Erling Haaland

[decmancity]

All I’ll say is our failure to act so far has seen a lot of teams take themselves off the Haaland market.

I'd ask why they have moved to alternative options...its nothing to gain confidence from.

He knows where he's going. Bayern or Real.

 

[ancoats]

His agent gets paid whether he moves or renews

the thing of modern football that everybody hates are players agents ? they controls their clients on everything
football governing bodies backed themselves into a corner. now its out of control and far to much money is going out of the game. the agent fees are a way of getting a player they want.. the player really has to go anywhere the agent says and like it or not..

haaland contract with dortmund is so complicated to a point its a 3 way split and dortmund have little control over
its complicated to a point of Raiola is the leading person and not the player ?

manchester city can get haaland but it comes with Raiola. in fact your are getting a Raiola that controls the player he pep/city are not a fan of Raiola the control he has on his players is a nightmare.. just look at pogba at united do will want that sort of thing. KDB could be key and he goes agent fee now. maybe haaland could take a look at that even sack Raiola or buy him out

 

[wolviedinho]

We can’t go in anymore and offer extra money as ffp has stopped us spending.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

United will offload cavani, martial, lingard to make room next season.

united will be busy replacing Ole first if they fail to deliver.

cavani on a 2 year isn’t going anywhere. Ronaldo and Sancho, Greenwood and Rashford won’t be gotten rid of. The money on Ronaldo will have handcuffed them. No chance they buy a striker next year, as goals won’t be their problem this season.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

He certainly did. He was hugely hyped in Spain.

He was, but we were also given huge amounts of stick from the English press for bringing in Yaya Toure and David Silva instead of players like Fernando Torres or Steven Gerrard. Kevin De Bruyne and Mo Salah were written off as Chelsea flops. And so on. The English press and English fans in general aren't exactly well known for their knowledge of European football.

 

[wolviedinho]

the thing of modern football that everybody hates are players agents ? they controls their clients on everything
football governing bodies backed themselves into a corner. now its out of control and far to much money is going out of the game. the agent fees are a way of getting a player they want.. the player really has to go anywhere the agent says and like it or not..

haaland contract with dortmund is so complicated to a point its a 3 way split and dortmund have little control over
its complicated to a point of Raiola is the leading person and not the player ?

manchester city can get haaland but it comes with Raiola. in fact your are getting a Raiola that controls the player he pep/city are not a fan of Raiola the control he has on his players is a nightmare.. just look at pogba at united do will want that sort of thing. KDB could be key and he goes agent fee now. maybe haaland could take a look at that even sack Raiola or buy him out

Raiola will make him a multi millionaire. He is going nowhere.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

Exactly. United surely have no room for him. Barca can’t afford him and have Kun, griezeman and Memphis. Real look to be going for mbappe, a completely different type of player. PSG, same. Chelsea have Lukaku.

Bayern will have a space but that’s more bundesliga.

It’s us in the market and I’m praying Kane has missed his chance.

I’d say Real could go for him too, with Mbappe playing on the flanks. I have a feeling he’s decided his destination and that explains our inaction.

 

[wolviedinho]

united will be busy replacing Ole first if they fail to deliver.

cavani on a 2 year isn’t going anywhere. Ronaldo and Sancho, Greenwood and Rashford won’t be gotten rid of. The money on Ronaldo will have handcuffed them. No chance they buy a striker next year, as goals won’t be their problem this season.

We always say they have no money but united have spent over 100m again.

 

[citizen_maine]

Astonishing to me how people still think we operate the same way as before. This summer (unexpectedly!) changed everything everywhere and there’s no turning back for the big European clubs.

Although we bought Grealish, we've not really shown that we recognise that though

 

[simon23]

It’s funny fans of all other clubs are convinced we cheat FFP, we all know we don’t. Yet most of our fans are just as quick to jump on tne PSG ignore FFP rules bandwagon too. When there is no evidence that’s true either.

ive said the same thing.....I applaud PSG for doing what they have done...and chelski to an extent as well....they have both in the past few seasons spent big and completed huge signings...PSG have had a rtansfer window to remember with the signings they have made especially with limited initial outlay (not taking into account wages).

I do think we occasionally need to say fuck it and go for it to an extent ...even with the Grealish money as Pep said we earnt 60% of that from sales so we have only (!) spent 40m this transfer window which is tiny compared to some of the others.....yet we are financially very powerful and we are told that the club is ran financially extremely well (and I dont doubt that for a second)..but surely with our increased revenues we could afford to go big....?

