It's pretty clear that the club's main criteria, by far, for considering player purchases is what they bring on the pitch. Marketability just isn't anywhere near the top priority but obviously it would be taken into consideration with all other aspects.
Success breeds success. Look down the road; they've been signing incredibly marketable players for years. Public perception seems to be a much greater factor when it comes to their acquisitions and it's prevented them from successfully building a winning mentality in both the short and long term. I guess they've been nailing sponsorship deals still.
Forgive me if I'm also missing your main point but I think this idea of marketability being such a big influence on our transfer policy just doesn't hold up.
I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point. I agree with you that the club is looking at what they bring on the pitch. And making smart deals in that regard.
I don’t think we would have done what PSG did with Neymar, by paying what they did to Barcelona, for instance. But we would have (it’s a fact) paid for Mbappe what his price was had he chosen us. Every single scout saw that he was a generational talent and a marketable superstar. It would have been a smart investment.
Stars like those two, the ones that drastically change our place in the world, don’t come around often. We were willing to offer Messi an insane deal for him last summer because he too would have had an impact. As I have said in another thread, I am willing to bet that we won’t miss out on Haaland for being outspent. We may miss out on him in case he chooses another team, but the opportunity to sign him, not just for the immense talent, but the commercial opportunity, is not one we will let it pass. It doesn’t mean we won’t try to make the best possible deal, obviously.
With Kane, I just don’t see the evidence that the club would be willing to pay that much for a player that brings nothing off the pitch. I don’t rule out being wrong, but I have to see it happen to believe it. I don’t think any club would spend that much just for the sporting gains.
We already have what is already seen as the best team in the world, but there is a “next step” commercially that can still be taken. We can win all the titles this year, but that’s not the limit. We have the potential to be the most talked about club, the most sold shirt, etc in the world. Haaland is the kind of star (like Mbappe or Messi) that would make the kind of difference in that regard. Any of those three come in and they immediately become the biggest star in the Premier League, but not only that, they also change the profile of the Premier League, our merchandising goes through the roof as do our deals. Those stars aren’t made every two years. Which is why you make an exception to our model for them. Like PSG did — that was the point of my example. You look at what PSG does besides Neymar and Mbappe and it’s not very different from us. Those two took them to the next level. We were willing to make Mbappe in 2017 be “the one”. Then Messi last summer was an unexpected possibility that opened up. You can listen to Sam Lee’s podcasts around that time. He talks about how Messi has been a project of City for years, and how we saw him as a way to expand the brand of the group. Now you have Haaland who can take us there. Maybe you think we don’t care about having the same global presence of PSG or surpass that of our domestic rivals. I would say that is a naive view
