Please tell me you’re joking.
Grealish To City? | City bid £100M
- Thread starter Inigo Montoya
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
Because they're determined by international experience, skill move level, weak foot ability etc as well as skills. It's not a great metric to judge players by at all.
On balance, Pep won’t hesitate to bench him if all he’s doing is falling over. He’s going from a club where he’s loved, cherished and indulged to a place where he’s another player and the coach is bigger than he is
Doesn't really strengthen City's team playing as an 8 next to De Bryune that's a bold move and one where Grealish will either sink or swim.
City remind me of Madrid over the years, players are good in every position it's hard to add first team quality. I think there's far better 8s in world football other than Grealish.
City remind me of Madrid over the years, players are good in every position it's hard to add first team quality. I think there's far better 8s in world football other than Grealish.
PSG and Barcelona really did feck up transfer fees. The former I can understand but fecking Barcelona spending £142m on Coutinho and £135m on Dembele. Silly cnuts.
Think this is a good signing for City, although I’m not really sure where they’ll play him.
Yes he’s 25, but that still leaves a good 5 years. One thing I am interested in is the price, City always seemed to stick to around 60m as their max price, does this and the Kane transfer mean a change in their strategy? Or is it that these transfers are their final push for the CL.
Yes he’s 25, but that still leaves a good 5 years. One thing I am interested in is the price, City always seemed to stick to around 60m as their max price, does this and the Kane transfer mean a change in their strategy? Or is it that these transfers are their final push for the CL.
It was bad before, but that 6 month period when PSG spent £200m on Neymar & £160m on Mbappe and Barcelona spent £140m on Coutinho & £130m on Dembele absolutely destroyed the transfer market. At least PSG got good players out of it. Barca have been burning money, they deserve their financial problems
Liverpool as well, 75m for a CB
Then you have Liverpool and Chelsea with the amounts they spent on Alisson and Kepa
Bahahahaha
Because as we know, players completely lose their ability In the period between 29 years 364 days & 30 years 1 day old...
An established English international who you are purchasing from a Premier League team who don't need the money is always going to cost a fortune. Stones was £50m which was nuts at the time. Maguire was £80m which was nuts at the time. Graelish is £100m which is nuts but it just doesn't really matter long term, especially where City are concerned. They've got an excellent player.
I don't even think it's nuts at this time. He's a top player, good enough that City can legitimately see him as an upgrade on the incredible talent they already have in central midfield and on the left flank. Also, you have to take into consideration that he's captain and the key player for Villa, and that they don't want to sell him. That alone justifiably drives the price up.
Don’t get me wrong I think Grealish is a great player but is he really a world class player that will elevate City to true greatness ? Personally I don’t think he’s better than Sterling, Silva, Foden and Mahrez and probably at the same level but at £100 million is hugely overpriced.
Yes he stands out at Villa but so did Mahrez at Leicester and he went from being a standout player who tore the league apart to being a good player at City, I just don’t think City blowing the majority of their transfer budget on Grealish is a deathknell for the all the other clubs in the league like is being made out.
City were going to be favourites this season already regardless of signing Grealish but I’m much happier with our transfer business than I’ve been in years as it’s priority positions we’ve filled and they’ve been filled with genuine quality that are amongst the best in world football in their positions.
Yes he stands out at Villa but so did Mahrez at Leicester and he went from being a standout player who tore the league apart to being a good player at City, I just don’t think City blowing the majority of their transfer budget on Grealish is a deathknell for the all the other clubs in the league like is being made out.
City were going to be favourites this season already regardless of signing Grealish but I’m much happier with our transfer business than I’ve been in years as it’s priority positions we’ve filled and they’ve been filled with genuine quality that are amongst the best in world football in their positions.
Would have been a great signing for us, but I suppose with Pogba possibly staying and Van De Beek waiting in the wings, he'll have a better chance there.
The bolded one by far. Rashy is far more proven/better than Grealish, Haaland is better than Kane. Sterling is still better than Sancho though.
What's so effing funny about that? In order to compete, we need a squad capable of going up against City and maybe even Liverpool and Chelsea. We have a lot of players who are not up to the job, why not try and get rid of them for what we can and save on wages. If any transfer fees come in, use that to try and sign Grealish. It's not stopping City who won the title, got to the Champions League final, and even won a cup. Yea, their money coming in might be iffy, but they have a plan and get on with it while we extend Mata, etc, etc.So you expected us to spend £100m on Grealish after spending £107m on Sancho(higher ceiling) and Varane whilst needing to sign a DM and RB on top of that?
I think Mahrez is a very good player, he just doesnt get enough game time at City.
Secondly, I don't think the word budget exists at City, so they could spend another £120m on Kane after Grealish without needing to sell or reduce the wage bill.
I think we must assume that City thinks he offers something they don't have (or don't have enough of). Otherwise, they'd hardly pay 30m above their transfer record for him. I can see that too - with the skills he have, and his ability to hang on to the ball in difficult conditions, and his football intelligence, it's not too hard to imagine him being a real force even by City's standards once he's been woven into the Pep tapestry. He doesn't have to elevate City to true greatness, no single player does that.
