bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 27,336
- Team supported
- City
Super David Silva 21 said:
Imo it's Bale and he'll only get better, that being said, he aint worth anything like £100,000,000
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gareth Bale
- Thread starter Mike D
- Start date
Imo it's Bale and he'll only get better, that being said, he aint worth anything like £100,000,000
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of who is better, it's a matter of who can attract a higher bid.Super David Silva 21 said:Only say this as Rodgers has pointed out that if Bales worth £100 million then they have every right then to probably ask for £130 million for Suarez
whose the better Suarez or Bale???
If a rich club such as RM believe their problem position can be solved by buying Bale (and there are no other players available that can do the job) then they'll bid for him. If the selling club isn't desperate for cash, and Spuds don't appear to be, then the price will be unrealistically high to force a deal. If a club needs a player like Suarez and there are several available or the selling club needs the cash then he'll go for less money whether he's a better player than Bale or not.
woolleyback blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 951
If Bale was available for £20mill down and the rest on the drip the queue of clubs wanting to buy him would stretch round White Hart Lane several times. This is another Real style transfer MO, unsettle the player by publicly saying they want to sign him for a ridiculous figure and then try and get him on the cheap( relatively) because the player is angling for a move there. The selling cub either have to hang on to an unsettled player or agree to Real's terms. It stinks, but of course being the mighty Real they can get away with it.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
It does amuse me when you have Brendan Rogers spouting bollocks about Suarez not being for sale for less than £100m. And actually AVB saying much the same.
Well guess what, wake up Brendan (and AVB). ITS GOT FUCK ALL TO DO WITH YOU.
My mother has as much clout as Brendan Rogers and AVB in determining what happens to Suarez and Bale. Long gone are the days when this sort of transfer has anything remotely to do with the selling club's manager.
Well guess what, wake up Brendan (and AVB). ITS GOT FUCK ALL TO DO WITH YOU.
My mother has as much clout as Brendan Rogers and AVB in determining what happens to Suarez and Bale. Long gone are the days when this sort of transfer has anything remotely to do with the selling club's manager.
woolleyback blue said:If Bale was available for £20mill down and the rest on the drip the queue of clubs wanting to buy him would stretch round White Hart Lane several times. This is another Real style transfer MO, unsettle the player by publicly saying they want to sign him for a ridiculous figure and then try and get him on the cheap( relatively) because the player is angling for a move there. The selling cub either have to hang on to an unsettled player or agree to Real's terms. It stinks, but of course being the mighty Real they can get away with it.
95% of transfers are done on the drip
I'm no cynic but...
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 4,000
- Location
- True friends stab you in the front.
- Team supported
- The one and only City
Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
For us, yes. However, Madrid are better than us and don't need to spread it around 4 players so if they signed the 4 players that we did, would that improve them? No. Would signing Bale? Yes
Chipmeister
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 2,225
That is so true, they just need the match winner to compliment what they have, the superstar to sell the shirts
I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Given the choice, I think i'd have gone for just Falcao and Fernandinho
What good are 4 strikers when only 2 can realistically play? Falcao is on a different level to other players.
I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Yes!! 1 gets hurt we still have 3 backups..Bale gets hurt 0 backups.
nmc
Well-Known Member
I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
I agree but also spending on the drip reduces your options in future years...
FrancoisToure
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2013
- Messages
- 369
samharris said:I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Yes!! 1 gets hurt we still have 3 backups..Bale gets hurt 0 backups.
Di Maria?
FrancoisToure said:samharris said:I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Yes!! 1 gets hurt we still have 3 backups..Bale gets hurt 0 backups.
Di Maria?
Was talking generally fella..given the choice id take the 4 we got.
samharris said:FrancoisToure said:samharris said:Yes!! 1 gets hurt we still have 3 backups..Bale gets hurt 0 backups.
Di Maria?
Was talking generally fella..given the choice id take the 4 we got.
Yup depends upon squad...spurs had bale , yet they couldn't reach CL..if they sell bale and buy 2-3 good players with that budget ..they have more chances of going to CL..meanwhile madrid have ronaldo/isco and bale is just icing on cake...However I think they will lose one of their mid field players next summer..dont see any of them being happy sitting on bench
I'm no cynic but...
