if Haaland doesnt go this summer he will next and we wont be able to go for him as we will have Kane and no way we will have both in the squad

 

[happy]

He's a better person than you, in my opinion

And, although entitled to your opinion, you'd be incorrect.

At no point in my life have I ever been paid by a corporation responsible for hacking the phone of a dead teenager.

I think once you take the Murdoch shilling you've condemned yourself to a life of eternal shame and laid yourself open to the justified ire of humanity.

He works for scum, he takes money from scum, he is scum.

 

[BAB.DAB]

And, although entitled to your opinion, you'd be incorrect.

At no point in my life have I ever been paid by a corporation responsible for hacking the phone of a dead teenager.

I think once you take the Murdoch shilling you've condemned yourself to a life of eternal shame and laid yourself open to the justified ire of humanity.

He works for scum, he takes money from scum, he is scum.

If you're child was born with a serious illness, would you do all you can to help them.
Sometimes the greater good is the lesser evil.

 

[Bill Walker]

Dortmund are going to sell Sancho and Haaland? Having qualified against all expectation for the CL? No way on God's earth.
Sorry lads, it's Kane (or nothing very much).

(I'd be very happy with Kane. He and Sterling were starting to understand each other's game nicely in the latter stages of the Euros. Will the club stump up north of 100 million,though? Doubt it very much. Levy is prepared to have an unhappy player on his hands. That's Levy. I'm presuming that Harry Kane will not kick his club in the bollocks by going to Chelsea, even if they were prepared to offer the money).

I think Kane is too slow for us.
He seems like a rumbling carthorse sometimes.
75 million tops at his age.

 

[SRB_MCFC]

There are definite negatives to Haaland but I would still love to see him sign.

1) Not knocking him but we have a hair over a season's worth of tape on him. That isn't a ton.
2) We'd likely need to break the wage structure. You can say "generational talent" all you want but it's fuck all if it leads to discontent in the locker room. We have an extremely tight knit squad and you rarely hear of any BS from the side of things.
3) Raiola. Kind of mixes in with the 2nd point. He tends to sow the seeds of discontent rather frequently. We aren't the rags where we have our dirty laundry aired out in the public square...I'd prefer we kept it that way.

We have a system that works. It Haaland wants to play and work within that system then I'll welcome him aboard. If not, then I'm not too bothered.

 

[Coatigan]

are you saying that Dortmund wont reinvest the potential money.....of course they would....If someone offered 150m for Haaland they would take it.....plus 73m for Sancho....223m total and they woudl reinvesst some of that at least.....

We wont get Haaland for the reason that we have our mind for some inexplicable reason set on Kane seemingly. Kane will score plenty for us but he will not improve us beyond where we are now. And if Haaland doesnt go this summer he will next and we wont be able to go for him as we will have Kane and no way we will have both in the squad

I don't get the logic that Dortmund wouldn't sell 2 players in one summer. Even as a concept, let alone for big money. Clubs sell more than one player all the time. Remember when Monaco sold all their star players in one go, nearly half their team. Mbappe, b.silva, mendy, timeone b., etc etc. They didn't say, ah wait, 300m is enough let's not taks any more cash. And this was having just won their league. Dortmund are a selling club, find talented players, cash in on them, play well along the way, that is their model. Of course they will sell both, if someone offers the right amount. In fact, I'd go as far as thinking, they would have dug in their heels over Sancho for a bit longer to get a few more million for him (utd would have continued most of the summer) if they were indeed adamant at not selling Haaland.

Re your second paragraph, I just can't come round to seeing that as the case (that we have our mind set on kane). Sure, there will be strong interest, why wouldn't there be. But I just don't buy this idea that he is our only target, or even main target or top priority etc. For one, it is just not how the club do things. And two, there really is nothing to suggest that. It is a self propelling conclusion based on one vague interview, some immediate media speculation, and then some flaky guesswork. The throwaway comments snuck into podcasts then resold as tweets that we have supposedly put in a bid of 100m included. I highly doubt the club are looking at just one player, for such an important position.

 

[Keeper!]

I don't get the logic that Dortmund wouldn't sell 2 players in one summer. Even as a concept, let alone for big money. Clubs sell more than one player all the time. Remember when Monaco sold all their star players in one go, nearly half their team. Mbappe, b.silva, mendy, timeone b., etc etc. They didn't say, ah wait, 300m is enough let's not taks any more cash. And this was having just won their league. Dortmund are a selling club, find talented players, cash in in them, pley well along the way, that is their model. Of course they will sell both, if someone offers the right amount. In fact, I'd go as far as thinking, they would have dug in their heels over Sancho for a bit longer to get a few more million for him (utd would have continued most of the summer) if they were indeed adamant at not selling Haaland.

Re your second paragraph, I just can't come round to seeing that as the case (that we have our mind set on kane). Sure, there will be strong interest, why wouldn't there be. But I just don't buy this idea that he is our only target, or even main target or top priority etc. For one, it is just not how the club do things. And two, there really is nothing to suggest that. It is a self propelling conclusion based on one vague interview, some immediate media speculation, and then some flaky guesswork. The throwaway comments snuck into podcasts then resold as tweets that we have supposedly put in a bid of 100m included. I highly doubt the club are looking at just one player, for such an important position.

