Kevin De Bruyne

Status
Not open for further replies.
Attila said:
Epic fail by Chelsea

Almost as bad as Pogba
Click to expand...
Not nearly as bad as Pogba. You lost him for nothing and he played in a position that you were in dire need of quality in.

We didn't exactly miss De Bruyne as we've won the league since he was sold.
 
sincher said:
They can. But I am not sure any would pay out nearly 150m for three players who are not proven top level players. I am not saying you have spent badly atm and you have certainly strengthened where you needed to, but the prices are escalating due to money being no object at all which is not great for the game. FFP was misguided but the intention was to stop it.

I'm under no illusions about this though. United are playing the same game and if we could we would spend more on Bale tomorrow.
Click to expand...
You don't need to reference Bale, you already did it on Di Maria last summer. Although he's proof that big money doesn't guarantee success, the hard work starts here for De Bruyne.
 
Polite Poster said:
We'll we will see who is right or wrong about paying nearly £150m for unproven players.

Trophies are the only measure !
Click to expand...

No, because this is not just about who wins, it is partly about price distortion brought about by money from oil. City are just doing what they will do, the question is whether it ia good for the game. On one side, it is money in, on the other it makes the playing field not level (not that it ever was completely but nothing like this).
 
Orc said:
Not nearly as bad as Pogba. You lost him for nothing and he played in a position that you were in dire need of quality in.

We didn't exactly miss De Bruyne as we've won the league since he was sold.
Click to expand...
True, but now you will watch De Bruyne win your direct rivals City titles while you have Willian and Oscar in number 10

Why did Chelsea sell him anyway? Was he bad when he played or something
 
I still think their MF can be dominated and their defence exposed. KDB also won't do the leg work that Navas does and that's more cause for concern.

Their attack is frightening, but they have to worry about going the other way to.
 
Attila said:
True, but now you will watch De Bruyne win your direct rivals City titles while you have Willian and Oscar in number 10

Why did Chelsea sell him anyway? Was he bad when he played or something
Click to expand...
He didn't want to fight for a place and earn his first XI spot. Like Lukaku, he figured he should just be entitled to return from loan and go directly into the team.

In hindsight it looks like a dumb move from us but at the time it was a valid reason to sell him.
 
I think he'll buckle under the immense pressure. Will be interesting how he'll be used by City.

Agüero
Sterling - de Bruyne - Silva
​
Neat.
 
sincher said:
No, because this is not just about who wins, it is partly about price distortion brought about by money from oil. City are just doing what they will do, the question is whether it ia good for the game. On one side, it is money in, on the other it makes the playing field not level (not that it ever was completely but nothing like this).
Click to expand...

Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
 
Polite Poster said:
Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
Click to expand...

Not this old chestnut.

There's a very big difference.

United did the hard yards for their cash. What they spend they've earned. If they make a poor decision in the transfer market they take the hit and it hurts the club's finances.

City are lottery winners, nothing more. If the Sheik suddenly pulled the plug or did a Monaco owner, you'd be screwed. Not that that's likely in the short-term I might add

I'm still happy to compete with it though. We can and we have. Otherwise we'd have won nothing over the last ten years. It's all the sweeter to have actually done it off your own back too.
 
Orc said:
Not nearly as bad as Pogba. You lost him for nothing and he played in a position that you were in dire need of quality in.

We didn't exactly miss De Bruyne as we've won the league since he was sold.
Click to expand...
We won the league the following season we lost Pogba.
 
Polite Poster said:
Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
Click to expand...

Difference is United spend their own money.
 
Polite Poster said:
Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
Click to expand...
Boom fecking hoom! It is as simple as that.

Life isn't fair, and some clubs get richy cause they go public before others at the same time football gets its hand in money, some other win the lottaries, in the end it isn't exactly a big difference.

Clubs that could completely and consistently outspend other clubs isn't exactly a new phenomenon, just that the money is far bigger now.
 
City's attack is looking frightening. Along with a focused Toure, the league could be a cakewalk for them.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Not this old chestnut.

There's a very big difference.

United did the hard yards for their cash. What they spend they've earned. If they make a poor decision in the transfer market they take the hit and it hurts the club's finances.

