Erling Haaland

[Mayor West]

I'm a big fan of Kane and would love him at City, BUT if it turns out we had a realistic chance of getting Haaland, but sign Kane, and Haaland goes to Chelsea, that would be a monumental fuck up on Citys behalf.

 

[Coatigan]

Chelsea certainly have not only the money, but also players they can include in any deal. And plenty to offer Haaland, doubt wages would be an issue either.

One thing they don't have to offer, is longevity of managers, and this is something the Haaland camp have previously commented on, about not rushing to sign for managers that wouldn't be there at the end of a year.

In as much as people claimed the club might be using the Kane stories as a way to push the Haaland move, then there is sense in also believing that the Haaland camp would push the chelsea links to push City to the table. Not that either has to be true.

A long long way to go yet, for either club or any target. It will swap over a time or two in the window, always does. May end up where we all thoughtbit might from day 1, may end up otherwise.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

This just isn't happening, is it? Obviously you just don't know until he puts pen to paper but the links to us have all but dried up since the Kane rumours went into overload.

As spoilt as it might be, I'll be pretty disappointed if we get Kane and Haaland goes to a league rival. Both great players but the best comparisons I can think of are us signing Aguero and united signing van Persie. There's a hell of a lot more longevity in one than the other.

 

[christened at st marks]

Dortmund play on the break suited to Haarland we face parked buses so will chelsea next year

 

[razman]

Chelsea story out there.. Would hate it, if he went to a PL club

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

this is not good news if true........

This is standard rumour-mongering.

I think this is fairly straightforward - he has a release clause for around €100m next summer. Dortmund are resigned to let him leave then. They can and will sell Sancho this summer so cash flow wise they are good and they dont need to sell EH.

Selling him all comes down to how much over the buy out clause clubs are willing to pay. What is 1 extra year of EH worth to them? As a wild guess i would say £50m. So £125m maybe £150m will be enough.

For the buying clubs its the above figure + he will expect to be one of the top paid players in the world so you are talking over £50m in wages over 5 years - maybe up to £100m. The total package is upto £250m + agent fees over 5 years. Or you wait a year and its £75m less.

Its a lot and I think that staying at Dortmund is the most likely outcome. But only slightly ahead of us signing him and Chavs as 3rd most likely. Purely on the basis we need him more than Chelsea.

 

[domalino]

Yep. Obviously they feel that they can get this over the line if City are focussed on Kane and Jan Aage would know. Will be interesting to see how deep Roman has to go to get this over the line. I'd be surprised if he breaks their wage structure massively. Would be out of character for Marina (and him).

Curtains for United and Liverpool if City and Chelsea land Haaland and Kane.

How much would you pay to block Chelsea from getting a world class striker?

Kane will never go to Chelsea, so Haaland's value is not just that he is a very good player, buying him would block Chelsea from adding their final missing piece and then that 2 horse race you described above becomes a 1 horse race.

I'd easily pay an extra £25m for that.

 

[eastlandsblue]

I'm completely convinced that our priority, and the only transfer currently being worked on, is Kane. I've had it from most of the lads who cover the club, and I've had it from the only person I know who actually knows and speaks to Pep. Appreciate that that's not what a lot of people want to hear, but it's also not something I'm going to lie about as I don't really want the headache.

Whatever happens I'm more than convinced we'll have an incredible number 9 by the time the window closes and in many respects that's the only thing that matters to me.

Kane would do me. Haarland in 4 years would be his replacement, or even Delap

 

[Tugay One Cup]

How much would you pay to block Chelsea from getting a world class striker?

Kane will never go to Chelsea, so Haaland's value is not just that he is a very good player, buying him would block Chelsea from adding their final missing piece and then that 2 horse race you described above becomes a 1 horse race.

I'd easily pay an extra £25m for that.

And the rest!

I don't necessarily believe the rumours about our players being linked to other clubs but if we were to lose Laporte/ Gabby/ whoever this summer, then I'd hope those extra funds would go towards the excess we'd pay for Haaland over Kane.

 

[domalino]

Kane would do me. Haarland in 4 years would be his replacement, or even Delap

Haaland is now or never, he's not going to be on the market again when he leaves Dortmund.

