Berbasbullet
Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 20,290
My god 160 mil for Kane is actual insanity.
Especially with his dodgy ankles.My god 160 mil for Kane is actual insanity.
He says he’s a United fan, yeah. Don’t think I’ve ever actually see him tweet positively about us, mindAm I remembering right that Sam Lee is actually a United fan but found a niche as a journalist reporting on City or have I made that up?
He's a terrible source for City, no idea how he can work for the The Athletic. I've heard he had most of his stories from Jose Alvarez, who is a good friend of Aguero. Anyway, Jack Gaughan is the best source for City and has been for few years now but he never really posts exclusives in advance so with him it's only about whether a story is correct or made up.Am I remembering right that Sam Lee is actually a United fan but found a niche as a journalist reporting on City or have I made that up?
If reports if such a bid are legit, then yeah Levy is going to snatch their hands off. The question, kind of like the Haaland deal, is whether a bid like that is actually forthcoming. I genuinely can't see City being OK with paying that amount for Kane.I think he'll be great for them. City being an oil club means they don't have to worry about long term value of £100m.
Sentiment aside, it doesn't make economic sense for Levy to reject such a bid.
Money's no object for them£160m ?!?
I can't as well. Many of the reports have stated players are included in that figure and it won't be straight cash.If reports if such a bid are legit, then yeah Levy is going to snatch their hands off. The question, kind of like the Haaland deal, is whether a bid like that is actually forthcoming. I genuinely can't see City being OK with paying that amount for Kane.
I don't think that's the case. For all the spending they've made over the years it's hard to say they went big for individual targets. Their record signing is Dias at £64m which is less than we paid for Maguire anyway.There is nothing like 150 mn 200 mn for city. If kane goes there they will have minimum 20 goal per season striker for minimum three years.
Last season their highest goal scorer was gundogan I think. That's some elevation for the city team in that goal scoring department.
I don't think they will stop there though possibly grealish and one defensive midfielder. If there is FFP that too relaxed for these covid years.So no problem for city to use this window in my opinion.
Exactly. The RvP transfer was a success, even though we only got one top class season followed by one pretty good season out of him. Sometimes you just need that instant impact, and I predict that Kane still has a bit more left in the tank now than Van Persie did at 29.Looks a lot of people just trying to make themselves feel better. If they win the ucl within the next 3 years and his body gives the year after they will deem the transfer a success.
He still has some years left but he looks older than he is...his legs are on the way out. He'll still score a bucket load though at city.I can't believe people saying Kane is done as a player. He is 90 goals assured in next 3 years for city.
Even for City it would be an egregious breach of FFPI wouldn’t want us to spend £160m on him. Though if we had a bottomless pit of money like City, why not? Even if he flops (he won’t), they can just spend another £160m on Haaland or whoever next summer.
I think there is some exceptions considering its a Covid season.Even for City it would be an egregious breach of FFP
Agreed.I'm convinced Kane, Grealish and Zaha are not changing clubs this summer.
Add Haaland to the above list as well actually.I bet Chelsea ups their game and get haaland now
If you were inclined to only judge Kane off the Euros, which coming off his one of his best premier league campaings of his career would be a little strange for me, but if you were, I don't know how anyone could watch the final against Italy and think Kane was done. I genuinely thought he was absolutely brilliant.It’s absolutely made up trash of course but I’d love him to go there for £160m. Personally I think he’s done - looked an absolute shadow of his former self at the euros and barely did any running. Even if he’s as good as he ever was (he’s not), he’s still likely to pick up multiple injuries a season so it’s likely he’s not going to be in great shape as he heads towards his 30’s. it would also put City out of the race for Haaland when it seems that next year only us, them, PSG and Chelsea could afford him.
Recency effect in play.If you were inclined to only judge Kane off the Euros, which coming off his one of his best premier league campaings of his career would be a little strange for me, but if you were, I don't know how anyone could watch the final against Italy and think Kane was done. I genuinely thought he was absolutely brilliant.
City would continue to hoover up domestically for the foreseeable if they go and get Kane imo.
FFP is a joke, it’s just lip service. The sheik has got to be in £10bn deep with City by now, all things considered. When you have so much money the rules don’t apply, so I doubt they’d have any pause over spending whatever they want.Even for City it would be an egregious breach of FFP