Unfortunately I don't think wages would be similar. We don't pay anyone six figures right now and are pretty busto. The offer on the table would apparently make him the highest paid player but I've no doubt he can get more elsewhere.
Champions League football may be possible too. Lots of the smoke is coming from city, which makes sense of they're going to go false 9 most of the time but need a more traditional forward for some games.
I have a slightly hard time seeing him do any better at City than he did at Pool. I can't blame him for wanting to give that a go (and especially on city wages), but he's a guy who will get plenty of minutes and goals for a side like Southampton while still getting paid extremely well
He had two early season ending injuries at plop, by the time he was fit it was the Salah/Mane/Firmino show and he couldn't get a look in.
Internet wage estimates aren't always the best but apparently he's on £75k/week at Southampton, presumably he'd get a bump if he was to stay but not to the extent of moving to City. He was the one who requested the move away from Liverpool for more minutes, is he really going to do it again?
Oh sorry, meant that would he want to stay at the club that gives him more minutes if it's an either/or situation, not that he'd put in a transfer request
He’d get plenty of minutes at city I think. Seems as if he would be the most plausible option unless they find some 20 year old for cheap. Haaland would never happen in a million years. Maybe the city medical staff can keep him afloat though seems unlikely
Ok except they literally don’t spunk more than 70m on players. They wouldn’t pay 100m for someone.
He has to go somewhere though...assume he’s a City fan because of his dad? Just because you haven’t spent huge on a player in a long time doesn’t mean you can’t, right? Bayern have Lewandowski and every other big enough club in the world is dead broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejoe1337
We've just released a press statement saying that Bertrand will not be renewed this summer, leaving us with 0 left backs :/
Cliffs: Even though EPL spends the most on players, we have cyclical success in Europe. That cycle corresponds with the quality of Managers we have in the EPL.
Cliffs: Even though EPL spends the most on players, we have cyclical success in Europe. That cycle corresponds with the quality of Managers we have in the EPL.
Eh, small sample plus developments in the years gone by make any take on this hard to prove. 90% of PL success in the mid-late 00s was down to United (money+SAF), Chelsea (just money) and Liverpool (luck and special Anfield nights). SAF is in there but the other two hardly had managers with a huge track record of success. It also helped that RM were a mess until they bought Ronaldo and Bayern were disinterested in winning until at least 2007. Though to be fair Serie A was still a real league.
Nowadays the money is a much bigger factor when it comes to depth, now you've got four clubs who spend massive money plus North London which can compete here and there when they have world class players on slave wages. Back then only Utd and Chelsea really spent as much as Madrid, Barca and Milan right? Liverpool were owned by those ****s from Texas and Arsenal replaced Vieira and Sol Campbell with Denilson and Johan Djourou to build the Emirates.