D
D
Deleted member 87819
Guest
I think the issue there is Bernardo’s valuation. Zouma and Abraham seem about right to me
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's Quiet Thread 15 - Txiki Blinders
- Thread starter tolmie's hairdoo
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
samuelyeboah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2021
- Messages
- 5,493
- Team supported
- Manchester City
well, I wish we could sell like that, is all.I think the issue there is Bernardo’s valuation. Zouma and Abraham seem about right to me
decmancity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 12,747
Abraham has scored consistently (when given the chance) in the Prem, Championship and even has CL goals to his name. 35m is hardly a crazy fee.like the ones he just mentioned. zouma for 25m?! abraham for 35m?! crazy prices for thes 2 when you're quoting bernardo for 40m.
Zouma, experienced defender with plenty of apps at the top level. Again, 25m is about right.
D
D
Deleted member 87819
Guest
I agree. Or at least more creative deals...well, I wish we could sell like that, is all.
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 5,956
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I agree hihosilva.I think it was likely City who pulled the plug rather than Kane. From his message yesterday it was clear he still wants out.
Moreover...
Levy has stated that he doesn't want to sell Kane - maybe City thought that was a bluff, or that with Kane dead set on leaving Levy would cave, and thus we'd be able to buy Kane this window eventually.
But was the pursuit of Kane well thought out?
Levy might sell Kane, but only if he could find a suitable replacement. And even then, he'd drive a very difficult transaction - we'd end up paying north of £120M for a 28 year old striker! Honestly, that's ridiculous!
Levy seemingly couldn't find a replacement for Kane and the deal fell through.
And unless we were prepared to play without a replacement for Aguero this season - then I think that the pursuit of Kane was a botched concept from the start.
And, if we are willing to play without a replacement for Aguero - why then did we pursue such an expensive 28 year old replacement? Yes he's extremely talented - yes Pep admires him - and yes he wants to play for our side. But face reality. He's owned by a side that doesn't want to trade him, he's 28 years old, if we were, in fact, successful in buying him, he'd cost literally an arm and a leg, and Kane's current contract with Spurs runs until 2024 - and thus Kane has little leverage to drive a trade.
He had excuses for this.Not rocking up for training isn’t trying?
No transfer request, announcing his desire to move.
Half hearted at best
SkyBlueCanuck
Well-Known Member
For me it is City showing our strength again. We won't be held ransom for a clearly over market value price. We're in this for the long haul and having a selling club like Spurs extort us serves us trouble in the future any time we come for a target.
Everyone talked about how City always splashes cash for the most expensive squad ever... but at the same time they would all agree that City surely wouldn't spend 100M for a player because it isn't what they do. (Until we went and did it)
Everyone talked about how many 50M fullbacks we'd sign and how ludicrous it is that we're able to do so on the likes of a Kyle Walker... but nobody thinks that City overspent for him anymore now, do they? (They can point at the failure of the Mendy signing if they like, but I still think that serious injuries robbed him, and us, of his highest potential)
Yes, I think that Kane was absolutely our transfer priority and we were unable to get him. Yes, I'll be disappointed if we don't bring in who is capable of being our man at the point of the spear. But making a deal that weakens our future transfer positions is just bad. And we aren't just in this for now, we are attempting to win our 6th title out of the last 10. (And our Owner and Chairman seem determined to keep the trophy haul a'coming)
But the other side of this is that the Champions of Europe have strengthened, have had a training season with an excellent manager, and they clearly mean to be this season's Champions of England.
I hope we bring in the striker that we all know we need.
Everyone talked about how City always splashes cash for the most expensive squad ever... but at the same time they would all agree that City surely wouldn't spend 100M for a player because it isn't what they do. (Until we went and did it)
Everyone talked about how many 50M fullbacks we'd sign and how ludicrous it is that we're able to do so on the likes of a Kyle Walker... but nobody thinks that City overspent for him anymore now, do they? (They can point at the failure of the Mendy signing if they like, but I still think that serious injuries robbed him, and us, of his highest potential)
Yes, I think that Kane was absolutely our transfer priority and we were unable to get him. Yes, I'll be disappointed if we don't bring in who is capable of being our man at the point of the spear. But making a deal that weakens our future transfer positions is just bad. And we aren't just in this for now, we are attempting to win our 6th title out of the last 10. (And our Owner and Chairman seem determined to keep the trophy haul a'coming)
But the other side of this is that the Champions of Europe have strengthened, have had a training season with an excellent manager, and they clearly mean to be this season's Champions of England.
I hope we bring in the striker that we all know we need.
SkyBlueCanuck
Well-Known Member
Imagine being a Spurs player.
Knowing that your club will always sell, underpay (comparatively) or trap their best players and give them almost no hope of competing for the highest honours. What player of quality would be content to commit their future to them? Imagine being in the locker room with Harry now. A man denied the opportunity to have his dream move after all of his loyal and exemplary service and having a gentleman's agreement from ownership that he could move. Who'd ever trust them again?
Spurs are over and they all must know it.
Knowing that your club will always sell, underpay (comparatively) or trap their best players and give them almost no hope of competing for the highest honours. What player of quality would be content to commit their future to them? Imagine being in the locker room with Harry now. A man denied the opportunity to have his dream move after all of his loyal and exemplary service and having a gentleman's agreement from ownership that he could move. Who'd ever trust them again?
Spurs are over and they all must know it.
GOULDYBOBS
Well-Known Member
I can't find the post but I just want to say thanks to the Chris Rea tattoo poster. Made my day that hahaha
Javi Garcia's Hairstylist
Well-Known Member
The people currently running the club have brought us the past 9 years and should have all the credit in the world for that.
Still, this Kane debacle makes you wonder what the thought process was.
Jack Pitt-Brooke is a twat of magnitude infinity but his piece on this suggests the deal was never on from Spuds' perspective.
Junior people within City were told it was - these seem to be the sources that filtered through to Sam Lee, etc. But Spuds we're apparently never selling.
And no one from City even spoke to them at the first match?
Suggests to me that people at the Omar level assumed that Levy would eventually sell. Or maybe that Spuds' financial problems would force the issue.
Their finances are a dumpster fire but they've kicked that can down the road a bit. They don't need Kane money to keep the locks from being changed at the stadium.
Like my Dad said to me last thing when I moved out "never assume anything." Seems like a good basis for underpinning the next transfer strategy.
If I were them I'd throw Juve a few shekels and get Ronaldo in. I think he would rake in goals and the optics of pulling that off seem to be sorely needed.
Still, this Kane debacle makes you wonder what the thought process was.
Jack Pitt-Brooke is a twat of magnitude infinity but his piece on this suggests the deal was never on from Spuds' perspective.
Junior people within City were told it was - these seem to be the sources that filtered through to Sam Lee, etc. But Spuds we're apparently never selling.
And no one from City even spoke to them at the first match?
Suggests to me that people at the Omar level assumed that Levy would eventually sell. Or maybe that Spuds' financial problems would force the issue.
Their finances are a dumpster fire but they've kicked that can down the road a bit. They don't need Kane money to keep the locks from being changed at the stadium.
Like my Dad said to me last thing when I moved out "never assume anything." Seems like a good basis for underpinning the next transfer strategy.
If I were them I'd throw Juve a few shekels and get Ronaldo in. I think he would rake in goals and the optics of pulling that off seem to be sorely needed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.