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 4,000
- Location
- True friends stab you in the front.
- Team supported
- The one and only City
The four we have added bring several qualities to the squad that we have been short on. Even if we only field two at any time, the others will be on the bench should circumstances demand them. With Bale however, he's one kick away from being put out of the game for good, and that's £100m right down the Swanee.
Someone here mentioned that the £100m is worth spending on one player if his recruitment opens the floodgates to incoming cash. That would have been fine if the player concerned had been the media darling, David Beckham, who was a good player but never a great one, yet he was in the right place at the right time, and with a face fit to launch a thousand tugboats, he was sure to pull in the money at whichever club he was to be adopted by. Unfortunately for Bale, his profile is lower, and his mug isn't one for the advertising companies to latch on to in a serious way.
It was also mentioned elsewhere that Bale would make the Real Madrid team complete, something that he wouldn't do at City unless a couple of gaps had been sorted out first. I don't think this 'completing' argument carries much weight. There's talk of Ronaldo, and maybe others, being allowed to leave for less than the incoming Bale, and I would suggest that Real will be weakened by this, and probably £20m the poorer for it. I remember the time when City were topping the League with a team that looked fairly complete, only for Malcolm Allison to demand the signing of Rodney Marsh to add the icing to the cake, but it all fell apart from then on. This is something that could happen to Real if things go wrong with Bale, and I would further suggest that the four we have signed, even if one or two don't live up to full expectation, will still be a better bet than stacking it all on Bale.
Someone here mentioned that the £100m is worth spending on one player if his recruitment opens the floodgates to incoming cash. That would have been fine if the player concerned had been the media darling, David Beckham, who was a good player but never a great one, yet he was in the right place at the right time, and with a face fit to launch a thousand tugboats, he was sure to pull in the money at whichever club he was to be adopted by. Unfortunately for Bale, his profile is lower, and his mug isn't one for the advertising companies to latch on to in a serious way.
It was also mentioned elsewhere that Bale would make the Real Madrid team complete, something that he wouldn't do at City unless a couple of gaps had been sorted out first. I don't think this 'completing' argument carries much weight. There's talk of Ronaldo, and maybe others, being allowed to leave for less than the incoming Bale, and I would suggest that Real will be weakened by this, and probably £20m the poorer for it. I remember the time when City were topping the League with a team that looked fairly complete, only for Malcolm Allison to demand the signing of Rodney Marsh to add the icing to the cake, but it all fell apart from then on. This is something that could happen to Real if things go wrong with Bale, and I would further suggest that the four we have signed, even if one or two don't live up to full expectation, will still be a better bet than stacking it all on Bale.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,521
Marvin said:I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Given the choice, I think i'd have gone for just Falcao and Fernandinho
What good are 4 strikers when only 2 can realistically play? Falcao is on a different level to other players.
Why did he score the same amount as Negredo then if we don't count penalties?
Rocket-footed kolarov
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 2,839
SWP's back said:Marvin said:I'm no cynic said:Question:
What is the best way to spend £100m in the transfer market?
[a] Spend it all on Bale, or
Spread it around on four players as we have done.
I will opt for .
Given the choice, I think i'd have gone for just Falcao and Fernandinho
What good are 4 strikers when only 2 can realistically play? Falcao is on a different level to other players.
Why did he score the same amount as Negredo then if we don't count penalties?
He is being a bit of a brat, but Falcao is definitely a level above.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
How anyone can watch Navas & then say we shouldn't have signed him for the sake of two or three more goals from a striker, is beyond me.
We have improved our options by about 200% with the players we have signed.
We have improved our options by about 200% with the players we have signed.
Dodgemeister said:bazzlar said:Reports say Madrid have only offered 20m in payment with the rest in installments, surely its not in Spurs interest to do this. I would demand full payment or no deal.
I've read that RM are going to businesses to get them to invest in this Bale deal, then I read this offer of installment payments. So is this just the way bigger transfers work? or does it indicate they do not have the cash?
I always thought the Spanish government funded RM, when they needed cash?
They still owe us money for Modric, they definitely don't have the cash to pay this fee up front. Whether we're ok with that idk, I'd be surprised if players weren't included in the deal to offset the low initial fee.
Frankly Real Madrid is a very rich club that is run very poorly.