Erling Haaland

[Chippy_boy]

Pretty much how I see it unless a deal has already been quietly done, but his agent is too much of a gob-shite/wideboy for that to be the case :-(

Just as long as he doesn't go to the fucking rags. Which is what I am bracing myself for tbh. Anyone but them.

 

[Charlesfarsbar]

we can’t claim the silver lake investment as income for ffp. But can we claim the interest held in the company as an income?

Yes in theory but I doubt we have just stuck the money in a savings account to earn interest

 

[Chippy_boy]

Pretty much how I see it unless a deal has already been quietly done, but his agent is too much of a gob-shite/wideboy for that to be the case :-(

Off the top of my head, how many huge signings have been "nailed on" for according to some on this forum, only to miss out? Pogba, Sanchez, Hazard, Isco, Kaka, Mbappe. Some of these we dodged a bullet obviously!

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Yes in theory but I doubt we have just stuck the money in a savings account to earn interest

Where else would it be? It’s not under khaldoons bed!

 

[waspish]

Roman offered Pep a Blank cheque and he would be given anything he wished! Pep was already ours. Hopefully Haaland wants us if he is wavering it’s going to cost us a fortune to get him plus stupid wagers.

 

[Chi-town blues]

hope we didn’t piss dortmund for inserting special rags clause on sancho‘s deal.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I tend to agree, sadly. I read earlier today that Abramovic had made it his personal mission to sign Haaland. Whether that is true who knows, but we can be sure there will be lots of bidders - some far less sensible than us - and given the uber-hype surrounding this player, I cannot see him going for anything less than silly money. And we are anything but silly.

I'm not aware that "silly money" is a technical term but is generally used when one wishes to say that the cost bears no relation to the value of the goods in question. City have shown numerous times that they will pay what they consider a fair price ie one which reflects value. Several posts have already stressed that the club is aware of the interest from elsewhere and the likely cost but still make Haaland our number one target for the summer window. So, although your post isn't complete nonsense much of it doesn't make sense, especially when you stray into the realms of "silly" and silliness.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Off the top of my head, how many huge signings have been "nailed on" for according to some on this forum, only to miss out? Pogba, Sanchez, Hazard, Isco, Kaka, Mbappe. Some of these we dodged a bullet obviously!

I sometimes think our own fans get brainwashed by the constant media spin on our spending. We certainly had to spend fortunes to get from where we were in 2008 to now, but as far as individual players go I think ffs is still our biggest spend at @£60m? I could see us going to 80-90 plus add ons for haaland, but over that I think we'll leave it to the great historical clubs who never distort the market to spend double that plus a bung for riola.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not aware that "silly money" is a technical term but is generally used when one wishes to say that the cost bears no relation to the value of the goods in question. City have shown numerous times that they will pay what they consider a fair price ie one which reflects value. Several posts have already stressed that the club is aware of the interest from elsewhere and the likely cost but still make Haaland our number one target for the summer window. So, although your post isn't complete nonsense much of it doesn't make sense, especially when you stray into the realms of "silly" and silliness.

What a silly reply. In fact it's so silly you effectively argued against yourself. Giving the uber-hype and numbers of clubs sniffing around, it's highly like he will go for silly money, i.e. - to use your definition - a cost out of line with the value. Which would make us signing him seem both (a) unlikely and (b) silly.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

hope we didn’t piss dortmund for inserting special rags clause on sancho‘s deal.

That would be sweet!

 

[Blue Maverick]

I reckon he will cost us £90 million, the Sancho clause and didnt they want Braff as well?I can see lots of player cash deals this year due to FFP.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I need clarification about my earlier question about loans, interest and FFP because I didn't make myself clear. If Sheikh Mansour bought Haaland for the club for whatever that would presumably be owner investment and break FFP regulations. If, however, Sheikh Mansour loaned £100 m at 0.1% pa interest the only thing that would show on our FFP accounts would be the £100 000 interest payment? But if we used the £100 m to buy Haaland on a 5 year contract what would appear on our FFP accounts each year would be £20 m? So FFP bans owner investment (other than on a very small scale) but encourages debt - but does it provide a simple means to bypass FFP for our very wealthy owner? And can he simply pay himself back by taking "Glazer" style dividends and fees when circumstances permit?

 

[Badensbluemoon]

hope we didn’t piss dortmund for inserting special rags clause on sancho‘s deal.

I reckon he will cost us £90 million, the Sancho clause and didnt they want Braff as well?I can see lots of player cash deals this year due to FFP.

I can see us using that 10 or 15% that we have on Sancho as part of payment, let Haaland stay another year at Dortmund and get him for the buyout clause, and even include another player in the deal going their way.
That would be the only way around this, instead of paying silly money this summer (which we won't)

 

[The perfect fumble]

I can see us using that 10 or 15% that we have on Sancho as part of payment, let Haaland stay another year at Dortmund and get him for the buyout clause, and even include another player in the deal going their way.
That would be the only way around this, instead of paying silly money this summer (which we won't)

Depends.

