Erling Haaland

VidaRed

Full Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
24,811
Chelsea don't have a bottomless pit of cash, unless somethings changed.
News reports indicate they've set aside around 300 million for their transfer kitty.

And they spent hundreds of millions in the previous summer transfer window as well, so if that's not a bottomless pit of cash then nothing is.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
8,941
News reports indicate they've set aside around 300 million for their transfer kitty.

And they spent hundreds of millions in the previous summer transfer window as well, so if that's not a bottomless pit of cash then nothing is.
Yeah they definitely do and we should fear that even more than City
 

red_de_pologne

Full Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
2,331
Location
Warsaw, Poland
Ole was already once sure we're getting him, I'm not getting my hopes up in the slightest. Woodward & Co. won't handle competition from efficient clubs like City or Chelsea.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,489
I fully expect city and chelsea to splash half a billion between them in the coming transfer window. We sure as hell can't compete against their bottomless pits of cash and neither can the dippers, so don't get your hopes up.
Why go to Chelsea? Struggling for top 4, managerial role is a mess and theyve shown they cant get the best out of their attacking players as it is.
Its not going to be who is offering the most money that gets him, he'll get whatever he wants anyway.
My theory is thats why we are suddenly lookinng to offload DDG and transfer those wages to Haaland
 

lenny_1248

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
396
How many times have you watched him play and be honest?
A lot, I love watching Borussia.
And obviously I was just joking, I just don't like his smug face.

But in all honesty, it happens sometimes that some teams look better w/o a big, proven goalscorer.
Barca/Inter looked better w/o Ibra. Sir Alex got rid of RVN and it helped the team to get better.
Obviously situtations differ etc. but I'm just saying - that sometimes it's not for the best for the team to have a Haaland type of CF.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
49,071
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
There’s no way Ole wouldn’t want him and he’s desperate to come - the only potential stumbling block is the Glazers and their usual lack of willingness to spend.
We've spent over £1bn on players since SAF left. Hate the Glazers for saddling the club with debt, blame them for turning us into a soulless corporate machine flogging tractor and noodle partnerships, but that accusation is puerile nonsense.
 

Gonçalo Motta

Full Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
276
This kid is really good and can actually reach Ronaldo / Messi numbers if he isn't one those cases of a player that peaked too soon.

I could easily see a rilvary between Haaland and Mbappe as the best player in world during this decade.
Missing them out by option would be a really dumb move and Haaland seems easier and cheaper to get than Mbappe.
 
Last edited:

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
20,954
Location
Where the grass is greener.
A lot, I love watching Borussia.
And obviously I was just joking, I just don't like his smug face.

But in all honesty, it happens sometimes that some teams look better w/o a big, proven goalscorer.
Barca/Inter looked better w/o Ibra. Sir Alex got rid of RVN and it helped the team to get better.
Obviously situtations differ etc. but I'm just saying - that sometimes it's not for the best for the team to have a Haaland type of CF.
But we do need a proven goalscorer? Fair enough if we were winning trophy after trophy without one, strolling to league titles. We're not even close.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,489
A lot, I love watching Borussia.
And obviously I was just joking, I just don't like his smug face.

But in all honesty, it happens sometimes that some teams look better w/o a big, proven goalscorer.
Barca/Inter looked better w/o Ibra. Sir Alex got rid of RVN and it helped the team to get better.
Obviously situtations differ etc. but I'm just saying - that sometimes it's not for the best for the team to have a Haaland type of CF.
Football has moved on, its all about plan A from minute 1 to 90, all about playing ther percentages.
Put his goals in alongside Bruno and Rashford and we would be above City imo.
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
826
Some numbers for the 20/21 season League and European competitions:

Haaland
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 1,15
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,34

Lewandowski
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,98
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,22

Mbappe
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,67
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,05

CR7
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,69
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 0,82

Kane
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,49
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,06

Messi
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,53
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 0,73

Bruno F
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,41
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 0,79

Lukaku
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,67
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,05

Salah
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 0,50
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 0,64

Anyone you are missing here?

