Costa remember took to the league like a fish to water. As long as they bag a player with similar qualities overall, it won't be a problem
Kyle Walker
- Thread starter antihenry
- Start date
- Status
Any fullback distracted by money and a move would be replaced by a Gary Neville type player like Trippier. Make no mistake about it, Walker is a very good player, a consistent performer for his role of attacking wing back. As is his replacement which is why Spurs are happy to sell. Personally I feel he is rated just right. He is a quality fullback. Not a world beating one.
And any one who thinks any team will 'walk the league' this season, is not paying attention to how teams are actually improving in the top half of the league. Competition is going to be fierce.
I admit I am disappointed he is leaving, but we are getting a world record fee for a defender. Walker is a great player and has phenomenal physical attributes, which is what has enable him to become the best RB in the league. However, as some have alluded and pointed out he is primarily a EPL RB, because he simply doesn't posses the technical abilities to perform in Europe and versus more stubborn EPL teams that require brains over brawn. As it was evident by Poch's selection for the CL were Trippier started in 3 matches including our penultimate match vs Monaco away, which determined our CL progress. It only became more evident when Trippier took over in April and started vs. Chelsea in the FA Cup semis and vs. Arsenal in the EPL, it was probably at that point that he become disillusioned with his place in the team and started to look for a move and much more money something City was more than willing to offer him.
Also If I had to rank his importance to the team he would probably be around 8th to 10th, which I think many would also agree with and getting £50Mil+ for a player that isn't instrumental to your team is not only a great deal, but also a warning to teams that may actually be interested in one of our actual stars.
Also If I had to rank his importance to the team he would probably be around 8th to 10th, which I think many would also agree with and getting £50Mil+ for a player that isn't instrumental to your team is not only a great deal, but also a warning to teams that may actually be interested in one of our actual stars.
Or @Levy-nomics, a question of system and fit
Absolutely, the PL is only going to get more and more competitive- even Everton are spending 150m plus ffs. I don't think we'll ever see a team dominate for a decade plus as we did in SAF's eta, and the top 4/6 are going to chop and change for the next 5 years at least. In fact the teams who miss Europe one year will be competing for the league the next as they won't be playing midweek games like Chelsea last year.
I naively thought we'd see a massive resurgence from the top English clubs in the European markets, where they flooded it/them with their gotten gains in return for premier talent that cost the highest premiums. Instead, we're seeing a lot of new-monied actions that help maintain the lowly bar and status quo and simply push the premium talents into yet another stratosphere in terms of cost.
All that money could have been used to destablise the top European clubs and have them pay seriously contemptible wages just to keep a hold of their players - the same thing used to unsettle English clubs by them in the past - but instead, the English clubs have turned inward and started throwing money around like it's confetti and now all clubs dealing with English sides want their slice and are getting it.
The precedents are already set now, so it's already too late and a case of 'as you were' with a +£30m on each player. It's absolute madness and things are not going to go back now - they can't - so we will have to get used to it.
Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean.
One team's 10th/11th rated importance for a player might be higher in another squad & tactical set up. Meaning, it's never apples to apples
You wouldn't drop a player during a title run though Carl just because he's being a bit of a bitch. Trippier played very well and looked a genuine threat in the final third.
When Walker did get on the pitch he was terrible. Can't remember which game, maybe Swansea? But he was goddamn awful, like laughably bad.
No it shouldn't but it inevitably does because, like I said, you have more of it. I would argue that the big Spanish clubs are not spending shrewdly, not the other way round. AC Milan and Inter have recently been taken over and are spending the money that their new owners have. It's inevitable. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's inevitable.
Like I said previously, it's not necessarily the amount they're spending, it's who they're prepared to spend it on that has a knock on effect. You take a club like Southampton, for example, and one of their players. Soares for example who is a right-back, like Walker. They may look at it and think, "Well if Spurs can get £50m for Kyle Walker, why can't we get that for Soares, who is younger and may be considered an essential player where Walker apparently isn't?" It's this that has an effect as you get clubs valuing their players miles higher than they're actually worth.
£50m for Kyle Walker 
EPL is becoming absurd with the transfer fees, but what's even more absurd is that EPL fans have accepted it as the new reality and are now astonished by transfer fees on the mainland Europe and are almost angry when they see the fees for which players move between Real and Bayern for example.
All the TV money ain't helping you one bit. As expected, all it did was make the same players cost twice as much. People expecting the rest of the world to follow was just plain stupid.
