Erling Haaland
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
What? He is in the top 10% amongst CB’s worldwide in interceptions, recoveries and aerial duels for example.Far shout from beeing «mostly awful».
And Cavani didnt even play much as a starter until the latter stages, after his delayed fitness, ban and injuries
Exactly. If they're the only ones willing to pay 170m for him they will get him. If Madrid, Barcelona or even us come knocking with the same 170m, hes not going to London.
If he really wants to go to another club he could just wait until next year, and also probably get a sign on bonus or higher wages.
Its not like Dortmund can just push him out against his will now is it?
Even if others matched Chelsea’s offer, why would he not want to go to London?
Nonsense. If United want him then they have a good chance because in my opinion its one of the two biggest footballing institutions in the world and likely will be for a long time. Having said that, United have not won anything in 4 years, while Chelsea have an elite manager, a great young promising team that has already demonstrated an ability to win major trophies and has won more in the past decade. The notion that Haaland unequivocally signs for United over Chelsea assuming wages and fee were the same is arrogant and plain wrong, and I'm sure most here would agree.
I was thinking of how to put that without making it look like Man United are not a desirable destination because it is. Haaland puts a premium on CL. In his lifetime Chelsea has done more, currently have a more accomplished manager, and have the funds to keep adding players around him. United have the funds for sure, but the Glazers are not willing to spend to pursue trophies the way Roman is.
Absolutely agree
Try think of a reason Haaland chooses Utd over Chelsea for definite if everything is the same? And making sure that reason is totally watertight leaving no doubt.... There isnt one.... That's why the statement is untrue
Barcelona and Real Madrid I can understand but why United? It's a huge club but the last big trophy they won was in 2013. I really don't think Untied has a better chance at Haaland than Chelsea. Only four clubs have a better chance: Barcelona , Real Madrid , Bayern and City.
Last edited:
Go back a year ago and you have the same set of arrogant fans, living in their own bubble, still not accepting the likes of Chelsea, City, Paris are now massive brands and on par with the so called historical clubs (that have built their brand on being the richest at that moment of time, too) asking why would Havertz, a generational talent, choose a club like Chelsea because he has his heart set on bigger clubs and Chelsea cannot compete with others in terms of history, marketing etc.
I believe it was July last year when Matt Law briefed through his article that Havertz was becoming more and more interested in joining Chelsea because of the project and had asked Leverkusen to accept Chelsea's offer.
Now Matt Law with a similar article on Haaland and the usual suspects again wonder why would he choose Chelsea when apparently there are better options for him. Well let me remind you that Chelsea recently beat two of the clubs that apparently are better options for him - Madrid and City.
Will Haaland join Chelsea? Will he join other club? Will it be this summer? Only time will tell. But stop fecking disrespecting Chelsea that much just because you cannot accept they have turned into one of Europe's elite, too. Put the footballing part aside, Chelsea have probably one of most ruthless boards in world football in terms of everything, from management to transfers and they are all lead by a passionate owner that has always provided for his club. Time has proven again and again that if they want a player, they will get him and if they want to keep a player, they will keep him no matter what.
Just remember the endless topics on Hazard and why Chelsea won't stand a chance when Madrid come asking for him. Every summer was the same up until it was Chelsea that decided when to let him go and. And on their terms. Basically sold a crooked Hazard for prime Hazard money.
I believe it was July last year when Matt Law briefed through his article that Havertz was becoming more and more interested in joining Chelsea because of the project and had asked Leverkusen to accept Chelsea's offer.
Now Matt Law with a similar article on Haaland and the usual suspects again wonder why would he choose Chelsea when apparently there are better options for him. Well let me remind you that Chelsea recently beat two of the clubs that apparently are better options for him - Madrid and City.
Will Haaland join Chelsea? Will he join other club? Will it be this summer? Only time will tell. But stop fecking disrespecting Chelsea that much just because you cannot accept they have turned into one of Europe's elite, too. Put the footballing part aside, Chelsea have probably one of most ruthless boards in world football in terms of everything, from management to transfers and they are all lead by a passionate owner that has always provided for his club. Time has proven again and again that if they want a player, they will get him and if they want to keep a player, they will keep him no matter what.
Just remember the endless topics on Hazard and why Chelsea won't stand a chance when Madrid come asking for him. Every summer was the same up until it was Chelsea that decided when to let him go and. And on their terms. Basically sold a crooked Hazard for prime Hazard money.
If Haaland sells for 170m, that's it the sport is done, but more importantly Manchester United is done.
