Erling Haaland

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chippy_boy said:
Smacks of the Van Persie situation to me this. Bacon face was determined to go out on a high and win a final league title before retiring and they needed a top, top striker in RVP. We were bidding as well and pulled out when the fees got too steep, and look where it ended. He was unplayable at times, got them 26 league goals and the title.

If Harland goes to the scum, we could be looking at a repeat. We must pay whatever is necessary to get him, or at least to make sure the rags do not.

My fear is we have never paid really top money for anyone - not compared to the likes of Real, PSG or the scum - and if the bidding gets like £100m+ we will drop out again.
Click to expand...
But VP was a one season wonder.
 
Matt.D said:
I know people try to push that agenda, but take off the blue tinted specs. He’s an unbelievable footballer, playing in a fucking shite team. He’s single handedly carried them to 2nd place. Look at his numbers there and imagine what he would get playing as an 8 in our side. In terms of attacking centre mids he’s 2nd only to De Bruyne in word football right now imo.
Click to expand...

Spot on,he's a **** but he is an effective one.
 
BlueAnorak said:
But VP was a one season wonder.
Click to expand...
That's a little unfair. He was fantastic for Arsenal as well, and of course had that amazing season 2012/13 for the scum when he just could not stop scoring. He only went off because he became perma-crocked afterwards.
 
As far as I'm aware we still have the Silverlake Investment to spend and there won't ever be a better way or time to spend it, be it on Haaland or on Messi, in my opinion. Which ever way you look at the upfront costs they'll ultimately more than pay for themselves.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
There are differences between the van Persie transfer and Haaland's proposed move. Van Persie was, I believe, 29 when he joined United and City had a ban on transfers of players over 27, which they had broken only in the case of Ya Ya. City did not consider van Persie to be worth what United were prepared to pay in view of our attempts to comply with FFP. Van Persie was attracted to United - he had wanted to work with GPC and United were champions 4 times in the 6 seasons before his transfer. All this simply does not apply to Haaland. We've no evidence he wants to play for OGS - in fact he seems to be a City supporter - and United are no longer the attractive proposition they were in 2012. City seem to have no problems with FFP and the evidence that we won't spend big is thin and unconvincing. City have consistently refused to spend on players who are not, in the opinion of the club, worth it and we have dodged some real bullets as a result. The evidence is that the club values Haaland extremely highly and will pay what is necessary, especially in view of his age, his achievements so far and his potential. United have already briefed the press that they are not following up their interest in the lad. It appears they are the ones who cannot afford him.
Click to expand...
What you say is not complete nonsense, in fact much of it makes sense. But our preparedness to pay REALLY top money is unproven. I mean what is our transfer record? £60m ish?

We may have to pay double that and who knows, maybe we would, but maybe not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
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.