Harry Kane

[The perfect fumble]

No. There is an element of posters who don’t want either of these players, and it isn’t because of their lack of ability IMO. No, I think there is an element who hate these two darlings have signed for us, and that they wished they’d signed for the rags so they could actually hate them.

You're right, Irrationally I'm not very keen on either of them, but will warm to them I'm sure in sky blue, but I'd be spared that soft shoe shuffle if they'd only sign for the rags! Then I could ease in to my default setting of hating their guts.

 

[Dribble]

We've not set the Grealish fee, Villa have. Also, Grealish is only worth what another club is willing to pay for him. If Villa want £100m & City believe it's a fair valuation, who are we to argue?

Like I said, we haven't set these fees, & Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool & ManUre all have higher record purchases than we have. If we do surpass the English transfer record, we know it must be for a very very good reason.

On top of that, we've won 3 of the last 4 league titles, broken a ton of records & been the most successful English team on the pitch over the last decade.

If ManUre or Liverpool were to be spending this alleged amount, dya really think the media would give a fuck? Would they heck! They'd just be bleating on about the top two English top flight league sides in history, are flexing their muscle & showing their serious intent.

With City, it's always a question of "Is this amount of spending good for the game?" FFP this, & FFP that, & how boring football will become with just one dominant team sweeping up all available honours & world class players.

None of these bastards complained when Paisley's Liverpool did it in the 70s & 80s, nor did they complain when Ferguson's ManUre dominated English football for the best part of 20 years, neither have they complained as vehemently when Chelsea had their dominant spell either.

In my mind, we should fuck the lot of em, & do what suits City best. If we're gonna get called out because of our financial status, we may as well give them something to cry about imo.

 

[Username Required]

In my mind, we should fuck the lot of em, & do what suits City best. If we're gonna get called out because of our financial status, we may as well give them something to cry about imo.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Kane will be a City player but not until after the Spurs game. Two weeks today, just a gut feeling.

 

[I'm Blue]

If… “if”,we sign Kane. Can we all please chant “Levy just got Kane, Levy just got KANED” please just the once pmsl. That’d boil their piss just that little bit more and send them over the edge.

Might be them singing it to us.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

"I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know."

Mate, how about sticking this on your own clubs forum?

Thread 'My husband needs your support.' https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/my-husband-needs-your-support.351733/

 

[Tangled up in blue.]

Fuck off you shithouse

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

We've not set the Grealish fee, Villa have. Also, Grealish is only worth what another club is willing to pay for him. If Villa want £100m & City believe it's a fair valuation, who are we to argue?

Like I said, we haven't set these fees, & Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool & ManUre all have higher record purchases than we have. If we do surpass the English transfer record, we know it must be for a very very good reason.

On top of that, we've won 3 of the last 4 league titles, broken a ton of records & been the most successful English team on the pitch over the last decade.

If ManUre or Liverpool were to be spending this alleged amount, dya really think the media would give a fuck? Would they heck! They'd just be bleating on about the top two English top flight league sides in history, are flexing their muscle & showing their serious intent.

With City, it's always a question of "Is this amount of spending good for the game?" FFP this, & FFP that, & how boring football will become with just one dominant team sweeping up all available honours & world class players.

None of these bastards complained when Paisley's Liverpool did it in the 70s & 80s, nor did they complain when Ferguson's ManUre dominated English football for the best part of 20 years, neither have they complained as vehemently when Chelsea had their dominant spell either.

In my mind, we should fuck the lot of em, & do what suits City best. If we're gonna get called out because of our financial status, we may as well give them something to cry about imo.

Sinclair is just coming out with that bollocks to try and boost his popularity.

As you've mentioned we get absolutely hammered for our spending, despite having not come close to the individual fees that the rags in particular have paid for players or Liverpool for VVD.

No matter what we do, we can't win. If we didnt sign any players we'd be called arrogant. So if we've identified that these players are going to strengthen the team and we're willing to pay the clubs asking prices so be it. We sat back and watched as united, Chelsea etc spent more on one player than we did on all our signing put together and that happened regularly and I dont remember any outcry that it was bad for the game. I'm certainly not going to feel guilty about it now if City are doing it.

 

[hello]

except its not at odds with everyone elses.....look at the poll for Kane for instance....56% in favour 43% not in favour....hardly no one

I am pretty sure a lot of those 43% are down to fees being branded in press and dickwads like levy here. If the question was would Kane improve city that figure would be near zero.

 

[simon23]

I am pretty sure a lot of those 43% are down to fees being branded in press and dickwads like levy here. If the question was would Kane improve city that figure would be near zero.

Its about whether we want kane not the validity of the reason.....i couldnt care less if we deal with the devil himself as long as we get the right player.