Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
20 million in today's market in the Premier League is absolute peanuts. That would buy us one decent player.
We need to be gambling and spending 50 million. Very underwhelming if true, and we'd have to completely rely on a team spirit and work ethic to have any hope of surviving.
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baker
20 million in today's market in the Premier League is absolute peanuts. That would buy us one decent player.
We need to be gambling and spending 50 million. Very underwhelming if true, and we'd have to completely rely on a team spirit and work ethic to have any hope of surviving.
Gambling worked really well last time. Look at Villa now. I still think £20m is too little though.
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Press are saying that we can't compete with Stoke for James McClean, then I do start to get worried. His salary is reported as £25k in 2017, so say £30k last season and a fee of around £3M. Maybe we're not in for him but shirley we should not get outbid at that level.
If £12.5M for Afobe is correct Stoke are going all in for an immediate return!
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pedro de la Rosa
Gambling worked really well last time. Look at Villa now. I still think £20m is too little though.
Wasn't much of a gamble, we spent well on most of the signings other than Cornelius. What ****ed us was Solskjaer
