Kane to Man city

AyrshireBear79 said:
Think its more the fact that they have clearly bought success. It's now not a support as such in the EPL that drives a team, builds/supports the team, its all corporate.

Chelsea did that same, was a decade or so ago now so generally 'accepted' as a big club now. THey were the same.

As for Kane, in that world.. That's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

The "they bought success" stuff thrown at Chelsea and Man City is bemusing. It's not like Man United were winning leagues in the 90s and 2000s without spending big, or that Arsenal didn't. It became an issue with Chelsea and Man City because the teams that had for years been able to buy the best now had competition they couldn't easily outbid. Plus it took City years to win something, and only after appointing the right manager. They'd still have won eff all if they stuck with Mark Hughes.

We've all heard the "you buy success" shite from fans of teams like St. Mirren over the years, especially in the late 90s/early 2000s when Murray was throwing the banks' cash about like it was Football Manager. I'd love it if we could win a league title and compete in Europe with a team of academy graduates, but I'm equally fine with being able to outspend every other team and "buy success," so long as we can actually afford to pay the piper.
 
GraemeButNotMurty said:
The "they bought success" stuff thrown at Chelsea and Man City is bemusing. It's not like Man United were winning leagues in the 90s and 2000s without spending big, or that Arsenal didn't. It became an issue with Chelsea and Man City because the teams that had for years been able to buy the best now had competition they couldn't easily outbid. Plus it took City years to win something, and only after appointing the right manager. They'd still have won eff all if they stuck with Mark Hughes.

We've all heard the "you buy success" shite from fans of teams like St. Mirren over the years, especially in the late 90s/early 2000s when Murray was throwing the banks' cash about like it was Football Manager. I'd love it if we could win a league title and compete in Europe with a team of academy graduates, but I'm equally fine with being able to outspend every other team and "buy success," so long as we can actually afford to pay the piper.
Click to expand...

The accusation levelled at Man City though isn't that a sugar daddy rich owner is bankrolling success. It's that the ruling regime of a nation is bankrolling success. Where does that stop? If it's ok when it's Qatar or Dubai then what's to stop any nation doing the same under a poorly disguised corporate front.
 
Showing my age but I remember fat Ronaldo going to Inter for £18m I think it was and thinking wow that’s bonkers. At least he was a phenomenal player. Kane is clearly a smashing player but I’d have had Haaland for that cash.
 
I see they are after Grealish as well. Probably not get any change from £250 million for the pair and then of course the obscene wages on top.

Uefa should have banned state sponsored teams - they are simply spending dosh like it's monopoly money.
 
Trueblueal said:
The accusation levelled at Man City though isn't that a sugar daddy rich owner is bankrolling success. It's that the ruling regime of a nation is bankrolling success. Where does that stop? If it's ok when it's Qatar or Dubai then what's to stop any nation doing the same under a poorly disguised corporate front.
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't believe that's the issue most fans of their rivals have with it. The Newcastle takeover saga shows plenty of fans will accept any ownership if they think they're going to put money into the team.

I'm not saying you're being disingenuous, by the way - I don't disagree that it's a bad road to go down, for multiple reasons - but I'd be surprised if the majority of the folk who slag City fans with "you just bought your success, you're a small club" actually care who is funding them. (Or are aware that City aren't actually a wee provincial team.)
 
Jjbscotty said:
I reckon haaland would jump at the chance to sign for his dads former club and work under pep.
Click to expand...

I'd wager the money, Pep and the chance to win medals - and possibly to stick it to Man United - would be a bigger motivator than his dad playing for them, to be honest. The lad's made no secret that he supports Leeds.
 
Spurs will be rubbing their hands with glee at that ridiculous fee.

The Sovereign Wealth Fund paying the fee has more money than sand so won’t bat an eyelid.

Stand by for more of the same if the Saudis do finally get hold of Newcastle.

To think, football used to be about sporting prowess and entertainment.

Now, it’s just about financial gain, greed and corruption.
 
GraemeButNotMurty said:
I genuinely don't believe that's the issue most fans of their rivals have with it. The Newcastle takeover saga shows plenty of fans will accept any ownership if they think they're going to put money into the team.

