FerociousCorgis
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2017
- Messages
- 4,802
if it is a 6 month ban over the summer mainly then could be a good younger/cheaper signing than kane. Would be interested.
I don't want him treated differently. I think all bans should be on a match basis otherwise you can circumvent using the summer.
Wycombe had a player done for a lesser version of the same crime. Didn't seem to take them this long.
Must be big club bias
hopefully we get a friendly at Adams park this summer haven't been for a couple of years now
if it is a 6 month ban over the summer mainly then could be a good younger/cheaper signing than kane. Would be interested.
could go with rashford up top, garnacho left, antony right, bruno behind them feeding them. Not ideal but if this is a scenario where we get a CF that will bang in goals for us for years and still have money to add multiple options to the midfield and can add a modern gk/true attacking rb or something because we havent splurged the whole budget on a guy like kane/osimhen could be worth it.What we doing for first few months of season
Eight month ban from all football related activity up to and including 16th January 2024. Can return to training for the final four months of the ban, so September.
Had to be punished. Hopefully he can get back to his best pretty quickly.
Now for the FA to regulate/ban betting ads/sponsorships in football.
Kane plays for a significantly better team
Surely you jest
Gambling is worse than racism jokingPisstake.
Suarez got less for racism
Insane for a bloke who clearly has a problem and needs help.Holy shit! That’s massive.
I'm confused, the biggest hole in the squad is a striker, so why look to sign someone who won't even be available to play for half a season?
could go with rashford up top, garnacho left, antony right, bruno behind them feeding them. Not ideal but if this is a scenario where we get a CF that will bang in goals for us for years and still have money to add multiple options to the midfield and can add a modern gk/true attacking rb or something because we havent splurged the whole budget on a guy like kane/osimhen could be worth it.
think it is more of a long term vs short term view. Common sense might also dictate that signing a player like Kane who will be out of his prime by the time we are competing for titles might not be the right choice either. Also there could be other reasons but doesnt make sense going into here.This forum doesn't run on common sense.
Because our fans are now accustomed to finding “value in the market” after being conditioned by the Glazers model.I'm confused, the biggest hole in the squad is a striker, so why look to sign someone who won't even be available to play for half a season?
I reckon he put a tenner on it.Bet he wasn’t expecting that!
I'm confused, the biggest hole in the squad is a striker, so why look to sign someone who won't even be available to play for half a season?
agree to disagree, since we have no idea what brentford would want to sell him for. If toney still gonna be 80 plus or something then yeah i wouldnt do it. Until i hear what number he hypothetically would go for i couldnt say either way.Even with the ban Brentford wouldn't sell him cheap, so you're basically blowing a big chunk of that budget on someone to be a training cone for the first half of the season.
That's terrible squad planning.
think it is more of a long term vs short term view. Common sense might also dictate that signing a player like Kane who will be out of his prime by the time we are competing for titles might not be the right choice either. Also there could be other reasons but doesnt make sense going into here.
What if united can get a cheap deal done for Toney now, and have their top CF for 5 plus years by just having a bit of patience?
id be fine taking Kane for 60, just highly doubt levy remotely plays ball. Hate that man and part of the reason id be fine letting kane rot in spurs for another year winning nothing. Im in agreement with you, which is why im laughing at the people acting like signing someone who cant play until january is somehow the worst idea in the world if it means we have solved our CF issue for a long time.For what it's worth, I'm against signing Kane unless it's for 50m, 60m at most, maybe.
We're not winning the league next year, so we should be aiming to make a genuine challenge the year after that. Even then, it's likely we won't have a genuine chance of winning it until the season after that, depending on who we sign. This means we're already going to need to replace players like Varane, Casemiro, DDG and maybe even Shaw and Bruno before we next win the league.
We need to build a team that's going to be young enough to win it and then defend it for a few seasons after, at the very least. Signing Kane will just add to the players we'll need to replace in the next few years.
think it is more of a long term vs short term view. Common sense might also dictate that signing a player like Kane who will be out of his prime by the time we are competing for titles might not be the right choice either. Also there could be other reasons but doesnt make sense going into here.
What if united can get a cheap deal done for Toney now, and have their top CF for 5 plus years by just having a bit of patience?