The Glazer's can't afford to dole out that kind of money, neither can Real Madrid or Barcelona for that matter.
Success in football is now solely down to how much money your owner is worth, which means Man City, Chelsea, PSG and Juventus are the clubs players will want to flock to.
UEFA salary cap now! Otherwise there will be little Mina Raiola's running around everywhere within a decade.
The Glazer's can't afford to dole out that kind of money, neither can Real Madrid or Barcelona for that matter.
Success in football is now solely down to how much money your owner is worth, which means Man City, Chelsea, PSG and Juventus are the clubs players will want to flock to.
UEFA salary cap now! Otherwise there will be little Mina Raiola's running around everywhere within a decade.
Couldnt scroll past without commenting on this... Havertz is a generational talent? Absolute madness.
At least they're doubling down on it, I was worried after a year of actually watching him they'd hope we'd forget all the claims of him being a generational talent
I was questioning whether i could put United in that group anymore. When SAF was here yes, now maybe not.
Remove us though, Barcelona and Madrid have a pull that other clubs can't meet. Players want to play there more than anywhere else. No amount of Roman's money will change that.
So what is the latest update? Is Chelsea really spending 150m for him this summer?
FFP, salary cap, where were you during the Galacticos era and the times United spent huge money??? If you do it, it's ok, if others do it, it's not. Let me remind you that before the Neymar, Mbappe transfers and the big money transfers soon to follow, it was United who broke the world record on Pogba and it's just five years ago it has happened, not late 90s. Maguire 80M world record transfer fee for a defender, Lukaku 75M, Fred absurd money for a bang average midfielder etc.
And then you have the audacity to ask for a salary cap when you can't compete anymore. You can't even beat the 7th in Spanish league, managed by Emery, on a neutral venue, a club from a small 60k people village playing their first European final. They did not have any marquee signings, maybe they need a salary cap, too.
I'm sure Chelsea will be at fault for buying Haaland next season when Atalanta or Leipzig dump you again from CL group stages. Yeah right.
No. But latest rumour is chelsea buy him now for 100mn and loan him out to Dortmund like,did with pulisic for the upcoming season. Tammy Abraham also going other way.
Dortmund have the extra money and one more year of his service and chelsea get the player without any problem. That's the little talk.
Interesting. I believe this is actually a good solution for BVB. There is no reason to say no to such an offer.
I don't know if it will happen but there are so many ways it could get done to keep all parties happy.
Paying slightly more now (£80-90m vs £67m release clause or £67m + Abraham v £67m release clause) but letting him stay for another season seems like a good deal for all parties.
We get the player next year without a bun fight, Raoila gets his big slice from Roman, Dortmund get a £20-30m premium whilst getting to keep the player
We also have history of this with Pulisic and a decent relationship with Dortmund. If the fee is structured to be paid half now and half when the transfer happens we'd also have funds to spend this year
EDIT: The only thing i would say is watch us get drawn against Dortmund in the CL like we did with Courtois
Last edited:
That would be a very reasonable approach, I could see Dortmund agreeing to that. Would be a clever way to find a way around the lower release clause next summer while still having him in the squad until then. And it would give them the funds required to take care of there problem areas in the squad they have right now (especially at the back), so far it was expected that transfers here would only happen when Sancho is sold and they have that money in their pocket. If they should sell Sancho and Haaland this summer (while keeping Haaland on loan) I could see them spend 150-200 mn € this summer, that would allow them to massively increase their squad for next season despite Sancho leaving.
EDIT: The only one I am not sure will profit from this deal is Abraham. For the next season he will be a backup to Haaland, and then there is Moukoko who is just the greatest striker talent and would be expected to quickly surpass Abraham's status, so he will most likely stay a backup at Dortmund as he is now at Chelsea, maybe with a little bit more playing time, but not guaranteed.
You must be new to the rodeo.
United have consistently broken the British transfer records over the past decades. Let's not whitewash our past of being the richest club around and when other clubs then felt the same way as we do now.
Its just the case of the shoe on the other foot.
Rumour is haalland is happy to join chelsea and hence talk of raiola and chelsea into multiple scenarios but chelsea never want to spend 150 mn or above for one player. Dortmund also having chelsea in good book after that pulisic transfer. And hence the loan solution.
But only obstacle is chelsea need one more striker now and patson daka who wanted by Liverpool also monitored by chelsea.His head turned on once chelsea in for him too. Of course it's all just rumours but that's going around for two days.
I am quite like the patson daka rumour more than anything. He is more suited to the way tuchel is trying to play. Has pace and heading ability. Not needed to break the bank to sign him.Hard worker and run the channel type striker.
