Erling Haaland

Vester

Active Member
Joined
20 Feb 2021
Messages
31
Location
Stockholm
Team supported
Manchester City
If Haaland goes to Chelsea how long do people really believe he would stay for

We want a player to want to be part of our project long term and to be committed to the cause.

3 years down the line I can see Mino causing shit and pushing for a move to Spain.

Mino to me is the biggest concern for City
Never understood this argument. Whether Haaland would want a move to Spain in 3 years or not, it has nothing to do with his agent. The agent work on his clients behalf, not the other way around. Maybe Haaland is the kind of player that wants to move around, and see himself playing in all the big leagues. Or maybe he could just as well be happy and want to stay for a long time at his next destination, since there might not really be a step up career wise. Neither of us know! It all comes down to what the player wants, and most players we sign seem to be happy to stay. Can only think of one player (Sané), excluding youth players, that we signed the last decade and we wanted to keep but pushed for a transfer within 3 years.

For all we know, Haaland, if he signs for them, could stay at Chelsea for the rest of his career. While Kane, after winning everything there is to win the next 2 years with us starts to miss London and Spurs. Not saying thats a likely scenario, just saying that we should not make assumptions on if Haaland would be happy to stay at his next destination or not based on who is current agent is. In 2 years time he might even have another agent.
 

Keeper!

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2014
Messages
9,538
Of course, and nobody at City has said we have walked away from Haaland, which is the correct stance, as you rightly say.

The only issue is that if Chelsea did somehow complete on Haaland in quick fashion, while Kane is still at the Euros, we are knackered anyhow.

He said in public he wanted his future sorted before the Euros, which seems very unlikely.

Certainly more unlikely than Haaland moving before Kane, if indeed the reports are true he has been talking to Chelsea.
Would any club commit to spending hundreds of millions on Grealish , Kane or any other player involved in the Euros/Copa America, when potentially they could get a serious injury in those said tournaments.
 

OB1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Feb 2007
Messages
15,756
Location
Taking it one game at a time
I want to explain the point as succinctly as possible. We have been building a project that isn’t about winning the next PL title, but is about dominating domestically and with that becoming a force in European football and the strongest global brand possible. It is one story if we don’t get Haaland because he stays at Dortmund another year or even if he goes to Real Madrid or Barcelona. It is entirely different if he goes to a domestic rival that literally has just beaten us in a Champions League final. What this does is threaten the project, not the next title. With Tuchel, they have an extremely talented yet ruthless manager that is a perfect match to Roman’s own ruthlessness, as well as money to back any goals. Haaland already is a “face of the Champions League” and will be possibly the superstar in football in the next decade alongside Mbappe (who will probably always have the upper hand for being in a national team that is so talented it will challenge for any World Cup and Euro titles for many cycles to come). Him going to Chelsea is bound to make Chelsea the face of English football, and this goes beyond, I repeat, whether they win the next PL title or retain the next UCL. And whenever Pep decides to leave us, having a rival so well positioned will be even worse for us. That is why I can’t imagine that the people of our club would be so lazy to think “oh, he’s entertaining the possibility of going to another club” and give up on years of work. Unless we were pursuing Mbappe on the side, the news that Haaland could seriously be going to Chelsea HAS to mean we have to fight for this. Spare me the “this isn’t how we work” line: we work for the dominance and there hasn’t been in the last decade one single situation in which one specific signing could downgrade our status and the landscape in English football. That is why I don’t believe we would allow ourselves to miss on him for a domestic rival by being outspent, because of 1) the true cost of having that dominance threatened 2) would allow for a domino effect in the medium and long term. It is one thing to “settle for Kane” in a scenario in which Haaland isn’t available, it’s entirely different if he is. And were Haaland to go to Chelsea, we may well be left with signing Kane as a desperate move and attempt at some relevance, but it would be realistically as significant as signing André Silva instead. It makes me cringe with second hand embarrassment to read people keep referring to Kane as the “English captain” as if that carries any weight globally (it’s even more irrelevant than the English national team itself, with all due respect, my British friends!). Of course, if people want to tell themselves that Kane would score more league goals overall for us than Haaland would for Chelsea in his first year (which would be a similar scenario that happened in the Bundesliga and didn’t stop him from being the star there), or stuff like “Tuchel will be fired three months into next season” or insisting that he plays a “defensive style” or whatever, frankly, hilarious bullshit that Pep better than anyone knows all too well isn’t going to be the case, they can tell themselves that if it’s comforting at all, go ahead by all means. Even add in the “but Raiola” cliches, if needed. And as fans, maybe all we should care about is next year’s titles. But I can’t pretend the horizon wouldn’t look bright with Haaland at Chelsea.

