Are you a plank, I was responding to the post saying he will give us 5 good years, saying nobody can speculate he will, now your saying to me that’s obvious, ffs go to bed you plum.Which I would imagine should be obvious to just about everyone.
Yeah exactly. I'd love Haaland at City. But Kane is more ready now to slot into the system and just take this team to another level.
This discussion has already been had, but are 49% against him coming here if Haaland is 100% not an option. The answer is no. That 49% is HIGHLY correlated to Haaland. People want the club to spend the money on Haaland, but we have no freaking idea if it's in the cards.Welcome back. I speak for myself, but it is entirely football related and nothing to do with popularity. I don't 'hate him' or find him annoying or anythin like so. I just don't think of him as a player tonbreaknthe bank for or an appropriate long term Aguero replacement.
With 49% on here against his coming here, I think it is a bit of a generalization to assume most of those dont rate him just on popularity.
I know he's not available and unlikely to be sold unless its a daft offer, but Ollie Watkins would score 25-30 goals for us in his sleep.both kane and haaland are valued at crazy prices ? maybe because man city are in for them they see a big transfer fee to level there books and a little bit of spending money
its so funny that sterling is valued a lot less them kane and haaland. but out of the 3 sterling got titles and cups and goals. so in my book sterling value is more than kane and haaland if anybody comes knocking
maybe city should look elsewhere and grab a bargain striker and like you said what is 10 goals in this city squad
anybody with a good goal scoring record can and will bag a hat full of goals with KDB and others in the squad
Ivan Toney thenI know he's not available and unlikely to be sold unless its a daft offer, but Ollie Watkins would score 25-30 goals for us in his sleep.
Villa picked him up for a song from Brentford. That's the sort of lad we should be looking for.
@everyoneAre you a plank, I was responding to the post saying he will give us 5 good years, saying nobody can speculate he will, now your saying to me that’s obvious, ffs go to bed you plum.
Villa would still demand something ridiculous like 80m for him. Don't think we'd pay that for himI know he's not available and unlikely to be sold unless its a daft offer, but Ollie Watkins would score 25-30 goals for us in his sleep.
Villa picked him up for a song from Brentford. That's the sort of lad we should be looking for.
That is literally what I'm talking about. Who said City want a 'long term' Aguero replacement? City want an Aguero replacement for sure. How do you define long term? Leroy Sane type of player who comes in and then wants to leave a few years later?
Sorry mate, but you've just reinforced the point I was making in the post. Your reasons for not wanting Kane are weak IMO. The money isn't yours and longevity can never be guaranteed because football changes fast. Kane is beyond proven in this league and absolutely nothing can change that fact. The rest is a popularity contest.
This discussion has already been had, but are 49% against him coming here if Haaland is 100% not an option. The answer is no. That 49% is HIGHLY correlated to Haaland. People want the club to spend the money on Haaland, but we have no freaking idea if it's in the cards.
If he does sign for us, there will eventually be a lot of backtracking from naysayers.