Edit:
Haaland for Salzburg 19/20
Goals per 90 minus penalty goals: 1,48
Goals + assists per 90 minus penalty goals and penalties won: 1,84
 
Last edited:

dinostar77

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
829
Why go to Chelsea? Struggling for top 4, managerial role is a mess and theyve shown they cant get the best out of their attacking players as it is.
Its not going to be who is offering the most money that gets him, he'll get whatever he wants anyway.
My theory is thats why we are suddenly lookinng to offload DDG and transfer those wages to Haaland
Chelsea could end up being the closest competitors to Man City for the league over next few seasons. Tuchel will be given money to do the tweaks he needs. The talent is there, just lacking experience and for some players a settling in period. No doubt Chelsea will be a force again over next few years. Also you can't discount the appeal to foreign players of living in London. Its a huge appeal.

On a sidenote, Dybala only having a year left on his contract and not getting game time at Juventus could influence City to go for him rather than Haaland. Dybala more in keeping with a Guardiola type forward i.e. can play 9/10/false 9. Remains to be seen if he wants to leave italy (Duncan Castles: Transfer Window podcast).
 

dinostar77

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
829
A lot, I love watching Borussia.
And obviously I was just joking, I just don't like his smug face.

But in all honesty, it happens sometimes that some teams look better w/o a big, proven goalscorer.
Barca/Inter looked better w/o Ibra. Sir Alex got rid of RVN and it helped the team to get better.
Obviously situtations differ etc. but I'm just saying - that sometimes it's not for the best for the team to have a Haaland type of CF.
This is true. RVN left as fergie was concerned that the team were too reliant on Ruud and if the opposition shut him down, they'd shut us down.
Dortmund are seeing that team is too reliant on Haaland. Thats probably not a good thing for Dortmund as they buy young and cheap and build players into stars to move on. The other potential stars need room to shine.

Anyway not all teams need a Haaland type striker. Still not convinced City do as its not Guardiolas style to play with a striker like him.
I'm not sure if we do either. Maybe we need someone with better movement off the ball and holdup play ability. I dunno sure our scouts and coaches will though.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
11,555
News reports indicate they've set aside around 300 million for their transfer kitty.

And they spent hundreds of millions in the previous summer transfer window as well, so if that's not a bottomless pit of cash then nothing is.
The reason they could spend that much was the sale of Hazard - Chelseas net spend if you include Hazard really wasn't that huge - it was less than Haaland alone will cost
 

lenny_1248

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
396
Put his goals in alongside Bruno and Rashford and we would be above City imo.
No, we would not.

Do you really think that he would come here and score a goal per game? It's impossible.
I'm not saying that they are on the same level, but look at how Werner struggles at Chelsea. Premier League is not a BL.

Yeah, he scores more than a goal per game in CL also, but it's a small sample size and 8 of his goals are against Genk and Brugge.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,489
No, we would not.

Do you really think that he would come here and score a goal per game? It's impossible.
I'm not saying that they are on the same level, but look at how Werner struggles at Chelsea. Premier League is not a BL.

Yeah, he scores more than a goal per game in CL also, but it's a small sample size and 8 of his goals are against Genk and Brugge.
Bruno is scoring and assisting at an incredible rate, Rashfords goal contribution is phenomenal over the last 18 months.
Why cant one of the worlds best strikers play alongside that and flourish? Last year alone saw Martial and Greenwood score 40 between them playing alongside that before their bad form took over.
Nobody said he has to score a goal a game, he just has to be a fantastic striker, which he is.
It takes serious mental gymnastics to try and argue one of the worlds best strikers would struggle in the best goal scoring attack in the league. Not only by the goals we score but feck me we miss a lot of easy chances on top of that.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,489
B
Chelsea could end up being the closest competitors to Man City for the league over next few seasons. Tuchel will be given money to do the tweaks he needs. The talent is there, just lacking experience and for some players a settling in period. No doubt Chelsea will be a force again over next few years. Also you can't discount the appeal to foreign players of living in London. Its a huge appeal.

