Reading between the lines, I think you’re saying we shouldn’t believe everything we read in the press ? ;-)We can afford both.
I know exactly where this story that it was one or the other comes from. It was from Sam Luckhurst's coffee boy at the Manchester Evening News; a young lad who is probably on minimum wage and a massive United fan. And his story was that City could only afford Kane or Grealish ......unless they sold the Academy players that they were going to sell. The headline conveniently missed out that second bit. Then it was picked up by the Mail Sport who quoted the story and then made its way into the mainstream.
A good lesson in how fucking ridiculous the press is and how their bullshit can easily become commonly accepted wisdom if you let it.
Do you think Mr Levy would trade the cash premium we offer for the pat on the head from United etc..?You don't add someone like Ronaldo to your wage bill and then sign Kane in January.
We sign Ronaldo, and that's us on the outside looking in for the next two years, because that will be the minimum deal he would get.
United could sit tight until next summer and pick up Kane for less than £100m.
You really should have saidFailed because it now seems we could only afford one of Grealish or Kane, and we've signed the wrong one in my eyes. I still say we didn't need Grealish
Don't know about with us but Henry was signed age 30 at Barca.Genuine question - I'm just trying to think - has Pep ever signed a player over 28ish for a short term boost? (ok, maybe Nolito) with us?
That's the thing though, the willingness, urgency of the seller to sell is the biggest driver of negotiating a price. We could put £100 mill on Bernardo , he wouldn't find a buyer. If Levy sticks to £160 he won't find a buyer so the valuation isn't the market price there is no market.Could you let Levy know that please.
Torres and Delap aren't and won't our strikers that was never the plan, If we don't get a 9 then it will be Jesus or false 9.we have a title to defend.. I am personally worried if we go into the season with a strike force of ferran torres and liam delap, and if this was "the plan", then frankly it was a terrible plan!
I was only half joking. My point not being about what the market is willing to pay for Bernard Bernard but more that we don't have to accept what we consider to be less than his worth, despite that being higher than the market valuation.That's the thing though, the willingness, urgency of the seller to sell is the biggest driver of negotiating a price. We could put £100 mill on Bernardo , he wouldn't find a buyer. If Levy sticks to £160 he won't find a buyer so the valuation isn't the market price there is no market.
How did you get to that from THs post?Do you think Mr Levy would trade the cash premium we offer for the pat on the head from United etc..?
No we don't, but if we still expect to bring in a striker we may feel we just have too many forward players off the top of my head I make it 11 for 5 positions if a striker comes and Bernardo stays and the need to let one go outweighs any hit taken on price. Bernardo is he one it seems we are willing to let go,whether due to promises made or the fact he's never really established 'his' position or both,or even the emergence of Palmer and Delap staying means we are even more overstocked.I was only half joking. My point not being about what the market is willing to pay for Bernard Bernard but more that we don't have to accept what we consider to be less than his worth, despite that being higher than the market valuation.