It looked like Kane was the one to do that on BUT if we were going to splash £135m (roughy) on kane then at present coversation rates the 150m Euros qouted for Haaland is about £128m....now I know there are agent fees (40m euros ive seen qouted - which is roughly £35m) in the grand scheme of things and considering what you are getting is a much younger player with a less troublesome injury record you would think the extra outlay was worth it. And I havent even taken into account agent fees for Kane which was another £5m.

140m for Kane
Roughly 165m for Haaland....but he has an upaward trajectory and off the pitch is much much more marketable as well

Of course Kane would cost less in wages (roughly half at a guess)

The only bit I dont quite understand is the bit about why we would be so against the release clause being put in..why not put one in? ....£200m - 300m as in a few years he could be worth that.....but it only starts after the 3rd or 4th year of his contract. Surely we are therefore protecting our investment?

 

[The Doctor]

Unless we think outside of the norm, we will not be at the races for him.

Make him think twice.

Blow every fucker out of the water and deal with it later.

Now that’s disruptive thinking hope they are listening!

 

[lee_wsm]

What’s the odds if real can’t get PSG to sell mbappe they will go for Haaland

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

He was, but we were also given huge amounts of stick from the English press for bringing in Yaya Toure and David Silva instead of players like Fernando Torres or Steven Gerrard. Kevin De Bruyne and Mo Salah were written off as Chelsea flops. And so on. The English press and English fans in general aren't exactly well known for their knowledge of European football.

Spot on. We don’t however buy from the top table from overseas either. Our profile is the Sane’s and Negredo’s.

Yaya, David and Kun were massive stars in Spain when we took them.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

This post by Tolmie should work as the standard-bearer here and why it’s silly to keep saying we can’t or won’t do it: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/erling-haaland.344593/post-14158089

There are creative ways to close this deal and seduce him

 

[wolviedinho]

ive said the same thing.....I applaud PSG for doing what they have done...and chelski to an extent as well....they have both in the past few seasons spent big and completed huge signings...PSG have had a rtansfer window to remember with the signings they have made especially with limited initial outlay (not taking into account wages).

I do think we occasionally need to say fuck it and go for it to an extent ...even with the Grealish money as Pep said we earnt 60% of that from sales so we have only (!) spent 40m this transfer window which is tiny compared to some of the others.....yet we are financially very powerful and we are told that the club is ran financially extremely well (and I dont doubt that for a second)..but surely with our increased revenues we could afford to go big....?

It looked like Kane was the one to do that on BUT if we were going to splash £135m (roughy) on kane then at present coversation rates the 150m Euros qouted for Haaland is about £128m....now I know there are agent fees (40m euros ive seen qouted - which is roughly £35m) in the grand scheme of things and considering what you are getting is a much younger player with a less troublesome injury record you would think the extra outlay was worth it. And I havent even taken into account agent fees for Kane which was another £5m.

140m for Kane
Roughly 165m for Haaland....but he has an upaward trajectory and off the pitch is much much more marketable as well

Of course Kane would cost less in wages (roughly half at a guess)

The only bit I dont quite understand is the bit about why we would be so against the release clause being put in..why not put one in? ....£200m - 300m as in a few years he could be worth that.....but it only starts after the 3rd or 4th year of his contract. Surely we are therefore protecting our investment?

Why did we bid for Kane if Haaland is an option? Kane would have been with us for 5 years.

Haaland is going elsewhere.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

We always say they have no money but united have spent over 100m again.

it’s not money, it’s where it can be put. Next season they’ll be after another midfielder or defender. It won’t be a striker.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Although we bought Grealish, we've not really shown that we recognise that though

We overpaid with Grealish. It’s the first step, just watch

 

[wolviedinho]

it’s not money, it’s where it can be put. Next season they’ll be after another midfielder or defender. It won’t be a striker.

I hope you are correct.

 

[simon23]

Why did we bid for Kane if Haaland is an option? Kane would have been with us for 5 years.

Haaland is going elsewhere.

we were told that the reason we didnt bid was becuase of the money...

Ronaldo could have been coming here but the rags put a better offer in....

If we want most top draw players we are going to have to bid against others....esp when we know the lad is open to coming here (which we konw he is) - of course he is going to consider other offers...we just have to make ours better.

What is the point of financial power if we dont use it?

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

Why did we bid for Kane if Haaland is an option? Kane would have been with us for 5 years.

Haaland is going elsewhere.

that’s far too reductive. We went for Kane because we thought it could be done in this window.

that’s why.

dortmund have made their intentions on Haaland very, very clear.

I don’t think we go back in for Kane. Age is now against him next year and we won’t want to talk with Charlie Kane again. I just can’t see it.

150 mil for Kane next year is still 150 mil if his form is ok.

haaland becomes half of that.