Erling Haaland

[hampshireblue]

If we are going to go for Kane it has to be now. He's 27 so has 5 or 6 years at a push left.

 

[Keeper!]

If we are going to go for Kane it has to be now. He's 27 so has 5 or 6 years at a push left.

5 tops, but what a 5 years it could be for both him and us

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

If we are going to go for Kane it has to be now. He's 27 so has 5 or 6 years at a push left.

Yep - and he’d be 28 before he kicks a ball for City.

5 year contract would mean he’d be 32 for the final year of his time with us.

I just can’t get behind this signing at all - great player, no doubt, but I’d rather see us go for a different profile of player to replace Kun.

 

[Dr Jacoby]

I watched bits of the Leicester v Spurs game late in the 2nd half when it was evident that the City game was won and there was one moment when Kane was put clean through late on. I forget who the defender was but he easily recovered and beat Kane for pace. I knew Kane wasn't particularly quick but it really struck me then that if you play Kane, you aren't going to get that many goals by slipping him through like we do Sterling or Jesus. Haaland has the advantage over Kane in that he is much quicker. Most of Kane's utility to Spurs is his all round quality that enables him to come deep and play through balls to Moura/Son. We don't need this.

IMO Kane is a very efficient goal scorer who would improve City but he is getting towards the end of his career and I think I prefer Haaland as a striker, however imo Dortmund are not going to sell Haaland, they are going to sell Sancho. The player to get imo is Grealish, but that only works if he has a release clause in his contract.

He burned Rodri for pace. That’s no mean feat :S

 

[Centurions]

Yep - and he’d be 28 before he kicks a ball for City.

5 year contract would mean he’d be 32 for the final year of his time with us.

I just can’t get behind this signing at all - great player, no doubt, but I’d rather see us go for a different profile of player to replace Kun.

So the exact same age as Aguero when entering his final season with us? Can't see your point.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

This isn’t the Kane thread

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

So the exact same age as Aguero when entering his final season with us? Can't see your point.

Yep - and look how many games he managed for us that season!

The point is we signed Kun when he was 23, if I remember correctly - he had his best years ahead of him, so justified the fee we paid at the time.

Kane will be 28 before he kicks a ball for City, and we’d end up paying an astronomical fee for a player who - if we follow your comparison - could well be pulling figures of 19 appearances and 6 goals (as Kun did this season) across all competitions during the very contract were just about to sign him up to.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

This isn’t the Kane thread

Agreed - happy to move this onto the Kane thread for those coming on here for news on Haaland.

 

[mccity]

Has there been any news about Haaland with anyone lately?

 

[blueparrot]

So the exact same age as Aguero when entering his final season with us? Can't see your point.

Well it's for the club to decide cost and value so not our problem but if there's only a small difference in price I'd have thought Haaland provides better longer term value. Especially if accumulation of ankle injuries starts to restrict his appearances as a 32 year old. Again I'll leave it to the club to decide on value doesn't bother me but I can see where those concerns come from and the points being made on both sides of the argument.