Agree with everything you say about his attributes, mate - but is he really much different or a significant upgrade on what they have? Couldn't you say the same things about Foden, Silva, Gundogan?
Grealish To City? | City bid £100M
- Thread starter Inigo Montoya
- Start date
- Status
The real tragedy was Villa not going down LAST year. We would have bought Grealish for under $50 mil and wouldn't have panic-bought Van De Beek, who in turn, was never given a chance. Donnie will hopefully come good this year but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we end up seeing him panic-sold or sitting on the bench again this season.
Blame goal line technology
Bernado's been poor for quite some time now, he has a good pass and finish but he can't dribble the way Grealish does. They've been public about wanting to offload him this summer
Gundogan is more of a late runner into the box ala Lampard, he's not a dribbler nor as good a passer.
Foden has the potential yes, he's very good but still young and a bit raw.
Sterling is more of a finisher nowadays.
He has what most of the others have but a little bit more. Most likely he'll start and some of the others will be depth options, which is a bit crap for the rest of the league.
It's not a tragedy because given the position he plays, we simply didn't and still don't need him.
To add to that we may never have signed Sancho, who I still believe is a much better fit for us.
Grealish is a lovely player but also a Raumdeuter type. We’d essentially have to build the side around him which could hamper the productivity of players like Bruno. Im not convinced he’d be a great match for us (nor City for that matter).
They were always going to pay big money once that brilliant spine of the team moved on.
Those types of positions require big outlays.
Pep was just fortunate those key positions were already sorted when he arrived.
Potentially the buy of the season but it's to be seen.
Could be a great fit for City.
I know he's very expensive but if we bought Pogba for 80m then I think 100m isn't too bad.
Could be a great fit for City.
I know he's very expensive but if we bought Pogba for 80m then I think 100m isn't too bad.
Which Silva? Grealish isn't in the same league as David Silva and Gundogan doesn't play in a similar style. Foden is the closest and hugs the RW while Grealish prefers the LW.
Not sure they can both play at the same time. Grealish has the ability to bring players into play and if those are quality players( not the Villa rubbish he was playing with each week) then City as an attacking force will be tough to face.
Still think he falls over too much but that will suit City's style more than Utd's.
Also Villa have more European trophies than that lot
Imagine how hench his legs are gonna be after peds doctor gets hold of him.
True.Also Villa have more European trophies than that lot
Good for you if you are happy with what we have. I am not and I want a few more quality signings to be able to compete with City for the title. The last time I had to wait 26 years for a title, if we don't plan now I can see a similar wait again as City will continue to dominate because they plan.
A great fit for City? How? City have at least 4 players in his position. Guardiola likes a structured team to stick to his plan. That isn’t how Grealish plays. Even Trevor I Love City Sinclair doesn’t think it is a good move for either party. I predict Grealish will end up like Fabian Delph who was flavour of the month once upon a time and he ended up a bench warmer and sold after a short time. £100m that they cannot afford to spend on one player, just another conceit from Guardiola and City.
Didn't know he liked United.... that pisses me off more than it should
Realistically I don't want him over Fernandes or an uninjured Rashford. But it's a shame we bought Van der Beek who didn't get a fair amount of games from Ole instead of Grealish last year.
From the clubs perspective I can see why they opted against it. Fernandes is the long term CAM, Rashy the long term LW, and Sancho is probably a better RW than Grealish.
Just one of those you miss out on and have to accept wasn't going to work out. He'll find himself first choice LW and CAM at City and have success no doubt.
Had we signed him before Fernandes that would be entirely different.
Realistically I don't want him over Fernandes or an uninjured Rashford. But it's a shame we bought Van der Beek who didn't get a fair amount of games from Ole instead of Grealish last year.
From the clubs perspective I can see why they opted against it. Fernandes is the long term CAM, Rashy the long term LW, and Sancho is probably a better RW than Grealish.
Just one of those you miss out on and have to accept wasn't going to work out. He'll find himself first choice LW and CAM at City and have success no doubt.
Had we signed him before Fernandes that would be entirely different.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Technically he's the perfect fit and he's better than basically all his competition.
City play a very fluid passing game and that's exactly how he plays. Also if de bruyne gets injured he's easily the best replacement.
You'd have been just like them, hoarding players you don't need. Right wing was always more important and you now got Sancho, which if you signed Grealish you probably wouldn't have. That said, I'd have much preferred if he went to you lot. This must be the 4th time those feckers have taken our best player and added them to their machine.
For the price, it needs to be a “buy of the season” especially when he’s the first £100M English transfer.
For me, I’m genuinely not fussed with this as I’d rather they signed Grealish over Kane unless they are gonna splash out £150-£175M on Kane as well then I’d be shitting myself.
