It's Quiet Thread 15 - Txiki Blinders

[andyhinch]

He clearly does though. All reports have stated he's open to City, Pep loves him and he even added to speculation when he came to the Etihad. There's no way he would be open to Chelsea and not City.

You’ve not factored in Fosters chippy going down in quality since he was a kid though.

 

[itisrising]

We may not want him?

That's just not true though, is it? Pep coming out and praising him profusely, all the links before Raiola's trip to Spain where we were linked strongly. The story behind Haaland and City is clearly beyond want or even the financial situation given our strength.

 

[Bluesince88]

That's just not true though, is it? Pep coming out and praising him profusely, all the links before Raiola's trip to Spain where we were linked strongly. The story behind Haaland and City is clearly beyond want or even the financial situation given our strength.

Pep praises plenty. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure we’d have wanted him, when looking at it they may have felt going with the proven premier league striker who doesn’t have a Tosser of an agent may be the way forward. They may want a guaranteed 4/5 years rather than a potential 2/3 before the agent wants his next slice of the cake. If there’s a chance of him being available it would have certainly been considered, so for me he’s either not available this summer or they’ve weighed up the pros and cons and want Kane.

 

[bumbleblue]

Poster in Grealish thread reporting fee agreed . Thought I would mention it here as I flit back forth between the main tf threads.

 

[oakiecokie]

He clearly does though. All reports have stated he's open to City, Pep loves him and he even added to speculation when he came to the Etihad. There's no way he would be open to Chelsea and not City.

You know as much as the next man unless you know him or his old man.
His wife/partner could easily be swayed by the bright lights of London and I truly would like you to show me a link to your reports please wher he has openly stated he would love to come to City over another club,as I for one have certainly not seen such a statement.

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

If I'm Haaland, and I know I have a release clause next summer, why move now for a massive fee and compromise my earning potential when I can go for half as much next summer and pocket most of the difference in wages and signing fees?

Have a feeling he could replace Mbappe at PSG next summer.

 

[oakiecokie]

We may not want him?

Who knows what him and his agent want in terms of money and add ons and City may well have said "no we wont go over and above our limit or wage structure.

 

[itisrising]

Pep praises plenty. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure we’d have wanted him, when looking at it they may have felt going with the proven premier league striker who doesn’t have a Tosser of an agent may be the way forward. They may want a guaranteed 4/5 years rather than a potential 2/3 before the agent wants his next slice of the cake. If there’s a chance of him being available it would have certainly been considered, so for me he’s either not available this summer or they’ve weighed up the pros and cons and want Kane.

The way I see it, there can't be a scenario where City have weighed up the pros and cons and decided Kane would be the better option; I'm pretty sure most here would struggle to argue a 28 year old striker with a history of injury problems, who's cost will be inflated because he plays for a rival club with 3 years left would be a more sensible option than Haaland. There just isn't a world where that's possible. And if Haaland were to leave after 4 or 5 years, that's a 100m+ sale as opposed to a free transfer of Kane. It's really not comparable.

Something seems to have happened from the Raiola tour that has miffed City off to not pursuing Haaland imo. All logical rationale indicates Haaland would be the smarter purchase, I'd love for City's position after the fact to come out one day.

 

[LongsightM13]

The way I see it, there can't be a scenario where City have weighed up the pros and cons and decided Kane would be the better option; I'm pretty sure most here would struggle to argue a 28 year old striker with a history of injury problems, who's cost will be inflated because he plays for a rival club with 3 years left would be a more sensible option than Haaland. There just isn't a world where that's possible. And if Haaland were to leave after 4 or 5 years, that's a 100m+ sale as opposed to a free transfer of Kane. It's really not comparable.

Something seems to have happened from the Raiola tour that has miffed City off to not pursuing Haaland imo. All logical rationale indicates Haaland would be the smarter purchase, I'd love for City's position after the fact to come out one day.

Yeah all seemed to go quiet after that tour, maybe we just decided we didn’t want any part of that circus

 

[oakiecokie]

The way I see it, there can't be a scenario where City have weighed up the pros and cons and decided Kane would be the better option; I'm pretty sure most here would struggle to argue a 28 year old striker with a history of injury problems, who's cost will be inflated because he plays for a rival club with 3 years left would be a more sensible option than Haaland. There just isn't a world where that's possible. And if Haaland were to leave after 4 or 5 years, that's a 100m+ sale as opposed to a free transfer of Kane. It's really not comparable.

Something seems to have happened from the Raiola tour that has miffed City off to not pursuing Haaland imo. All logical rationale indicates Haaland would be the smarter purchase, I'd love for City's position after the fact to come out one day.

You see you`re there again making up shite !!
How many PL games has Kane missed over the past 4 seasons.I suggest you take a look now before you embarrass yourself again.