City are lottery winners, nothing more. If the Sheik suddenly pulled the plug or did a Monaco owner, you'd be screwed. Not that that's likely in the short-term I might add

I'm still happy to compete with it though. We can and we have. Otherwise we'd have won nothing over the last ten years. It's all the sweeter to have actually done it off your own back too.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. We just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Yes success led to reward, but we were lucky that the reward on offer was the largest it had ever been.
 
Don't think De Bruyne will be all that in City. Wolfsburg is built around him and they play a counter attacking style with loads of space. He'll play on the right, and he'll do pretty well as he's a very good player of course, but the fee is ridiculous and Silva is the main creator there with Sterling giving them the pace. Can see him just being a pretty solid signing but unspectacular really.
 
Shark said:
They won't maintain the form they're in. They never do.
Click to expand...
They'll trickle to the finish line. The rest of the competition will drop more points over the way.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well not exactly. We just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Yes success led to reward, but we were lucky that the reward on offer was the largest it had ever been.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than that.

And saying right place right time is really underplaying the whole winning the league thing. Especially with the young players Fergie brought through.

The success was hard earned. It didn't just fall into our lap. You do United and Fergie a great disservice to frame it that way.
 
Polite Poster said:
Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You miss my point entirely. This is not about rivalry or who spends what, it is just about the game changing.

I personally have no problem or issue with City spending big money as a fan and it will spice it up. But as a fan of the game as a whole I have never been thrilled by big transfer fees and you can check my post history if you want. For example I said 'we should not pay that' for Di Maria.

This summer our business looks great in value terms but I am not sure we have enough to win the league. City and Chelsea have both addressed squad weaknesses well IMO.

The point still remains that the money spent is by normal clubs' standards an outrageous gamble and would be irresponsible were it not for the limitless bankroll. TV and commercial money is really high now but you still wouldn't see what City have just done for those 3 players from anyone else.
 
Kraftwerker said:
There's a lot more to it than that.

And saying right place right time is really underplaying the whole winning the league thing. Especially with the young players Fergie brought through.

The success was hard earned. It didn't just fall into our lap. You do United and Fergie a great disservice to frame it that way.
Click to expand...

Of course it was earned.

It does't change the fact that the financial rewards to be earned were, entirely by coincidence, stratospheric in comparison to what we previously could have achieved.
 
Orc said:
He didn't want to fight for a place and earn his first XI spot. Like Lukaku, he figured he should just be entitled to return from loan and go directly into the team.

In hindsight it looks like a dumb move from us but at the time it was a valid reason to sell him.
Click to expand...

You didn't need hindsight to realise it was a dumb move - exactly like Pogba.

Brwned said:
It'd be ludicrous if they got rid of de Bruyne.
Click to expand...

The money is neither here nor there. Mourinho didn't even give him a chance. Instead of putting a bit of faith in him he went out and spent another £30m on Willian when it was incredibly obvious that De Bruyne could offer everything the team needed. He lost motivation because Mourinho's attitude to youth is embarrassing and disheartening.
 
Kraftwerker said:
There's a lot more to it than that.

And saying right place right time is really underplaying the whole winning the league thing. Especially with the young players Fergie brought through.

The success was hard earned. It didn't just fall into our lap. You do United and Fergie a great disservice to frame it that way.
Click to expand...

It didn't fall in our lap but we were fortunate to have the success when we did.
 
sincher said:
Oh dear. You miss my point entirely. This is not about rivalry or who spends what, it is just about the game changing.

I personally have no problem or issue with City spending big money as a fan and it will spice it up. But as a fan of the game as a whole I have never been thrilled by big transfer fees and you can check my post history if you want. For example I said 'we should not pay that' for Di Maria.

This summer our business looks great in value terms but I am not sure we have enough to win the league. City and Chelsea have both addressed squad weaknesses well IMO.

The point still remains that the money spent is by normal clubs' standards an outrageous gamble and would be irresponsible were it not for the limitless bankroll. TV and commercial money is really high now but you still wouldn't see what City have just done for those 3 players from anyone else.
Click to expand...

I wish many things weren't so but they are and we have to deal with them.

I can remember talking to an Everton fan pre Sheikh Mansour and we agreed that it would be best for all if United, Liverpool and Arsenal fecked off to a European Super League and leave the rest of us to fight it out for the English title as there was no way we could compete. Of course, it was never going to happen but the point is I am completely aware of the unequal divide.

