E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,198
- 31,264
Yeah, like you say, fuck that.
Kyle Walker
- Thread starter Snarfalicious
- Start date
Yeah, like you say, fuck that.
viktorviktor
Well-Known Member
- Nov 25, 2014
- 398
- 1,827
Chelsea is our second biggest rival, and the club that has screwed us over in many transfers. For me, selling to Chelsea would be almost as bad as selling to Arsenal, and perhaps even a bit worse.
Walker has been the best RB in the league, yes (I have my doubts whether he can replicate that form in another, less defensively drilled team, but that's just speculation). But you would be willing to sell the best RB in the league for 20m? Even if City just strengthens with some other great RB anyway? Then we're left with less money and no Walker.
The logical thing go do is exploit City's need for English players and take them to the cleaners. 40m with added performance incentives should do nicely.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,020
- 45,348
Sorry E17yid I'm usually pretty mild mannered but Chelsea just bring down the red mist.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
Money laundering, criminal, mafia affiliate, racist scum.
But if they pay 50M + for Walker, he can go there. Over-appreciated RBs with inflated egos should be sold for inflated prices.
nedley
John Duncan's Love Child
- Jul 28, 2006
- 13,992
- 28,177
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,198
- 31,264
But we don't need the cash. It seems pointless to weaken ourselves and strengthen a rival for the sake of £15m that we don't need.
You say they'd strengthen anyway but you don't know that. Selling to Chelsea or Arsenal is worse but City are still direct competitors for top 4/title so why help them?
I also don't think £40m is taking them to the cleaners. £60m-£70m yes but considering they're laying out £40m for a goalkeeper who's had 1 season in the Portuguese league I don't think £40m for Walker is anywhere near enough.
Edit: I'd also add that when it comes to rivalry and selling our players to rivals I'd look past the fan aspect of it and purely focus on who's our competition. I.e is this going to strengthen the club we're selling to to the point where they overtake us. For example, if Arsenal and Chelsea wree shit mid table clubs then I wouldn't be bothered too much if Walker wanted to go there as it wouldn't effect us too much as long as we got a good replacement or Trippier does well but if Stoke turned into the Barca of the prem and wanted Walker I'd be less keen.
Last edited:
Sum Monsterism
Looking for an anecdote
- Jun 12, 2012
- 5,311
- 10,697
£50m is hardly taking City "to the cleaners" though... They probably leave that much loose change in their dry cleaning pile.
A world where Man City sign John Stones for £50m.
shelfmonkey
Weird is different, different is interesting.
- Mar 21, 2007
- 6,690
- 8,040
Let's hope Citeh get him then, it would add a bit more fun to next season.
FreddieYid
Well-Known Member
- Aug 1, 2011
- 1,369
- 4,020
9 years ago, during a very different football transfer landscape, Liverpool signed Glenn Johnson for £18m... Walker isn't going anywhere for £25m.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,198
- 31,264
I think he's worth more than £25m I'm just saying if the choice was between taking £25m off BM or £40m off city I'd take BM's money.
DJS
A hoonter must hoont
- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,279
- 21,788
Seems like a reasonable chap then.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
15M could fund a gross salary for one player of 96.000 per week for three years.
But no, we don't really need that pocket change, do we.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,198
- 31,264
15M could fund a gross salary for one player of 96.000 per week for three years.
But no, we don't really need that pocket change, do we.
No we don't. As far as I'm aware we're having no problem paying our players as it is.
Levy has shown with Modric that he'd be happy to take less and sell abroad. I don't see how this is any different. And like I said, we're not desperate for cash.
viktorviktor
Well-Known Member
- Nov 25, 2014
- 398
- 1,827
What? Of course we need the cash! We are building a stadium and don't have a rich uncle paying for everything. If we want to remain competitive, we need to strenghten our squad.
City is currently without any RB fit for the prem. Of course they will strenghten, they will just use their endless supply of monopoly money elsewhere.
40m is better than 20m, that's all I'm saying. It's about the lowest I think we should accept, but it's much better than 20m from BM, which would barely cover a replacement.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,198
- 31,264
We don't need it though, as Levy had said a few times. Building the stadium will not impact on recruitment. Also, you really think £10-£15m is really going to make a significant impact?
You say we need to strengthen the squad but we'd be weakening the first team and I'll tell you now, if we do sell Walker, we ain't spending more than £20m on his replacement as we've already got Trippier.
With regards to city I guess if you look at it like that they will but let's not make it easy for them by giving them the leagues best RB who won't really need any bedding in time. Let them take the risk with someone untested in England.
nedley
John Duncan's Love Child
- Jul 28, 2006
- 13,992
- 28,177
And Spurs sign Sissoko for 30m
eddiev14
SC Supporter
- Jan 18, 2005
- 7,181
- 19,715
That's why I wrote 'minimum'.
I'd like to think that we'd be able to get more. However, given that he's 27 now (and therefore presents little chance of similar future re-sale value to a buyer) £50m I'd accept if I really had to.
I think it'd be enough to buy a high-quality replacement, with some spare change to invest in a Ryan Sessegnon style 'one for the future'.
Similar threads
