It's evidently not when he's potentially going to the dippers for around £50 million 12 months later.
It's fine to accept we haven't got things 100% spot on, all the time.
Disagree. I strongly suspect we will have looked at the lavia situation and changed the structure of the clauses we insert when selling the likes of Charles, Trafford and Borges this summer to protect or even prevent any of them blowing up this season and moving to a rival 12 months later.
Lavia might be good enough for us in 2-3 years but certainly not at this moment in timePerhaps we don't see it as a mistake. There are going to be good players that we let go. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were the right players (or good enough) for us at that time, or now, though.
your prerogative, but I'm not really concerned by the sale.
The club are not stupid when it comes to transfer dealings despite what uninformed posters may think .
Probably but why put a buyback clause that you couldn't activate until 2024.Kid needed that stability and game time invested in his development, we don’t have it. Saints did, they just fucked the season.
We ain't replacing Gundog like for like, that's highly difficult to do.We don't need him. We're well stacked for DMs.
We could do with someone to replace Gundogan but Lavia isn't that player.
Agreed on Caicedo, a superb player.Lavia might be good enough for us in 2-3 years but certainly not at this moment in time
If there was a mistake it was in signing Phillips who has clearly wilted under the pressure
Amazed we aren’t even vaguely linked to Caicedo who is basically a reincarnation of Ferna
Because it may have been good for us - but not him.We ain't replacing Gundog like for like, that's highly difficult to do.
I'm starting to think this may be a double blunder because it's hard to know what Citys strategy is to yelp Rodri, on assumption we play best with a DM.
Many say the dippers will be main challengers and I don't disagree with that and Klipperty who has pulled off (ooo err) some very good value signings sees Lavia as the answer.
I don't want to write Kalvin off too soon but he's struggled so far. Lavia was scholked at City and knew our systems well. So why not have kept him last season and give him game time to rest Rodri and then identify the real deal for us and if necessary let Lavia go but for what would have been a bigger price and not spend the money on Phillips?
I imagine them already rejecting a 70 million bid has something to do with it. He's a fantastic young player, but I get why we wouldn't be willing to pay 80 million plus after one breakout season. There also seems to be a shift in our recruitment towards more physically imposing players. I don't know if that's a deliberate policy or just who we happen to have signed. But as good as he is, Caicedo is a fairly small busy player, rather than a Rodri type that will bully people off the ball.Lavia might be good enough for us in 2-3 years but certainly not at this moment in time
If there was a mistake it was in signing Phillips who has clearly wilted under the pressure
Amazed we aren’t even vaguely linked to Caicedo who is basically a reincarnation of Ferna
£20m I’ve heard on some internet media outlets.Will City get any money from Lavia sale ?