EPL is becoming absurd with the transfer fees, but what's even more absurd is that EPL fans have accepted it as the new reality and are now astonished by transfer fees on the mainland Europe and are almost angry when they see the fees for which players move between Real and Bayern for example.
All the TV money ain't helping you one bit. As expected, all it did was make the same players cost twice as much. People expecting the rest of the world to follow was just plain stupid.
The improvement is very marginal, Chelsea and Spurs were the only very good teams last season I guess.
The lad clearly wanted out. And City clearly tapped him up. He was dropped not dislodged and Trippier has done well when called on but Walker is better no doubt about that.
Text to a City season ticket holder this morning: "£54m for a right back! Is that serious?"
His reply: "And just a slightly above average right back at that! Madness!
"
His reply: "And just a slightly above average right back at that! Madness!
"Walkers better defensively, Trippier is better offensively. Given how rock solid Spurs defense is i'd rather have the offensive option. My point is that Spurs won't miss him and they got £50m for a player who's already got a ready made replacement at the club. They'll need some competition/cover for Trippier but it's not exactly a bad situation for them and there's still question marks over Walker imo. He's been at Spurs for 6 years so who knows how he'll react moving to City given the price it cost him. It's not a sure fire win as some make out.
The only issue I see is that it could open the floodgates, maybe not this Summer but has the potential to cause issues next Summer for Spurs.
I know transfer prices are inflated and a bit silly this year. But Kyle Walker will go down in history as the most expensive defender of all time. Ever. That's a bit mental!
He will improve City (as they have no RB so literally any RB would improve them right now), he will give them energy. He has his flaws for sure, he's a bit shit at crossing and switches off and will be too far up the pitch when teams counter, but that's his game.
Spurs will be criticised for improving a direct rival, which is true city will improve with Walker, BUT spurs have trippier, who is a good RB so they wont need to rush out and sign someone and they'll get 50 frecking million. As long as they don't waste it like they did with the Bale money, they'll be fine.
City's defence will only work with Kompany being fit all season, so still a risk that they will leak goals.
50mil per player at City, win the league or be fired for Pep
He will improve City (as they have no RB so literally any RB would improve them right now), he will give them energy. He has his flaws for sure, he's a bit shit at crossing and switches off and will be too far up the pitch when teams counter, but that's his game.
Spurs will be criticised for improving a direct rival, which is true city will improve with Walker, BUT spurs have trippier, who is a good RB so they wont need to rush out and sign someone and they'll get 50 frecking million. As long as they don't waste it like they did with the Bale money, they'll be fine.
City's defence will only work with Kompany being fit all season, so still a risk that they will leak goals.
50mil per player at City, win the league or be fired for Pep
Totally agree with that, but I was more speaking from Spurs perspective. They aren't losing one of their main stars yet are getting a very good fee, especially enough to get a capable replacement with more potential and some money left over.
No I understood your point, I was merely extending it to mean that it doesn't necessarily translate to City - he will likely be a very good/important fit for a position they had to upgrade. It's a win-win for both clubs in that sense, just that Spurs were always in the driver's seat in terms of negotiating leverage - even more so with the Alves fallout
£50m for Kyle Walker
EPL is becoming absurd with the transfer fees, but what's even more absurd is that EPL fans have accepted it as the new reality and are now astonished by transfer fees on the mainland Europe and are almost angry when they see the fees for which players move between Real and Bayern for example.
All the TV money ain't helping you one bit. As expected, all it did was make the same players cost twice as much. People expecting the rest of the world to follow was just plain stupid.
Yeah it's not like some team is willing to spend more than 100m on an 18 year old striker. Or buying a player who has barely played professional football for 45m. People sitting in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
£50m for Kyle Walker
EPL is becoming absurd with the transfer fees, but what's even more absurd is that EPL fans have accepted it as the new reality and are now astonished by transfer fees on the mainland Europe and are almost angry when they see the fees for which players move between Real and Bayern for example.
All the TV money ain't helping you one bit. As expected, all it did was make the same players cost twice as much. People expecting the rest of the world to follow was just plain stupid.
Wasn't it you telling everyone in the James Rodriguez thread what an exceptional talent he is and what a great price he'd fetch this summer, worth more than DDG and we were all wrong and knew nothing about transfer fees, you'd be proven right.
2 year loan deal, what happened with that one then bruv.
Vinicius is a weird one I admit, but at least you can call it gambling with purpose.
As for comparing fees for 27 year old average fullback to most exciting young striker to appear in world football in the last decade, you just go ahead and I'll just keep on laughing.
