jimharri
Moderator
Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!I think the Kane ship has sailed as far as we are concerned.
We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!
Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!I think the Kane ship has sailed as far as we are concerned.
I wouldn’t disagree that he is a very good player and a great goal scorer, but I still think that we got a much better deal with Haaland. Kane is 29, Haaland 22. Levy apparently wanted more than double what we paid for Haaland. I think that there are greater things to come from Erling and even if he moved on after 5 years, we would recover a handsome profit.Still think we should have broken the bank for him and paid what they wanted because he is worth it. Great player. If it were my money and I was on the board I would have put the Grealish money into the deal and some and not bothered with that deal to secure Kane
I do not say it should have been at the expense of or instead of Haaland. Maybe should have been instead of GrealishI wouldn’t disagree that he is a very good player and a great goal scorer, but I still think that we got a much better deal with Haaland. Kane is 29, Haaland 22. Levy apparently wanted more than double what we paid for Haaland. I think that there are greater things to come from Erling and even if he moved on after 5 years, we would recover a handsome profit.
I’m relieved that we have a board that has a better understanding of the football business than you doStill think we should have broken the bank for him and paid what they wanted because he is worth it. Great player. If it were my money and I was on the board I would have put the Grealish money into the deal and some and not bothered with that deal to secure Kane
I know that you didn’t say at the expense of Haaland, but do we need 2 players like that? My opinion is that we don’t, especially as Haaland will possibly get supported more in the future by Alvarez.I do not say it should have been at the expense of or instead of Haaland. Maybe should have been instead of Grealish
I'd rather have Haaland and Alvarez. The latter could give 'Arry twenty yards start and get to the other set of goals before him.Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!
We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!
I hate to think what the RDAH meedya would say about that!I'd rather have Haaland and Alvarez. The latter could give 'Arry twenty yards start and get to the other set of goals before him.
Very rare do we play with a two up front although Kane is more of a number 10 nowadays.Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!
We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!
I know. Pep isn't a fan of a front two.Very rare do we play with a two up front although Kane is more of a number 10 nowadays.
I must be the only one on here who thinks he a self centred muppet.
We don't need him and never have.
Personnel glory is what he is all about.
Not a team player
But he is a big fan of Kane, but like I said I think that ship has sailed.I know. Pep isn't a fan of a front two.
Nailed on to united once we picked up Haaland. Spurs love dealing with a history club. Useless cunts don’t know how the spurs fans put up with it.
Good point I thought he is off to Liverpool?Bellingham?
Kane could play and work very well with Haaland. Haaland makes similar runs to Son when he was at as his best and more often than not, Kane would find him. But I don't see De Bruyne and Kane working in the same team. For me Harry would have been a better fit than Haaland, and nobody will ever change my mind. But that ship has sailed.