This definitely wasn’t succinct, hehe.

For me, this is a big test of City and their ambitions, as stated by KAM recently, to be the best club in the world. The club has never yet pulled off a mega signing of the kind that Haaland represents. You've set out why it is so important not to lose out here to Chelsea.

I can't say that I am optimistic that we will go to the same lengths as Chelsea and I think it will be a big mistake if we don't. I still think we erred letting the get Hazard and we should have gone for Kante from Leicester.
 

tolmie's hairdoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Feb 2008
Messages
22,146
Location
behind enemy lines, regularly
I want to explain the point as succinctly as possible. We have been building a project that isn’t about winning the next PL title, but is about dominating domestically and with that becoming a force in European football and the strongest global brand possible. It is one story if we don’t get Haaland because he stays at Dortmund another year or even if he goes to Real Madrid or Barcelona. It is entirely different if he goes to a domestic rival that literally has just beaten us in a Champions League final. What this does is threaten the project, not the next title. With Tuchel, they have an extremely talented yet ruthless manager that is a perfect match to Roman’s own ruthlessness, as well as money to back any goals. Haaland already is a “face of the Champions League” and will be possibly the superstar in football in the next decade alongside Mbappe (who will probably always have the upper hand for being in a national team that is so talented it will challenge for any World Cup and Euro titles for many cycles to come). Him going to Chelsea is bound to make Chelsea the face of English football, and this goes beyond, I repeat, whether they win the next PL title or retain the next UCL. And whenever Pep decides to leave us, having a rival so well positioned will be even worse for us. That is why I can’t imagine that the people of our club would be so lazy to think “oh, he’s entertaining the possibility of going to another club” and give up on years of work. Unless we were pursuing Mbappe on the side, the news that Haaland could seriously be going to Chelsea HAS to mean we have to fight for this. Spare me the “this isn’t how we work” line: we work for the dominance and there hasn’t been in the last decade one single situation in which one specific signing could downgrade our status and the landscape in English football. That is why I don’t believe we would allow ourselves to miss on him for a domestic rival by being outspent, because of 1) the true cost of having that dominance threatened 2) would allow for a domino effect in the medium and long term. It is one thing to “settle for Kane” in a scenario in which Haaland isn’t available, it’s entirely different if he is. And were Haaland to go to Chelsea, we may well be left with signing Kane as a desperate move and attempt at some relevance, but it would be realistically as significant as signing André Silva instead. It makes me cringe with second hand embarrassment to read people keep referring to Kane as the “English captain” as if that carries any weight globally (it’s even more irrelevant than the English national team itself, with all due respect, my British friends!). Of course, if people want to tell themselves that Kane would score more league goals overall for us than Haaland would for Chelsea in his first year (which would be a similar scenario that happened in the Bundesliga and didn’t stop him from being the star there), or stuff like “Tuchel will be fired three months into next season” or insisting that he plays a “defensive style” or whatever, frankly, hilarious bullshit that Pep better than anyone knows all too well isn’t going to be the case, they can tell themselves that if it’s comforting at all, go ahead by all means. Even add in the “but Raiola” cliches, if needed. And as fans, maybe all we should care about is next year’s titles. But I can’t pretend the horizon wouldn’t look bright with Haaland at Chelsea.

This definitely wasn’t succinct, hehe.

Thanks for your response and it's not difficult to see the reasoned argument behind getting Haaland over Kane, if it is just a question of money.

However, whilst I share the view Haaland provides a global personality recognition that Kane only has in England, I feel this is also about immediate optics.

Pep wants to continue winning on the field here and now, and, while Haaland gives us plenty of scope for brand and goals, there is maybe a feeling inside the club that Kane probably comes with a certain guarantee of tried and tested in the Premier League?

I'm sure when City tried to sign Mbappe, they didn't envisage a couple years later a Haaland would come on the scene.

There will always be someone else - whether five years down the line with Kane or Haaland.

I don't think Pep cares too much about where City are in two years time, he just wants to win on the pitch during his own time left with us, which is a perspective the club must reconcile and must have been raised during his contract renewal.

I suppose it depends on what Pep prefers, even if we don't!
 

Gorton_Tubster

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Apr 2012
Messages
7,662
Location
not really here
Never understood this argument. Whether Haaland would want a move to Spain in 3 years or not, it has nothing to do with his agent. The agent work on his clients behalf, not the other way around. Maybe Haaland is the kind of player that wants to move around, and see himself playing in all the big leagues. Or maybe he could just as well be happy and want to stay for a long time at his next destination, since there might not really be a step up career wise. Neither of us know! It all comes down to what the player wants, and most players we sign seem to be happy to stay. Can only think of one player (Sané), excluding youth players, that we signed the last decade and we wanted to keep but pushed for a transfer within 3 years.