I'm not sure price is the issue, I think cash is.

In the present climate I suspect cash is king, if we're willing to divvy up the folding stuff, the price will come tumbling down.

 

[N1985]

Pay them whatever they want this kid is the next 10 years of World Class. When he peaks he will be absolutely unstoppable.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

What a silly reply. In fact it's so silly you effectively argued against yourself. Giving the uber-hype and numbers of clubs sniffing around, it's highly like he will go for silly money, i.e. - to use your definition - a cost out of line with the value. Which would make us signing him seem both (a) unlikely and (b) silly.

Switch your brain on. Money is not the only factor in transfers. The ability to do the job that a potential buyer wants is key. Haaland can do that for us. The willingness of the player to come to the club is important. That remains to be seen but the signs are good. Then there's the price. It's not a question just of his value to us but of his value to other interested parties and Dortmund and that is a very interesting question. He may be worth "silly money" to Dortmund but that will do them no good if he wants a move to City. In that case he is worth what City will pay to secure the move. The evidence is that City are prepared to pay considerably in excess of our record so far for this lad.

Off the top of my head, how many huge signings have been "nailed on" for according to some on this forum, only to miss out? Pogba, Sanchez, Hazard, Isco, Kaka, Mbappe. Some of these we dodged a bullet obviously!

And if you look at this list of players going back to 2008 you'll find that City were prepared to pay £100 m in 2008 for Kaka but he turned us down to stay at Milan, Hazard preferred Chelsea, Isco Madrid, Mbappe to stay in France while City preferred Gundogan to Pogba. In Sanchez case the club decided his wage demands were unacceptable - no fee was required anyway. In none of these cases did City miss out because of a refusal to pay a large fee. Sterling and KdB show that City will pay what is necessary to get a player we really want.

 

[Badensbluemoon]

Depends.

I'm not sure price is the issue, I think cash is.

In the present climate I suspect cash is king, if we're willing to divvy up the folding stuff, the price will come tumbling down.

Right, I think Dortmund wont want to loose Haaland this summer and most likely will prefer to sell Sancho first, that's why I think we could use that and renounce to whatever we own on Sancho, send a player their way and let them have Haaland for another season. That would allow us to bring the price down from what we would be paying this summer.

 

[Charlesfarsbar]

I need clarification about my earlier question about loans, interest and FFP because I didn't make myself clear. If Sheikh Mansour bought Haaland for the club for whatever that would presumably be owner investment and break FFP regulations. If, however, Sheikh Mansour loaned £100 m at 0.1% pa interest the only thing that would show on our FFP accounts would be the £100 000 interest payment? But if we used the £100 m to buy Haaland on a 5 year contract what would appear on our FFP accounts each year would be £20 m? So FFP bans owner investment (other than on a very small scale) but encourages debt - but does it provide a simple means to bypass FFP for our very wealthy owner? And can he simply pay himself back by taking "Glazer" style dividends and fees when circumstances permit?

FFP deals with only revenue and costs - the P&L

the basic principal is that you spend (our costs) what you earn (our revenue)

the net of these two is our profit , which is what is measured for FFP purposes

our owner can lend us however much he likes but it will never be classed as revenue so if we bought Haaland over a 5 year contract, £20m cost would appear in the P&L each year plus his annual salary

non of the £100m loan would appear in the P&L to offset this cost

the only way he could influence revenue would be to artificially inflate one of our revenue streams such as sponsorship , which they tried to get us on last year

He could also try and reduce our costs by paying employees through another company for their services , again this is something they have tried to pin on us to no avail

 

[decmancity]

Right, I think Dortmund wont want to loose Haaland this summer and most likely will prefer to sell Sancho first, that's why I think we could use that and renounce to whatever we own on Sancho, send a player their way and let them have Haaland for another season. That would allow us to bring the price down from what we would be paying this summer.

Letting Dortmund keep Haaland does nobody any favors. We need him now.

Dortmund can spout off in the media all they want, they aren't getting anywhere near 120m or whatever it is they are asking for this summer.

Absolutely no reason why Haaland will be as popular next summer as he is now. Madrid will sign Mbappe, Barca might still be digging themselves out of a hole and some other striker could have come a long and the rags have spent 100m on him instead.

 

[Coatigan]

Letting Dortmund keep Haaland does nobody any favors. We need him now.

Dortmund can spout off in the media all they want, they aren't getting anywhere near 120m or whatever it is they are asking for this summer.

Absolutely no reason why Haaland will be as popular next summer as he is now. Madrid will sign Mbappe, Barca might still be digging themselves out of a hole and some other striker could have come a long and the rags have spent 100m on him instead.

I am willing to bet that they will get 120m or more, if he leaves this summer, wherever he goes. No way he goes for less, let's not kid ourselves.