D
D
Deleted member 81382
Guest
Not worried, what will be will be.
Letting Gundogan's contract expire would've been a terrible idea. Our only CMs would've been Bernardo (who's a part-time winger), Kevin, and Foden... and we wouldn't have had a backup DM for when after Fernandinho leaves. We 100% would've gone out and bought a replacement for him, and it probably would've been someone better and younger, too. It's up in the air whether or not we get a Silva replacement (although it's been reported that we won't), but letting Gundo go wouldn't have solved anything.Sadly I think its more likely that we go out and spend big on Silva replacement. If Foden was his replacement he would be certainly coming on at 3-0 vs Brighton, basically to get minutes whenever possible. Didn't happen which is concern IMO.
Just playing in the cups and dead rubber CL matches won't cut the mustard.
In my opinion, we should have let Gundogan's contract expire. This would have allowed to Foden to take his spot next season whilst also giving us the capability to spend big on attacking midfielder as Foden can't replace 2 players obviously. We gave him new juicy deal, so it is what it is.
I agree keeping Gundogan was very important. Foden is obviously hinting at game time and I think it will come, especially with Laporte's likely long term injury.Letting Gundogan's contract expire would've been a terrible idea. Our only CMs would've been Bernardo (who's a part-time winger), Kevin, and Foden... and we wouldn't have had a backup DM for when after Fernandinho leaves. We 100% would've gone out and bought a replacement for him, and it probably would've been someone better and younger, too. It's up in the air whether or not we get a Silva replacement (although it's been reported that we won't), but letting Gundo go wouldn't have solved anything.