On a sidenote, Dybala only having a year left on his contract and not getting game time at Juventus could influence City to go for him rather than Haaland. Dybala more in keeping with a Guardiola type forward i.e. can play 9/10/false 9. Remains to be seen if he wants to leave italy (Duncan Castles: Transfer Window podcast).
But all of that doesnt set Chelsea apart. Theyve shown next to nothing for a long time now and it really looks as if its 250m wasted from last summer already. Its not a great selling point if we're being honest
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
826
No, we would not.

Do you really think that he would come here and score a goal per game? It's impossible.
I'm not saying that they are on the same level, but look at how Werner struggles at Chelsea. Premier League is not a BL.

Yeah, he scores more than a goal per game in CL also, but it's a small sample size and 8 of his goals are against Genk and Brugge.
Yes, we would.
Yes, he would.

Does the 9 goals 1 assist in 634 minutes (a goal per 70 minutes) against Liverpool, Napoli, Lazio, PSG and Sevilla count? (Sevilla had not conceded a goal in 718 minutes before they met Dortmund)
Or the 6 goals and 1 assist in 409 minutes (a goal per 68 minutes) against Bayern and Leipzig?
Or the 6 goals and 1 assist in 546 minutes (a goal per 91 minutes) for Norway?

Haaland has the physique to bully any defender in the world, Werner hasn't.
He will be a beast wherever he goes.
 
Last edited:

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
83
Supports
Chelsea
B

But all of that doesnt set Chelsea apart. Theyve shown next to nothing for a long time now and it really looks as if its 250m wasted from last summer already. Its not a great selling point if we're being honest
I have to disagree on a few points here:

1) Chelsea over last five seasons have won the PL, Europa League and the FA Cup whilst also being in two other finals. Go back just one more year and you can add another title and a league cup. Utd over the same timeframe have one league cup and one EL.
2) It's far too early to say we've wasted £250m. Silva, Mendy and Chilwell are solid purchases and Werner has 19 G/A despite being mocked for his missed chances. Havertz was injured and out with Covid, lets see how he does going forward.
3) Chelsea have a few other good selling points, London based, a young squad, ambitious owner, money and of course a huge gaping slot for a centre forward. We also generate a hell of a lot of chances if you were to look at Xg

I'm not saying we will sign him, in my opinion City are a far bigger attraction. But we certainly are at least attractive as utd right now
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
12,328
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
News reports indicate they've set aside around 300 million for their transfer kitty.

And they spent hundreds of millions in the previous summer transfer window as well, so if that's not a bottomless pit of cash then nothing is.
Chelsea had all that money because they had a transfer ban the season before and sold Hazard. It left them with a huge pile of money ready to go once the ban finished.

I'm not necessarily saying they won't be able to do it again (it really depends on Abramovich), but I doubt it.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
53,325
Location
Brizzle
Imagine being the biggest legend in Norway and being rejected by a player you gave a debut to :lol:

Don’t think Haaland nor his dad are big fans of Ole otherwise he would have been here already
On the contrary, they said he would likely have joined United last year if Solskjaer’s future was certain.
 

Sayros

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
4,233
Werner has 19 G/A despite being mocked for his missed chances.
I don't follow Chelsea much so I had to double-check this, but you're right. In 34 games, it's not a bad return for someone struggling overall. I think the league is what gets highlighted the most where he's been brought for goals and his finishing has been poor from the few games I saw, but he's making up for it somewhat with his assists at least. I never really judge a player on their first season in a new league, and I think Timo will come good down the line.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,489
I have to disagree on a few points here:

