Erling Haaland

[Thaksinssoldier]

Think haaland is more a risk than Kane tbh . In Kane you are getting 25 goals from an already established premier league striker in haaland you are signing potential which could go anywhere . Be happy with either but kane for us would be immense.

and yet Kane has only done it at one club compared to Haaland already having done it at 3. Kane also vanishes versus top clubs and is completely selfish.

 

[itisrising]

It's just the signing that needs to happen for us. The benefits of signing Haaland are almost infinite at this point.

 

[Bluesince88]

There’s some really good reasoning for and against Kane or Haaland but if we get Kane and it doesn’t work out what sort of resale value would he have. With Haaland we would probably get a significant amount back.

That’s what we accept with Kane, we won’t see a return on him. What we get is 3/4 years minimum of one of the most lethal strikers the league has seen.

 

[Coatigan]

In that year not replacing Kompany we failed in every comp minus the league cup. We are too good to skip seasons.

Kane isn’t a risk in the slightest, I can’t understand how anybody sees it as anything less than a guarantee. It’s a lot of money but who thinks replacing Aguero will be done on the cheap? Van Persie was older with a year remaining on his contract and nearly ten years ago. Costs are different but idea remains the same. There is also zero guarantee we get Haaland next year.

All fair, but much better to skip a season than 5 or so.

I don't see Kane as a guarantee, certainly not over a number of years. I definitely don't see him as 100m player. If prior to Sergio's drop in fitness and while still contracted to us, someone had suggested replacing him with Kane for 100m, we'd all have laughed our socks off. If that interview hadn't come out yet and with it this taking it for granted it is a done deal, I wonder how many of those arguing he is the best (which he is not, amongst the top at most) would be adbocating signing him with no links whatsoever. To me it feels a bit bias for the fact we think we can land him rather than should get him.

Took us ages to sort out CBs, and a lot of money. Doesn't need to happen with a forward.

 

[Coatigan]

Let me, let me, let me....

Get what I want

 

[Bluesince88]

and yet Kane has only done it at one club compared to Haaland already having done it at 3. Kane also vanishes versus top clubs and is completely selfish.

Completely selfish? Most assists this year mate. Vanishes versus the top clubs? He scores against every top club he’s played if I remember correctly. If you don’t want him mate that’s no worries, many don’t strangely but don’t make things up.

 

[Mad 4 It]

It's just the signing that needs to happen for us. The benefits of signing Haaland are almost infinite at this point.

Agreed, you just know from watching players come and go for 45 years there’s something special about Haaland. Well worth the money

 

[I'm Blue]

In that year not replacing Kompany we failed in every comp minus the league cup. We are too good to skip seasons.

Kane isn’t a risk in the slightest, I can’t understand how anybody sees it as anything less than a guarantee. It’s a lot of money but who thinks replacing Aguero will be done on the cheap? Van Persie was older with a year remaining on his contract and nearly ten years ago. Costs are different but idea remains the same. There is also zero guarantee we get Haaland next year.

All players are a risk and nothing is guaranteed.
Will Kane fit our system?
Will he do it against packed defences?
Is he a big game player?
How will he fare leaving Spurs, moving north?
Will his his age catch up with him sooner rather than later?
It may all work out great, but it ain’t a 100% guarantee.

 

[itisrising]

That’s what we accept with Kane, we won’t see a return on him. What we get is 3/4 years minimum of one of the most lethal strikers the league has seen.

But, by the same token, we could also see the same thing with Haaland and potentially even greater heights. In terms of drawbacks, we're negating the commercial pull and potential of Haaland, virtually guaranteed resale value, that connection between player and fanbase because City fans aren't going to flock up to be buying Kane shirts, global fan outreach, longevity of an asset etc.

 

[Coatigan]

So the best striker in the prem isn’t worth breaking the bank for? We are replacing a striker with the best goals to min ratio in the prem ever, why not replace with the man at number two?

At the right age, and not a pisstake price, maybe. He is not the best striker in the league. Last season's golden boot in a year when others had shockers, does not a 100m player make. If we'd bought him 5 years ago when he hit his ceiling, maybe. Bony had similar numbers when we bought him. As did carrol whem dips bough him. Torres was a damn near guaramtee when the chavs got him. No guarantees, and numbers aren't everything.