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.

 

[itisrising]

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.

Ofc I only know information that's publicly accessible, pretty much what we all do here is discuss City while not being privy to all the facts.

However, the idea that he wouldn't want to join us is far fetched. Not with standing this is the guy that has been to multiple City games even between games, who's affinity to the club has been well documented, who's father captained the side, a club that has a serious project that can match his ambition etc.

We have to discuss with the most sensible inferences and the idea that he wouldn't be interested in joining us isn't sensible.

 

[itisrising]

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

That's my thinking as well. I could easily envision a situation where City feel trust has been broken.

 

[itisrising]

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.

It's not the number of games he's missed, it's a case of a chronic reoccurrence of an ankle injury and being rushed back constantly by Spurs.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

It's not the number of games he's missed, it's a case of a chronic reoccurrence of an ankle injury and being rushed back constantly by Spurs.

You should actually read his injury record - he doesn’t have chronic ankle injuries, he suffers occasional ankle injuries like any other football player.
In fact, of the modest number of ankle injuries he’s had, he had more of them earlier in his career and very few in the last 3 to 5 years - so he’s becoming even less prone to ankle injuries.

I don’t want us to sign him because I think he’s a bit of a plonker, albeit a very good footballer.
However, all this stuff being said about his injuries, is being said by good meaning people who’ve latched on to someone saying he has glass ankles but then haven’t bothered to check it out by looking at his record.

He’s a div but not a crock - though I still wouldn’t want us to sign him even if he were 5 years younger.

 

[oakiecokie]

Ofc I only know information that's publicly accessible, pretty much what we all do here is discuss City while not being privy to all the facts.

However, the idea that he wouldn't want to join us is far fetched. Not with standing this is the guy that has been to multiple City games even between games, who's affinity to the club has been well documented, who's father captained the side, a club that has a serious project that can match his ambition etc.

We have to discuss with the most sensible inferences and the idea that he wouldn't be interested in joining us isn't sensible.

But you`re making claims that is privy to no one but themselves.At the end of the day its pretty irrelevant that because he`s a boyhood City fan doesn`t mean that he`ll come.For all we know it could be City who`ve pulled the plug.

 

[oakiecokie]

It's not the number of games he's missed, it's a case of a chronic reoccurrence of an ankle injury and being rushed back constantly by Spurs.

So who`s fault is that Kane or Spurs thats he`s rushed back.We did exactly the same with Sergio and Pep learnt the hard way but it appears that he may have learnt from that ... well hopefully.

 

[andyhinch]

But you`re making claims that is privy to no one but themselves.At the end of the day its pretty irrelevant that because he`s a boyhood City fan doesn`t mean that he`ll come.For all we know it could be City who`ve pulled the plug.

Not sure you can get fermented herring in Cheshire, could be a factor ?

 

[itisrising]

You should actually read his injury record - he doesn’t have chronic ankle injuries, he suffers occasional ankle injuries like any other football player.
In fact of the modest number of ankle injuries he’s had, he had more of them earlier in his career and very few in the last 3 to 5 years - so he’s becoming even less prone to ankle injuries.

It's more than occasional though, he's had an ankle injury virtually every year since 16/17. Sure they have been more severe before 19/20 but as he gets older, there's every possibility it'll take longer to recover from. The way he's been rushed back by Spurs may very well affect him as he gets into his 30s.

 

[itisrising]

But you`re making claims that is privy to no one but themselves.At the end of the day its pretty irrelevant that because he`s a boyhood City fan doesn`t mean that he`ll come.For all we know it could be City who`ve pulled the plug.

I'm not making claims, I've literally said I'd love to find out why we moved on from Haaland. I just discount the possibility that it's for footballing reasons or that he wouldn't want to join us, it's logical enough to have that belief.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

It's more than occasional though, he's had an ankle injury virtually every year since 16/17. Sure they have been more severe before 19/20 but as he gets older, there's every possibility it'll take longer to recover from. The way he's been rushed back by Spurs may very well affect him as he gets into his 30s.

His record shows that the older he’s got, the less injuries he’s suffered - his injury trend is getting better not worse.

How can you look at the trends in his injuries and find anything to suggest that his resilience is going down?

And he wouldn’t get overplayed at City (though overpaid perhaps) ;-)

I still don’t want him though.
Looks like the ugly brother of Rodney out of Only Fools & Horses.