For all we know, Haaland, if he signs for them, could stay at Chelsea for the rest of his career. While Kane, after winning everything there is to win the next 2 years with us starts to miss London and Spurs. Not saying thats a likely scenario, just saying that we should not make assumptions on if Haaland would be happy to stay at his next destination or not based on who is current agent is. In 2 years time he might even have another agent.
Pep doesn't like mino. City have good experience of mino with the whole cake Yaya thing.
Utd are constantly dealing with mino's outbursts on behalf of what Pogba "wants" (which always seems to line the pocket of himself). He's a parasite from what I've seen over the years, I'm not sure he works on behalf of just what his client needs either!
 

Gus Cruz

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
2,894
Team supported
Manchester City
Pep wants to continue winning on the field here and now, and, while Haaland gives us plenty of scope for brand and goals, there is maybe a feeling inside the club that Kane probably comes with a certain guarantee of tried and tested in the Premier League?
First of all, I’m not sure Pep is the one calling all the shots in a situation like this, involving this much money. The club could very well push him the choice they see as better for a number of reasons. He said himself the club would make the large investment when IT saw fit.
Secondly, I’m trying to reconcile the multiple narratives you’ve been pushing. By all accounts, it seems like the first choice has been Haaland and there has/had been work done to secure that. Now you say they have decided the serial loser is better suited to deliver us the immediate wins.
I have a serious belief that the club wants to plan to win the UCL as well as the PL. While you shouldn’t prioritize one over the other, you can build a team better suited for both. Villarreal carefully made choices to win the Europa League and they were successful. And they know Haaland gives them the better shot at the UCL.

I don't think Pep cares too much about where City are in two years time, he just wants to win on the pitch during his own time left with us, which is a perspective the club must reconcile and must have been raised during his contract renewal.

I struggle with this because Pep also likes to work with bright and young talent. If Haaland ends up at Chelsea, there has to be a certain jealousy on his part that Tuchel was able to work with Haaland, Mbappe and Neymar, besides winning the UCL against him. And in his gut he knows the blow it will mean. At Barcelona, Bayern and up til this point here, his teams always had biggest players in their respective leagues.

Appreciate your post as well, I’m just unmoved by your points, respectfully. Cheers
 

BillyShears

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Aug 2004
Messages
9,387
Location
King Kunta
Anyone would think Kane is actually Bony. Reminds me of when we signed Gundo and United signed Pogba and the forum melted down.

I can understand having a preference but when people veer into “the sky is falling we’ll never win again” it all just feels a bit too much.

Also this is about Pep and me personally I’ll take Pep over any single player whether it be Haaland or Messi or Mbappé. Guardiola is the key to our success not an individual player.
 

domalino

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Mar 2011
Messages
28,677
Of course, and nobody at City has said we have walked away from Haaland, which is the correct stance, as you rightly say.

The only issue is that if Chelsea did somehow complete on Haaland in quick fashion, while Kane is still at the Euros, we are knackered anyhow.

He said in public he wanted his future sorted before the Euros, which seems very unlikely.

Certainly more unlikely than Haaland moving before Kane, if indeed the reports are true he has been talking to Chelsea.

I keep coming back to the fact that we released Sergio Aguero in March.

I simply don't believe that the club would do that with nothing lined up and no knowledge of whether Spurs or Dortmund would sell at a particular price that the club was OK with spending.

I don't think Pep or the club would genuinely think it was acceptable to release Aguero with a 5% possibility that no one came in to replace him.
 

Gus Cruz

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
2,894
Team supported
Manchester City
Reminds me of when we signed Gundo and United signed Pogba and the forum melted down.
I wasn’t here when Gundogan was signed, but he was already a tremendous player, extremely intelligent on a tactical level having worked with Klopp and Tuchel for instance, and won titles with Dortmund and actively helping to carry them to a UCL final (and scoring in said final).

Also this is about Pep and me personally I’ll take Pep over any single player whether it be Haaland or Messi or Mbappé. Guardiola is the key to our success not an individual player.

There is no doubt that Pep is an important part of our success, but he could leave at the end of next season. He left Barcelona and they won 5 in 8 La Ligas since, and one UCL with Luis Enrique. He took over Bayern one year after they had won the UCL, didn’t win it once there. He won the Bundesliga every time there, and since he left they continued to win it every time - and won one UCL two seasons ago. We are not dependent on him, is the point I’m making. Which is how it should be.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.