I'm not saying you're being disingenuous, by the way - I don't disagree that it's a bad road to go down, for multiple reasons - but I'd be surprised if the majority of the folk who slag City fans with "you just bought your success, you're a small club" actually care who is funding them. (Or are aware that City aren't actually a wee provincial team.)
Click to expand...
Personally mate I don't think they are. I know they have history. You cannot say that they got back through anything other than money though.

I mean lets say Nottingham Forrest for instance, bought over, invest £150m, they get into EPL.. & who's to say that couldn't happen. Who would be surprised if it did? Who would be surprised if they then spent double that. Triple that? Under investment.

They are certainly not a wee provincial team, or so history would suggest.

I'd think a lot of fans would have an issue with it. It's being been taken away from the regular punter/support.

The EPL just highlights it.
 
Tino_Col said:
Cool. I asked what world records we broke on the 80s and then 90s. Can you share those works records with us?
Click to expand...
Of the top of my head, Trevor Steven’s signing was one of the biggest in the world at the time, certainly the biggest in Europe
Give it a wee Google mate. Before the sky money ruined the game, we were offering more than most.
 
RosstheBear said:
Some of the comments on this thread are bizarre. We broke all sorts of world records for players fee’s in the 80’s & 90’s and we all lapped it up. Don’t remember anyone complaining then. If they can get away with it within fair play rules, go for it.
Click to expand...

Don’t remember us breaking any records. Although the bit about us spending far more than our competitors and people not being too fussed about it is certainly true.
 
Sell plenty of additional tourist tickets once borders open. Could just have kept Aguero for a season and played within FFP parameters?
 
TheDerryend said:
No point blaming the epl, it's the tv companies that have caused all this. They're just getting the best deal they can and the fact they cough up, tells you that it's very much in demand.
Click to expand...

If the demand wasn't there then the TV companies wouldn't be able to pay what they do. Same goes for sponsorship.
 
Scaramanga said:
Don’t remember us breaking any records. Although the bit about us spending far more than our competitors and people not being too fussed about it is certainly true.
Click to expand...
Woods was a record fee for a GK iirc? Big Dunc a British record? Can't remember anymore if there are anymore, absolutely nothing you could compare with this. In fact am I right in saying the only record was an outward fee for Trevor Steven that equalled a world record
 
Good signing for City.

Spurs, for as miserable as Levy is, they’ll spunk that up the wall on a load of shite players.
 
Arkanoid said:
Woods was a record fee for a GK iirc? Big Dunc a British record? Can't remember anymore if there are anymore, absolutely nothing you could compare with this. In fact am I right in saying the only record was an outward fee for Trevor Steven that equalled a world record
Click to expand...

Trevor Francis was a British record too! Cant remember us breaking world records though. You may be right about Trevor Steven, drawing a blank on that one though.
 
An utterly insane amount of money for a very good striker, but not one that I would consider the absolute elite. He’s a tier down from Lewandowski, Haaland, Ronaldo etc.

With the players around him though putting assists in a plate, he mill undoubtedly be the league’s top scorer, but I don’t see him winning them the champions league.
 
RosstheBear said:
Of the top of my head, Trevor Steven’s signing was one of the biggest in the world at the time, certainly the biggest in Europe
Give it a wee Google mate. Before the sky money ruined the game, we were offering more than most.
Click to expand...
You do a wee Google mate. It will tell you that you're talking shite. We never broke world records over the 80s and 90s. As you completely incorrectly said.
 
GraemeButNotMurty said:
The "they bought success" stuff thrown at Chelsea and Man City is bemusing. It's not like Man United were winning leagues in the 90s and 2000s without spending big, or that Arsenal didn't. It became an issue with Chelsea and Man City because the teams that had for years been able to buy the best now had competition they couldn't easily outbid. Plus it took City years to win something, and only after appointing the right manager. They'd still have won eff all if they stuck with Mark Hughes.

We've all heard the "you buy success" shite from fans of teams like St. Mirren over the years, especially in the late 90s/early 2000s when Murray was throwing the banks' cash about like it was Football Manager. I'd love it if we could win a league title and compete in Europe with a team of academy graduates, but I'm equally fine with being able to outspend every other team and "buy success," so long as we can actually afford to pay the piper.
Click to expand...