I think Grealish is potentially the bigger buy, depends what they plan to do for their striker.
Strange one for me. If City have 100m to spend, why are they spending it on Grealish when the gaping hole in the squad is where Kane would slot in.
Surely they could fund the difference, as I don't really see Grealish adding as much to that squad as Kane would.
Surely they could fund the difference, as I don't really see Grealish adding as much to that squad as Kane would.
Best thing about him going to City is that the man crush that half of the caf seems to have on him can end as well as posters forcing him in CM in their hopeful first 11s next season. The second being, we'll really see if he meets the insane hype that has surrounded him for the last year. I've heard many people say he's POTY material and much better than anyone in the league other than KDB.
A few fancy dribbles won't be enough, especially in the biggest of games which he's yet to experience the pressure or intensity.
A few fancy dribbles won't be enough, especially in the biggest of games which he's yet to experience the pressure or intensity.
With all due respect, you paid £93 million (including the add-ons) for Pogba + the best part of £30 million in agent fees + taxes + legal fees = circa £130 million.
Grealish won’t cost anything like what you paid for Pogba.
I’m not saying that Pogba wasn’t worth every last penny of it. I don’t watch enough of him to know, so that’s for you to decide, but you should at least be honest with yourself about what the outlay was.
And I suspect, with good reason, that Grealish’s salary will also be less than Pogba’s and that City won’t have to suffer the painful nonsense that arrives with the Raiola circus.
I don't think he's a perfect fit for what they need right now but a class player who can start on the wing and as you said, be a top class cover for De Bruyne... the biggest benefit for them with this signing is having an easy transition post De Bruyne (not as good as him, but still quality). I'd say being transition plan post De Bruyne decline is more valuable to them than the current improvement which I don't think is much if it's on the left or next to KDB due to overall balance.
I just don’t think they really need him whereas Kane is the gapping hole in that squad for the striker position vacated by Aguero. Gabriel Jesus is nothing great.
I’m not gonna complain about it as I’d rather they spunked the money on an area of their team that’s already filled with plenty of depth.
N0 we didnt. We paid 89 million pounds for Pogba. Juventus paid part of that fee as Raiola fee.
That's fair.
I think he will be alright in Pep's hands. Unless he is a complete d**k, on confrontation path with Pep, he should improve on his talents.
The City team works like a well oiled machine.
What gaping hole?
They played without a striker last season and the results weren’t too shabby.
Two pots, a final and a semi final doesn’t suggest that anything was gaping.
He wasn't worth it.
Because Grealish was easily available. Kane was available only at a much higher price, and they had to deal with Levy.
And they have the money, just in case Kane deal comes through in the last minute.
Agree with this
I understand us not wanting City to improve and wanting any new players going there to fail, but I don't get why anyone would think Grealish would not improve. Pretty much everyone works better with Pep's coaching. They have his tactics that are super drilled into everyone.
It does not work always and Pep makes insane decisions sometimes and loses big games, but overall every attacking player only improves there.
It does not work always and Pep makes insane decisions sometimes and loses big games, but overall every attacking player only improves there.
Nah, you should read up in the topic because you’re well wide of the mark.
And I’m not knocking it either - I just mentioned it for balance.
What topic. Juventus even released their net gain from this transfer. Juventus owed 25% of the fee to Pogba/Raiola and they paid it. Raiola was paid agent fee from ManUtd just like any other transfer, just like how City will pay Grealish's agent.
I love how nobody brings up agent fees or signing bonuses for any player but you have to bring it in for Grealish vs Pogba now
We're talking transfer fee alone. That's what gets published reliably, that's what everyone looks back on and that's what every conversation is always about. Stop bringing up other fees that come with every transfer however it's balanced out, it's not reported accurately ever and none of us know how it's paid out either.
Grealish is the record transfer in the premier league now when it goes through, that's it.
He is talking about the 25% fee that juve paid Raiola, somehow thinks we paid that money.I love how nobody brings up agent fees or signing bonuses for any player but you have to bring it in for Grealish vs Pogba now
We're talking transfer fee alone. That's what gets published reliably, that's what everyone looks back on and that's what every conversation is always about. Stop bringing up other fees that come with every transfer however it's balanced out, it's not reported accurately ever and none of us know how it's paid out either.
Grealish is the record transfer in the premier league now when it goes through, that's it.
With all due respect, that's a load of rubbish.
I hope he becomes gotze 2.0.
Do they improve though or does he just buy the best possible players due to having an unlimited transfer budget and those players look better as they are playing with better players?
I get bored with the love in if I'm honest. I mean, the guy took over the most expensive squad ever assembled and spent £500m in his first two years followed by a further £350m in the following three years and now wants to drop £250 on two players in season 6?
- Status