AltiUn
likes playing with swords after fantasies
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
- Messages
- 24,483
He's in his prime, coming from a wealthy PL club on a long contract which is why he's costing so much.Should Grealish be costing more than Sancho?
He's in his prime, coming from a wealthy PL club on a long contract which is why he's costing so much.Should Grealish be costing more than Sancho?
It'll likely never be competitive again if City are allowed to spend as they please. They're testing the water with 2 x £100m transfers. In a few seasons they'll likely push the boat out again with 3 or 4 x £100m players.
Redcafe also thought thisIm still convinced we bought vdb because our club thought he was a cheaper alternative to Grealish
Considering he's a better player, yes. This signing for City trumps our potential Sancho deal.Should Grealish be costing more than Sancho?
He's also 5 years older, and has 10 less international caps than Sancho. I'm not that worried.He is better than Sancho and PL proven. Cracking signing for City
But can they spend 200m with FFP?City ain’t messing about. Kane to follow most likely.
This place is full of negative nancies.Considering he's a better player, yes. This signing for City trumps our potential Sancho deal.
Who has 50m to spend on those players? Which clubs have the money and can pay the wages in this financial market - and that the players want to join?They can if they sell some of their good players, such as Sterling or Mehrez, or even Jesus, each could fetch at least £50M, I think they also have some players on loan who they can sell for decent fees, i remember Yangel Herrera who plays at Granada, he might fetch them 15-20M.
Its the Caf way it seems...This place is full of negative nancies.
The difference is United does huge numbers. There is literally a saying in the British sports media, you will never go poor writing about United There's been rumours about city being in for Grealish for as long as we have but I guarantee there's more news stories about us being in for him. It pays way more to write speculation and gossip on United constantly. Why do you think we get mentioned constantly as being in for a player or how X club beat United to a signing even when no interest whatsoever has been expressed by the club.The most frustrating thing about this is the speed at which City get it done.
Not much media talk, nobody's favourite journalists all running the same story at the same time, no toe in, toe out shake it all about.
You wake up one day and its City have offered 100 mil and the deal's basically done.
Contrast that with how we've been chasing Sancho for 2-3 years unsuccessfully.
No he isn’t the better player. Their end product is an absolute landslide in the favour of Sancho.Considering he's a better player, yes. This signing for City trumps our potential Sancho deal.
Is that still a thing? If so, it’s not exactly working.But can they spend 200m with FFP?
He will certainly bring City more free kicks. Never seen an English player fall around as much and win free kicks.Isn't it kind of good if he goes there? Villa will be easier to face next season, and does he really bring much more than B. Silva, Mahrez, Sterling and Foden already provide?
Our net spend over the last couple of years isn’t that of a side who want to overthrow city. The ambition just isn’t there at all.
Why wouldn’t he?
Okay well I know it’s your opinion and all but he’s not the best player in the premier league for goodness sake. He’s a good player and the jury will be out when he moves to a big club where the pressure will be on and then we will see how he progresses.No, I'm not on Twitter.
Who has 50m to spend on those players? Which clubs have the money and can pay the wages in this financial market - and that the players want to join?
Kane isn’t going for 100 million. Probably closer to 150.If they splash 200 sticks on two players that will surely end that funny narrative "we never spend big on single player"
Thats because he is a slightly late bloomer. Sancho is an awesome talent but there is a step up from the Bundesliga he has to take.He's also 5 years older, and has 10 less international caps than Sancho. I'm not that worried.
Okay well I know it’s your opinion and all but he’s not the best player in the premier league for goodness sake. He’s a good player and the jury will be out when he moves to a big club where the pressure will be on and then we will see how he progresses.
But can they spend 200m with FFP?
By the end of euro it might be 90Kane isn’t going for 100 million. Probably closer to 150.
Eric Dier and James Milner have more England caps than Michael Carrick, your metric is skewed massively.He's also 5 years older, and has 10 less international caps than Sancho. I'm not that worried.
It died, so PSG & City are going big this summer.But can they spend 200m with FFP?
No he isn’t the better player. Their end product is an absolute landslide in the favour of Sancho.
They've slayed FFP a while back. It doesn't effect them one bit.But can they spend 200m with FFP?