Not one of us would care if we were in the epl getting silly money thrown at us. People saying 160 million is insane etc. Have they been living under a rock the last 5 years?. With his age there's no sell on value, but if your not bothered about that then 160 million for kane over 5 seasons who's arguably the best striker in the league doesn't sound to bad. Could argue it makes more sense than spending 60 to 80 million on someone from one of the other leagues where they might not adapt to the epl. Then having to spend similar the following season. Plenty of players don't look the same in a different league. That risk isn't there with kane.
 
RosstheBear said:
Of the top of my head, Trevor Steven’s signing was one of the biggest in the world at the time, certainly the biggest in Europe
Give it a wee Google mate. Before the sky money ruined the game, we were offering more than most.
Click to expand...
no it wasnt :)) Trevor Steven was never even close to a world record fee,, or even a european one either ffs. he cost about 1.5m........think Guillt went to Milan around that time for 5/6m iirc. Baggio in 90 went for 8m.

We sold Stevens to Marseille for a UK record. And we bought bid Dunc for a british record.

but at no time did we ever get close to breaking world record tranfer fees.

In summary, i conclude, you're talking out your arse
 
Last edited:
GraemeButNotMurty said:
The "they bought success" stuff thrown at Chelsea and Man City is bemusing. It's not like Man United were winning leagues in the 90s and 2000s without spending big, or that Arsenal didn't. It became an issue with Chelsea and Man City because the teams that had for years been able to buy the best now had competition they couldn't easily outbid. Plus it took City years to win something, and only after appointing the right manager. They'd still have won eff all if they stuck with Mark Hughes.

We've all heard the "you buy success" shite from fans of teams like St. Mirren over the years, especially in the late 90s/early 2000s when Murray was throwing the banks' cash about like it was Football Manager. I'd love it if we could win a league title and compete in Europe with a team of academy graduates, but I'm equally fine with being able to outspend every other team and "buy success," so long as we can actually afford to pay the piper.
Click to expand...
exactly, have to laugh at Man Utd fans complaining and accusing others of buying success. The broke the british fee for Keane, paid a world record fee for a defender with Rio Ferdinand, a world record fee for a teenager in Rooney, Andy Cole was a record of sort and would bought Shearer for a record fee at the time if he wanted to go there. Utd got lucky with a groups of amazing youngsters at the same time (lucky is a bit harsh, as they mustve had good youth scouts but you know what i mean)
 
It's an indication of how much Gerrard, relative to his prime era, could have sold for and the wages he could have commanded if money and trophies had meant as much to him as Liverpool.
 
That’s an incredible financial package, as good as he is he’s 28 and misses a chunk of every season with dodgy ankles
 
Arkanoid said:
Woods was a record fee for a GK iirc? Big Dunc a British record? Can't remember anymore if there are anymore, absolutely nothing you could compare with this. In fact am I right in saying the only record was an outward fee for Trevor Steven that equalled a world record
Click to expand...
British
 
weesp said:
no it wasnt :)) Trevor Steven was never even close to a world record fee,, or even a european one either ffs. he cost about 1.5m........think Guillt went to Milan around that time for 5/6m iirc. Baggio in 90 went for 8m.

We sold Stevens to Marseille for a UK record. And we bought bid Dunc for a british record.

but at no time did we ever get close to breaking world record tranfer fees.

In summary, i conclude, you're talking out your arse
Click to expand...

His general point remains intact. We contributed to the inflation of transfer fees during the second half of the eighties and the early nineties. We were fine with it when we were the big dogs.

The deal for Duncan Ferguson - between two Scottish clubs - was a record British fee. It was great when we were at the forefront of it all but times have changed.
 
subversive_bear said:
His general point remains intact. We contributed to the inflation of transfer fees during the second half of the eighties and the early nineties. We were fine with it when we were the big dogs.

The deal for Duncan Ferguson - between two Scottish clubs - was a record British fee. It was great when we were at the forefront of it all but times have changed.
Click to expand...
he said we broke world records in the 80s & 90s.....thats absolutely not true. Can't just start saying stuff like that no matter what other point youre trying to make

I wish we had, imagine getting Diego, Guillt and Baggio at Ibrox. I certainly wouldn't be complaining B-D
 
Old man yells at c̶l̶o̶u̶d̶ EPL transfer fee
old.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top