But only obstacle is chelsea need one more striker now and patson daka who wanted by Liverpool also monitored by chelsea.His head turned on once chelsea in for him too. Of course it's all just rumours but that's going around for two days.
I am quite like the patson daka rumour more than anything. He is more suited to the way tuchel is trying to play. Has pace and heading ability. Not needed to break the bank to sign him.Hard worker and run the channel type striker.
Last edited:
he's only 16? Built like a tank already!
QFT
What does this mean? As soon as the heavyweights of Chelsea expressed interest he said “feck you” to Liverpool?
The very slight difference being United paid these fees and salaries from money generated by the business model. However, I do understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't personally complain if a rich benefactor took over United and spent his own money to improve the club.
Last edited:
Youngest Bundesliga player ever
Youngest Champions League player ever
Youngest Bundesliga scorer ever
If he wasn't injured he would have been part of the U21 Euro winning team. I just don't see Abraham keeping him out of the team, at least when everyone is fit, having just Haaland and Moukoko is a thin squad as Dortmund have experienced last season. So Abraham would most likely be the upgrade for Steffen Tigges, but not much more.
No. Not in that way. Apparently he is a Liverpool fan too. Problem is Liverpool may not move into advance to talk further.
But chelsea more like they want a player at least they show their interest to his representatives.
That's what marina does. No cat on the wall moment with her. Either this or that.
Were any of those records, fees that the other top teams in England couldn't afford?
Yeah let's not whitewash the past, but let's also not feed the myth that United bought success or that United's apending was on the same level as financially doped clubs. United were only the beggest spenders in 2-3 transfer windows during Fergusons time as manager.
Huh? They are records because other clubs either couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for whatever reason.
This goes back as far as the Busby era -- from the Tommy Taylors to the Denis Law to Fergie's purchases of Gordon McQueen to Bryan Robson, Roy Keane to Andy Cole to, Ruud, Rio, Veron, Di Maria and Pogba.
Nobody has broken record transfer fees as often as United.
Genuine question...
Club A spends £150m on one player and sells £100m of players
Club B spends £200m on 3 players and sells £50m of players
Who is ruining football? Both? Neither?
Surely net spend is important here? Are we worried about inflating fees? Because i don't see that as an issue when Mbappe went for nearly £200m and same with Neymar, Dembele. In fact Pogba went for £90m 5 years ago.
Huh indeed, but name one of the records that we broke in the PL era that another top english club couldn't have also afforded to pay?
I'm not a purist.
I follow my heart when it comes to United and I would welcome an owner who would spend money where my club would be successful. I fully understand and appreciate there will be others who are more politically correct and would wish for clubs to spend only what they derive financially from running the club independent of the owners.
Apologies i didn't mean to quote your post particularly, it was meant as a general reply to those claiming it's somehow ruining football when PSG spent £200m on Neymar, £170m on Mbappe, Atletico £110m on Felix. Barca spent over £100m 3 times in the last few years on Coutinho, Dembele and Greizmann and Real with Hazard, Bale and Ronaldo all close to it. Even Utd spent £90m on Pogba five whole years ago.
If we do end up spending £100m+ it'll not be an exception and it'll almost certainly come with selling a lot of players to cover it off
Please note I would seriously have concerns if the owners were of dubious character and had stolen or schemed money from their countries or individuals and whitewashing their ill-gained money through football.
I'm not sure why United keeps coming up in the spending charts. Again, the fact is United have only ever spent money the club has produced by its football business or incurring debt with financial institutions.
The debate is not about net spending but money spent or introduced by dubious owners from sources outside of football.
The debate is not about net spending but money spent or introduced by dubious owners from sources outside of football.
So none glad we cleared that up.
To be fair to the English league as a whole, there probably isn't a single transfer record broken at any time by any club that at least one other club could not have funded
Utd have broken the transfer record more than anyone (6 times) but never to the extent you could say nobody else could have competed. Single transfers aren't the issue to me, it's the overall net spend and the trend of it that matters far more
Agreed, I just see a narrative on here recently often regurgitated even by some United fans that United bought success in the 90's because we broke transfer fees. It's a long running myth.
If Chelsea were to spend £175m on one player, I'm sure if we really wanted to United could stretch to that as well. But as you say overall net spend over a sustained period is a better indicator.
And over the last 20 years there are clubs spending above what even United can seemingly afford and certainly levels above even taking inflation into account what any club could afford to spend back in the 90's.
- Status