The clubs that pushed for the formation of the Prem. League have a lot to answer for but the genie will not go back into the bottle. Thankfully we now have 3/4 clubs capable of competing both on and off the pitch and so we are better off than most leagues.

And yes it is much better being one of the haves rather than a have not.
 
Polite Poster said:
Oh please !

When United were paying £30m for Rio and there was no-one else who could compete, I'll bet you were more than happy !

United would pay £150m for Bale or Neymar if they would come but that's okay of course. That would be a level playing field ?

City didn't set this game in motion. Funnily enough it was United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton. Hasn't worked out quite as anticipated ? Tough !
Click to expand...

Oh please!

they were/are not spending some Arab money who bought them by chance. Plastic clubs and their fans
 
zlatan_ish said:
Oh please!

they were/are not spending some Arab money who bought them by chance. Plastic clubs and their fans
Click to expand...

Try reading up on the history of the top clubs in England. Littered with rich benefactors. The only difference ? The numbers are bigger.
 
zlatan_ish said:
Oh please!

they were/are not spending some Arab money who bought them by chance. Plastic clubs and their fans
Click to expand...
City would never be able to compete with other clubs if it wasn't for outside influence. I can't blame them for going after it. If United were stuck as some shitty midtable club I would also cry for some foreign benefactor.

How sad is it that we got the fecking American Glazers. Stingy scum who bleed us dry while City get the Arabs who throw money at it -_-
 
I've not kept up with this guy and now I'm confused. Did he not leave Chelsea like 2 years ago for a minor fee? What's he done to warrant this 55M sale??
 
Polite Poster said:
Try reading up on the history of the top clubs in England. Littered with rich benefactors. The only difference ? The numbers are bigger.
Click to expand...

I'm sure City would not be in that list. weren't they had like 2 first division titles before the Arab takeover.

Attila said:
City would never be able to compete with other clubs if it wasn't for outside influence. I can't blame them for going after it. If United were stuck as some shitty midtable club I would also cry for some foreign benefactor.

How sad is it that we got the fecking American Glazers. Stingy scum who bleed us dry while City get the Arabs who throw money at it -_-
Click to expand...


That's the point, and they act as if it's not the big deal
 
Blue always red said:
I've not kept up with this guy and now I'm confused. Did he not leave Chelsea like 2 years ago for a minor fee? What's he done to warrant this 55M sale??
Click to expand...

He had a fantastic world cup, completely outperformed Hazard as Belgium's best player, and is the sitting Bundesliga player of the year. All that and his relatively young age make for a massive potential transfer fee, especially if multiple big clubs are competing for him.
 
Orc said:
Not nearly as bad as Pogba. You lost him for nothing and he played in a position that you were in dire need of quality in.

We didn't exactly miss De Bruyne as we've won the league since he was sold.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

We lost a midfielder that's being touted around europe for 80m+ for nothing, as you said in the position we were in dire need of, because we insisted on playing everyone but him in Midfield when we were crying out for some youth, energy and creativity.
 
Think partly its our own fault why they picked City to take over(just a theory,can be 100% wrong).When it comes to spending,dont have anything against City spending their money(does not matter,how they get it).What i wouldnt like is them or clubs in general to cross lines just so they could get a player.

What i mean is,City spending good money on average players just to start them rolling,if you pay 17 mil pounds in that time for Santa Cruz,there is no way back after(for all clubs),or if United for example wants some X player so much,that they ready to break a record and cross the line to pay agent,so he can make it happened.
 
Attila said:
City would never be able to compete with other clubs if it wasn't for outside influence. I can't blame them for going after it. If United were stuck as some shitty midtable club I would also cry for some foreign benefactor.

How sad is it that we got the fecking American Glazers. Stingy scum who bleed us dry while City get the Arabs who throw money at it -_-
Click to expand...

It's not 2009 anymore dude. We can pay ridiculous fees too if we can.
 
septic said:
It's not 2009 anymore dude. We can pay ridiculous fees too if we can.
Click to expand...
And yet...we haven't signed any decent attackers. While City are reinforcing with one of the best players in europe last year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.