That being said, it's hard to see him being a transformational player for them. So I'm much less worried by their signing him than I would be by their signing Kane, if they do.
Michael Owen had a beard in FIFA 98 on the PlayStation. I haven't trusted it since.
I'd compare Rashford to Sterling and Sancho to Grealish tbh, given the roles they'll have. Sancho and Grealish the creators, Sterling and Rashford wide forwards. Though also the chance that it's foden instead of Sterling like last year, but still he'd be a wide forward and not the creator anyway.
Currently Sancho is more proven and IMO a higher potential, but with a similar current level (Grealish just showed it for a much shorter period). Rashford when in form and fit is on par with Sterling, but showed it far more infrequently than Sterling (while both are ahead of Foden IMO). Kane more creator than Haaland, Haaland way better long term due to age but also the pace, power and ruthlessness.
Can't only look at them individually though, and Uniteds potential one with Haaland would compliment each other far more IMO. Grealish, Kane and anyone but Sterling in their front 3 leaves it with everyone liking the ball to feet and dropping short, no threat in behind, no pace in attack. With Sterling, he'd be the only guy who does it with the other 2 loving to drop into the pockets as a 10 essentially. Works, but still I think too reliant on Sterlings running in behind. With us, we'd have the creativity of Sancho who can give width on the right and come short and build up/create, but then Haaland being a beast in behind with constant runs and Rashford being a bit of a dual threat running in behind to support Haaland and give options to Sancho (and those behind), but also able to drop deep and create to balance it.
Of course, that's reliant on getting Haaland. But I'd happily give City Kane and Lukaku to Chelsea if it means we get Haaland, without a second of hesitation.
I really like him as a player and rate him highly, but for 100 mil I don't really feel as if he dramatically improves City. They've already got so much quality in those positions with De Bruyne, Gundogan, even Bernardo Silva...
As for those who say we should have gone for him, to be honest I disagree. The moment we went for Bruno, it stopped making sense to add another flair player who would play best at either 10 or on the left where we're already stacked
As for those who say we should have gone for him, to be honest I disagree. The moment we went for Bruno, it stopped making sense to add another flair player who would play best at either 10 or on the left where we're already stacked
I agree with this. Cities biggest current flaw is needlessly over complicating things.
They buy good players but it’s pretty hard to upgrade anywhere apart from CF and maybe LB if an outstanding candidate becomes available
hell of a player but he'll be just another player at city given the sheer volume of talent they have in that squad....i mean fuking hell they were already well stocked in the midfield and winger department which is why this really is an odd signing
Think this signing is more about building Man City’s ‘brand’ or whatever you want to call it than a signing they desperately need.
Hes one of them players whose name is easily misspelled
Glaziers
McGuire
Linderlof
Lindgard
Bugba
Graylish
Do not want.
Glaziers
McGuire
Linderlof
Lindgard
Bugba
Graylish
Do not want.
We could have, but we went Bruno, Maguire, Varane and Sancho... Who have improved us and will make us better... Nothing to do with Mata or Grant as you keep mentioning.
I know this get's mentioned on every other page in this thread but, yes, he's a good to very good player, but how could anyone justify us spending 100 million, on TOP of what we have already paid this summer?! He plays in two of our most productive positions already, there is absolutely no justification at all for bringing him in when we have a few more things to do.
Goal scorers I get. Van Persie wasn't needed but a genuine goal scorer is worth their weight in gold. A play maker when you already have one of the most prductive in the league, maybe not so much...
As for City and Grealish. I expect them to win the league and one of Dias, De Bruyne, Grealish or Sterling to win POTY because of it.
I can't believe Villa are accepting a lowball price of just 100M. For all the hype that Grealish has, they could have squeezed a lot more.
Unless of course there are couple of shell companies in Panama the Sheikhs are offering, off the books.
Unless of course there are couple of shell companies in Panama the Sheikhs are offering, off the books.
How? Grealish isn't a household or a recognizable name outside of people who follow the PL.
Oh the amount of donuts who spell it Graelish is infuriating.
You could almost understand it if someone didn't know a spelling and went for the easier to spell one, but making it more awkward a spelling is baffling.
What?
How many signings in world history have been higher than 100m?
And how many of them have been after a major financial disaster of a pandemic?
Who does Grealish take out of the regular starting XI? Gundogan? Sterling?
Meh, big fish in a small pond and will be just another face at city.
Doesn't really matter, he's just another option city have who can change the game! A long fecking list might I add.
Let’s put a bid in for Bernardo Silva 
Grealish is a fine player - but 100m? No chance. Anything over 80m is a rip off, but it's city's money so it doesn't really matter.
I am not saying he is worth it. I am just surprised Villa think this is all they can squeeze. It is City and they have a media hyped player with years left on contract.
Personally I think he's the perfect signing for them, Grealish's dribbling in tight spaces, weight of pass and decision making is top notch, and he can finish too. Essentially the perfect player in the Pep system.
Swapping Villa Park for Emptihad. It’s a real step down if nothing else. The stadium and the fans.
- Status