Majority of comments on this forum labeled him not good enough to play for United. Now he's at Bayern which only confirms what I've been saying about the extreme level of delusional that is present around here.
And of course he's worth more then De Gea.
He's worth more for his marketing potential alone (already at his presentation Rummenigge was commenting on huge increase in Bayern following on social media that happened literally over night).
Guy is a superstar. Of all football players only Ronaldo, Neymar and Messi have more followers on social media then James (the bench warmer) and you're comparing him to a goal keeper.
No one knows the details of James deal. Kicker saying one thing, Marca something completely different and both clubs being completely silent. That is telling and so is this:
Passed his medical this morning.
Gamble with a purpose isn't spending close to 40m on a Brazilian kid who has barely played in Brazil. It's the opposite
There have been lots of players who have an exceptional first season only to tail off after that. You want to give a world record fee for someone that fits this profile is definitely in the 'going crazy' department. At least walker has a couple of seasons where he performed
I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's not entirely true. You need only look at Alphabet's many failed pet projects to see how being that big, powerful and profitable allows you to be carefree and careless. To a point, anyway.
Jesus. Do you ever criticise Guardiola? There is no way this is a win for City. A win is getting the player you need at the price you want. That would be Dani Alves on a reasonable salary. This is so far away from that. If anything, City were in a lose-lose scenario - pay an outrageous salary to a player who doesn't really want to be in Manchester, or pay a ridiculous transfer fee to a very limited fullback. Walker is a long, long way away from Guardiola's ideal fullback. He might be the best available but that doesn't make it good. If you're stranded on an island and you're given the choice of starving or taking a risk by eating any one of the half a dozen rotten fruits, you'll take the least rotten one available...but it still won't be a good choice in absolute terms.
Sure and let's also acknowledge there's plenty of criticism of Pep out there in general, not just in the Caf
A win is filling a need, the financials is a different discussion. From a need standpoint, Walker was always the target irrespective of the Alves fallout - I suspect Guardiola intended to rotate the pair throughout competitions. From a financial, City were always in a bad negotiating position with a player contracted through 2021 and Levy as owner - that's simple transfer economics.
Walker fills a need much more than what City have had plus he ticks the English player box. If you doubt this, fine but before he's even played you're convinced it's a losing proposition - I don't agree. He may not work out but he's light years ahead of Zabaleta there and a speedy fullback is essential to what Pep likes to have his teams do - will be good for England too since Sterling is likely to be who Kyle overlaps most of the time
I don't disagree either but the key term here is "to a point". That point can only be decided by the managers and accountants of the organisation. Since we as spectators are neither, when a fan talks about how we or other clubs shouldn't care about the fee or the wages of a player as we're too rich anyway, it's just dumb.
I agree Pep avoids some criticism, particularly in the media, because he's pretty widely respected, but I think it's wide of the mark to suggest Walker is the pick of a terrible bunch. He has plenty of attributes that make him a great full-back.
I think he's also just one signing in a wider transfer strategy that's aiming to build a strong squad from back to front within the home grown/foreign quotas allowed - its that aspect of this transfer that makes this signing invaluable for the bigger picture, particularly for City, who aren't exactly brimming with home grown players in the squad. Miss out on Walker and buy foreign instead and it could mean missing out on a more important target elsewhere.
Out of interest, what would be a fair price for Walker to you? £30m? £40m? How much have we overpaid by? I personally think £40m would be fair, so we've overpaid by around £10m in English and league rival "tax".
I think he'll be pretty good for them. The reality is he's nowhere near world class / nowhere near Alves or Lahm, he certainly isn't the kind of intelligent player Guardiola likes to have right across the pitch, and he certainly has gone for a fee far above that of any number of fullbacks that could fulfill his role just as well. To call it a win is disingenuous and you know it. You would never be saying this if Mourinho had bought him for the same amount for United, for obvious reasons.
Can I ask is Pep going to stick with a back 4 or is Walker bought as a wingback?
Knowing Pep, Walker will probably be in central midfield. Tactical genius etc.
If they miss out on CL next season, they're going to lose a star player.
I don't believe I've ever intimated Walker is, ever been or will be in the bracket of the greatest RB of the modern era in Alves. But who is? Not Semedo either
Walker has been a known target for City since January and I was unconvinced they would even manage to overpay to pry him loose from a direct rival- yet they did, still a win for everyone. The fee? I doubt very much City owner batted an eyelash at the absurd fee - are you going to blame Pep for that too?
- Status