1) Chelsea over last five seasons have won the PL, Europa League and the FA Cup whilst also being in two other finals. Go back just one more year and you can add another title and a league cup. Utd over the same timeframe have one league cup and one EL.
2) It's far too early to say we've wasted £250m. Silva, Mendy and Chilwell are solid purchases and Werner has 19 G/A despite being mocked for his missed chances. Havertz was injured and out with Covid, lets see how he does going forward.
3) Chelsea have a few other good selling points, London based, a young squad, ambitious owner, money and of course a huge gaping slot for a centre forward. We also generate a hell of a lot of chances if you were to look at Xg

I'm not saying we will sign him, in my opinion City are a far bigger attraction. But we certainly are at least attractive as utd right now
If its too early to say they arent a waste of money then its faaar too early to say they're attractive because they could be Citys rivals in the near future.
At least you could say Utd are on the right track. You see improvement. You see no other side has lost less games than us in a year, 1 defeat in 19, undefeated away from home for God knows how long, going fom 6th to (as we stand) second, top scorers in the league, beat Leicester and its 5 semi finals in 12 months, a manager he knows, respects, is close with and stable. Thats without a Haaland in the side. Plus Utd are leagues above Chelsea in stats as a club.
With Chelsea, are they better than 2 season ago? Are they better than last year? Manager on a 18 month contract, laying in 5th and look to be in a mad battle for fourth, in a club that has shown it might not be the best environment for a player from Germany to play for.
Story goes He went to Dortmund because he wanted to know the entire club wanted him there, not just Solskjaer. How would he feel with upheavel every 18 months? A different manager coming in every other season etc.
Its hard to point to a 5 year span when so much changes in 5 years.
Even now Havertz and Timo joined because others had to pull out in a covid market.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,363
Supports
FC Bayern
Yeah, he scores more than a goal per game in CL also, but it's a small sample size and 8 of his goals are against Genk and Brugge.
The weaker clubs in the CL are still better than the weaker clubs in the PL.
 

supermao

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
90
Location
Norway
You just made that up didn't you.
Nah, I remember reading it. I think it was his dad talking with tv2.
He basically said OGS desire to sign Erling was greater then the clubs and with uncertaincy regarding OGS future at Utd the smart move were Dortmund.
 

lenny_1248

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
396
It takes serious mental gymnastics to try and argue one of the worlds best strikers would struggle in the best goal scoring attack in the league. Not only by the goals we score but feck me we miss a lot of easy chances on top of that.
Tell me where I said he'd struggle?

I just have some doubts about him.
Besides that, the majority thinks that had we had him from the start of the season, we would be first in the league. I disagree.

Would I have him on the team? Yes, of course I'd. But again, I'm just not as high as you are on him. And I certainly don't think he's the sole difference between United and City.

Does the 9 goals 1 assist in 634 minutes (a goal per 70 minutes) against Liverpool, Napoli, Lazio, PSG and Sevilla count? (Sevilla had not conceded a goal in 718 minutes before they met Dortmund)
Or the 6 goals and 1 assist in 409 minutes (a goal per 68 minutes) against Bayern and Leipzig?
Or the 6 goals and 1 assist in 546 minutes (a goal per 91 minutes) for Norway?
Fair enough.
 
Last edited:

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
1,225
I'd be more okay with him at Chelsea than at City. I don't even want to think about the league if he ends up at City.
 

dinostar77

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
829
Nah, I remember reading it. I think it was his dad talking with tv2.
He basically said OGS desire to sign Erling was greater then the clubs and with uncertaincy regarding OGS future at Utd the smart move were Dortmund.
Also Riaola was being twat wanting a release clause in the contract and percentage of next sale. The latter Utd took a firm stance over as they didnt want to be the club who set such a dangerous precedence for other agents to use against other clubs.
 

onetwo3oclock4oclockrock

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
334
Location
Norway
Nah, I remember reading it. I think it was his dad talking with tv2.
He basically said OGS desire to sign Erling was greater then the clubs and with uncertaincy regarding OGS future at Utd the smart move were Dortmund.
I can confirm. Can't remember what interview it was, but it was his dad. Said they felt that Ole wanted Haaland more than the club did, and they feared Oles days in Utd was coming to an end.