Jump to content

The English Football Thread


Steve
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are you being sarcastic. I don't recally many 50m+ signing last season except the one being done by City
Nope. I'm talking about fees in general around Europe have risen & these types of fees are looked at in the same way.

Lukaku, Morata, Chamberlain, Dembele, Lacazette to name a few that cost close to that or more. In addition, Mendy was the only player that cost over £50m that City signed over the summer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vesper

    12359

  • Laylabelle

    5287

  • Special Juan

    2933

  • Jase

    2760

1 hour ago, LAM09 said:

Nope. I'm talking about fees in general around Europe have risen & these types of fees are looked at in the same way.

Lukaku, Morata, Chamberlain, Dembele, Lacazette to name a few that cost close to that or more. In addition, Mendy was the only player that cost over £50m that City signed over the summer.

Lukaku,Morata,Lacazette fee are strikers, it is normal for striker transfer fee to be 50 or more. We signed Torres for 50 m, and it was a while ago.

Chamberlain fee was around 35. Our signing are all less than 50 except Morata. United are all less than 50 except Lukaku, Arsenal all less than 50 excpet Lacazette, Spurs all less than 50.

City signed Mendy and Walker both for 50 m plus I think B. Silva was around 47.5 m. 

50 m is not the new normal. 

This City is like Chelsea under Mou in his 1st term. At that point we outspent everybody on the transfer market

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lukaku,Morata,Lacazette fee are strikers, it is normal for striker transfer fee to be 50 or more. We signed Torres for 50 m, and it was a while ago. Chamberlain fee was around 35. Our signing are all less than 50 except Morata. United are all less than 50 except Lukaku, Arsenal all less than 50 excpet Lacazette, Spurs all less than 50.

City signed Mendy and Walker both for 50 m plus I think B. Silva was around 47.5 m. 

50 m is not the new normal. 

This City is like Chelsea under Mou in his 1st term. At that point we outspent everybody on the transfer market

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/20-most-expensive-transfer-deals-10878202

 

I never said £50m is the new norm, but it's a fee that is touted almost everywhere nowadays for most players. It doesn't raise eyebrows like it did when he signed Torres.

 

City will get a pass along as they aren't spending 50m+ on multiple players & making a profit (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/08/manchester-city-record-revenues-accounts-wages-2016-17).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny if you just listen to the media you will think that there is no chance for teams like Arsenal but looking at the table there is very little that separate the 7th spot Burnley with 22 points and the 2nd spot United with 26 points.

The only team that is running away right now is City

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, communicate said:

It is funny if you just listen to the media you will think that there is no chance for teams like Arsenal but looking at the table there is very little that separate the 7th spot Burnley with 22 points and the 2nd spot United with 26 points.

The only team that is running away right now is City

 

I think the Burnley surprised everyone, but we can't compare tham to the "big". But yes, I agree with the media, there isn't a chance for teams like Arsenal (maybe only this year) because the city is running us hell ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not the better player, obviously i'd sooner have Hazard for one season than Sterling for five, but this season Raheem is so much more productive than I think Hazard's ever been. But, if Hazard played for City...he might get a goal and assist every single game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leif said:

He's not the better player, obviously i'd sooner have Hazard for one season than Sterling for five, but this season Raheem is so much more productive than I think Hazard's ever been. But, if Hazard played for City...he might get a goal and assist every single game.

I'm not sure what you mean by productive. Last season Hazard had more keypasses from open play than any other player in Europe's top 5 leagues but yet had only 5 assists which says a lot about his teammates. Sterling has never come close to that.  

https://www.whoscored.com/Articles/pIE68Mj2lU6L-wBGAJVziw/Show/European-Team-of-the-Season-ST-Eden-Hazard-(Chelsea)

It's easy to be productive as a forward when you play for a team  that has scored 42 goals in 13 games, totally dominates the ball (averaging 63% possession) and creates chances for fun. Sterling can afford to score a lot of tap-ins this season thanks to that brand of football.

Hazard at this stage last season had 9 goals in the league. Let's see if Sterling can continue to score. Even in this insanely stacked City side its very likely he regresses to the mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think city does improve their play a bit compare to last season. That make sense in 2nd year with relatively the same squad. But having a good GK and good fb for me has been the key for them.

Last season I remember how they concede plenty of cheap goals from simple  long ball. Looks like it will not happen often this season because their fb are not slow anymore. Now they can provide cover for their CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...