Totally agree, if a club puts in a big bid for Haaland he is off, no question about that, particularly in this current pandemic.

The lack of fans has hit Dortmund hard, attendances are a major part of their turnover.

It looks like Chelsea are favorites but I also have no doubt if the Kane deal fails or is not good value, we would be back at the table with Riola and negotiate, if we have ever left, we are too clever at negotiations to put all our proverbial eggs in one basket!

 

[waspish]

are you saying that Dortmund wont reinvest the potential money.....of course they would....If someone offered 150m for Haaland they would take it.....plus 73m for Sancho....223m total and they woudl reinvesst some of that at least.....

We wont get Haaland for the reason that we have our mind for some inexplicable reason set on Kane seemingly. Kane will score plenty for us but he will not improve us beyond where we are now. And if Haaland doesnt go this summer he will next and we wont be able to go for him as we will have Kane and no way we will have both in the squad

“Kane will score plenty for us but he will not improve us beyond where we are now”

So that’s an endorsement of signing Kane because Where we are now under pep is winning an average of 2 trophies as season with one of them the league!

 

[doobyedoobye]

Not buying Eden Hazard was a big mistake at the time IMHO

Not buying Haaland with his family links to our club would be much worse considering he has so much potential

Would we make the same mistake twice? I’d consider it madness to do so….

If Dortmund expect the buying club to pay Mino’s fees and Alfie’s fees on top it could become a 200 million GBP deal before wages and singing on bonus

 

[Tugay One Cup]

And, although entitled to your opinion, you'd be incorrect.

At no point in my life have I ever been paid by a corporation responsible for hacking the phone of a dead teenager.

I think once you take the Murdoch shilling you've condemned yourself to a life of eternal shame and laid yourself open to the justified ire of humanity.

He works for scum, he takes money from scum, he is scum.

Give it a fucking rest mate, look at where our money comes from.

The world isn't as black and white as you like to make out.

 

[simon23]

“Kane will score plenty for us but he will not improve us beyond where we are now”

So that’s an endorsement of signing Kane because Where we are now under pep is winning an average of 2 trophies as season with one of them the league!

He w9nt help us step up where it matters....we dont want to stand still as others will improve both domestically and in Eurooe

 

[simon23]

I don't get the logic that Dortmund wouldn't sell 2 players in one summer. Even as a concept, let alone for big money. Clubs sell more than one player all the time. Remember when Monaco sold all their star players in one go, nearly half their team. Mbappe, b.silva, mendy, timeone b., etc etc. They didn't say, ah wait, 300m is enough let's not taks any more cash. And this was having just won their league. Dortmund are a selling club, find talented players, cash in on them, play well along the way, that is their model. Of course they will sell both, if someone offers the right amount. In fact, I'd go as far as thinking, they would have dug in their heels over Sancho for a bit longer to get a few more million for him (utd would have continued most of the summer) if they were indeed adamant at not selling Haaland.

Re your second paragraph, I just can't come round to seeing that as the case (that we have our mind set on kane). Sure, there will be strong interest, why wouldn't there be. But I just don't buy this idea that he is our only target, or even main target or top priority etc. For one, it is just not how the club do things. And two, there really is nothing to suggest that. It is a self propelling conclusion based on one vague interview, some immediate media speculation, and then some flaky guesswork. The throwaway comments snuck into podcasts then resold as tweets that we have supposedly put in a bid of 100m included. I highly doubt the club are looking at just one player, for such an important position.

I really hope your second paragraph is correct, but I get the feeling that Kane is priority no.1 above all else and Levy ,(despite what some people say) will sell for the money we will offer

 

[waspish]

He w9nt help us step up where it matters....we dont want to stand still as others will improve both domestically and in Eurooe

Getting a top striker we won’t stand still but some fans rather look at the negativity of all things Man City and what ever anyone’s says won’t change there mind! So I’ll stick with being positive in signing a striker in Kane’s standing..

 

[simon23]

Getting a top striker we won’t stand still but some fans rather look at the negativity of all things Man City and what ever anyone’s says won’t change there mind! So I’ll stick with being positive in signing a striker in Kane’s standing..

Wanting better is being positive...

 

[waspish]

Wanting better is being positive...

Kane is the best in the premier anyone else we will not now how he will performs we have the facts with Kane..

 

[Coatigan]

I really hope your second paragraph is correct, but I get the feeling that Kane is priority no.1 above all else and Levy ,(despite what some people say) will sell for the money we will offer

What are you basing the first part on?

I do think if the club indeed go all in for Kane, we will land him. It will be for more than the club want to spend on him, and way more than he is worth, but if he is the one they want it will eventually happen. I'm just not convinced he is, that's all. Not to the extent they'd pay what it takes.

 

[BlueMooner87]

I think this thread has just become the "i hate Kane" thread

Tbh while it would be great to have haaland, I fully back never signing any Riola managed player and getting the best Prem striker in the leage for the last 5 years is an amazing addition

 

[MadchesterCity]

Not buying Eden Hazard was a big mistake at the time IMHO

Not buying Haaland with his family links to our club would be much worse considering he has so much potential

Would we make the same mistake twice? I’d consider it madness to do so….

Not buying Haaland will be criminal, we really must buy him at all costs rather than let him go to a rival.

He is a once in a generation striker and we must do everything possible to sign him, will be gutted if we end up with Grealish or Kane