Wherever he goes will give him a 6 year deal, and short of him running down his contract to leave for free, which never actually happens, his future club won't sell.

 

[OB1]

Chelsea are more ruthless in the transfer market than City.

 

[decmancity]

I'm a big fan of Kane and would love him at City, BUT if it turns out we had a realistic chance of getting Haaland, but sign Kane, and Haaland goes to Chelsea, that would be a monumental fuck up on Citys behalf.

If it turns out we have no chance of getting Haaland and instead sign Kane who fires us to the next 5 premier league title, that would a monumental transfer on Citys behalf.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

If it turns out we have no chance of getting Haaland

If Chelsea end up signing him then we had every chance of signing him but chose not to for whatever reason.

 

[BillyShears]

How much would you pay to block Chelsea from getting a world class striker?

Kane will never go to Chelsea, so Haaland's value is not just that he is a very good player, buying him would block Chelsea from adding their final missing piece and then that 2 horse race you described above becomes a 1 horse race.

I'd easily pay an extra £25m for that.

I’d pay what it takes. But sadly I’m not Pep Txiki et al. And I can’t get too upset because we’ll get Kane IMO.

 

[Bobby Heaton Moor]

Haaland to Chelsea could be bullshit of course but we keep hearing that City will push the boat out when a generational talent is available. We've let Kun go, surely now is the time to make a statement? I'll be devastated if Haaland ends up at Chelsea.

 

[Mayor West]

If it turns out we have no chance of getting Haaland and instead sign Kane who fires us to the next 5 premier league title, that would a monumental transfer on Citys behalf.

Agreed.

 

[domalino]

I’d pay what it takes. But sadly I’m not Pep Txiki et al. And I can’t get too upset because we’ll get Kane IMO.

Kane's going to be so good, it's just a shame to miss out on a player like Haaland - not often a record breaking world class talent arrives on to the market and just happens to be a City fan and play in a position you need to fill.

I know I'm being spoilt beyond belief.

 

[decmancity]

If Chelsea end up signing him then we had every chance of signing him but chose not to for whatever reason.

Every chance up until the point when he tells Txiki and Pep he doesn't want to sign for City but instead wants to go to Chelsea.

I would be shocked if we pull out of any deal for anything other than that the lad doesn't want to join. This isn't the first time when the bright lights of London have caught a player and it won't be the last.

Unless of course, Pep doesn't rate Haaland that much and has decided Kane is the man for the job. Look at all the bollocks going on with Donnarumm and Raiola, perhaps Khaldoon has made the decision we are not going to be party to any circus every summer.

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

How much would you pay to block Chelsea from getting a world class striker?

Kane will never go to Chelsea, so Haaland's value is not just that he is a very good player, buying him would block Chelsea from adding their final missing piece and then that 2 horse race you described above becomes a 1 horse race.

I'd easily pay an extra £25m for that.

The Haaland deal makes so much sense in so many different ways that I have to assume there's a major stumbling block outside of the public domain. Maybe we feel like he's not that arsed about coming here, compared to Kane who is practically begging, very publicly, to get the deal done. Feels like that's the sort of thing that tips the balance for us as a club, rightly or wrongly.

My gut is that we end up with Kane, Chelsea end up with Lukaku (despite his recent comments) and Haaland does another year at Dortmund. Just can't see Chelsea blowing 200m including agent fees, plus 350k a week. That money could probably buy Lukaku and Rice.

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

Every chance up until the point when he tells Txiki and Pep he doesn't want to sign for City but instead wants to go to Chelsea.

I would be shocked if we pull out of any deal for anything other than that the lad doesn't want to join. This isn't the first time when the bright lights of London have caught a player and it won't be the last.

Unless of course, Pep doesn't rate Haaland that much and has decided Kane is the man for the job. Look at all the bollocks going on with Donnarumm and Raiola, perhaps Khaldoon has made the decision we are not going to be party to any circus every summer.

I don't think it would be the bright lights of London. I think, if Haaland chose to push for a move to Chelsea this summer, it would be because he fits their system like a glove. If Haaland starts instead of Werner in the final, they'd have been out of sight after half an hour. He has the pace, he loves to play on the last shoulder. Doesn't want the ball to feet, but in front of him.