** January Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **

Status
Not open for further replies.
drunkenmaster said:
He is both no where near the most talented or highest performing English footballer, at all. If Rooney stayed at Everton, or anywhere but Utd/Liverpool and maybe Chelsea/Arsenal, no one would consider him the best striker anywhere
Click to expand...

Well thats rubbish considering he was England's top man at Euro 2004 whilst at Everton (in Englands most promising first 11 in my lifetime).
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Ferguson is trying to offload him secretly, Rooney got one over on him with the recent contract negotiations and so Ferguson will now probably sell him for millions and have the last laugh.
 
HangTime said:
Beckham was vastly more marketable than Rooney:
-Better looking
-Easier to understand (which is saying something)
-Has starred in films
-Fewer lurid tabloid rumours
-Played in more countries and for more big clubs (i.e. Real Madrid)
-England captain
-Doesn't swear in public as much
-Bigger profile in terms of doing events outside of football
Click to expand...

has never slept with an OAP prostitute or urinated in public

beckham is a very good image for football, rooney is pretty close to everything that's wrong with it. it's only because he's been a favourite of ferguson and england managers that he's got his face on a football game. statistically, just how 'up there' is he with other england strikers, past and present? the reason i bring stats into it, is because considering he's probably the first name on the team sheet, they're the only thing to give a fair reflection.

beckham didn't really get bigger than the club, he showed great respect and dignity in what he did, even ronaldo has showed more respect than rooney has. rooney does care about the club (though not as much as i feel the utd fans may think he does) but his attitude at times is simply appauling, absoloute spoilt brat who ferguson dotes on in a son like way, maybe ferguson's getting soft in his old age? would johnny evans be given the continued opportunities he does now, 10 yrs ago? i doubt it.

rooney isn't a leader, he's a thug. one may have said the same about keane but keane had guile, rooney has none. i believe utd and maybe even the premiership, would be better off without rooney. i don't even see how utd fans can have such short memories when it comes to the bloke, he shows complete and utter disrespect.
 
Moses said:
Do you believe what the tabloids say about Citeh wages?
Click to expand...

Dunno who's meant to be on what there tbh. I find it easier to believe inflated wages at clubs like City or Chelsea though given they've got billionaire owners. Us on the other hand aren't really in the same position.

I'd take a guess at Rooney being on closer to 180k a week
 
Rooney isn't the best English player? Im looking at the England 11 thinking they all look decent but not world beaters. without Rooney they look weak. that's why there was such a hoo haa about him missing the euros.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Your missing the point, you can be paid £30 to wear a Nike shirt, of £50million a year...... the fact that he has his face on anything has NO relation to what he is paid to do so.
Click to expand...

If you think Rooney - or any player - is paid as much as they are only based on what they contribute for 90 minutes on a football pitch then you have zero commercial awareness.

Also, I love the fact that you completely ignored the post I made yesterday highlighting the huge inconsistencies in your Henry argument.
 
One More Solo said:
If you think Rooney - or any player - is paid as much as they are only based on what they contribute for 90 minutes on a football pitch then you have zero commercial awareness.

Also, I love the fact that you completely ignored the post I made yesterday highlighting the huge inconsistencies in your Henry argument.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that the first part of your post has no relation to anything I said whatsoever as I at no time said anything even remotely close to that.

The second part, I haven't seen your post, I don't read every post on here, its too much effort, get over yourself.

EDIT:- Actually I just realised what post you were refering to, and I ignored it because there wasn't much to say about it without calling you a name that mocked your intelligence. Neither of the posts you decided to quote say anything even slightly contradictory. Another case of you interpreting whatever I say to whatever you want it to mean.

IF you want, be specific with which part is a contradiction then I'll have somewhere to start to tear your opinion apart.

When you quote two posts, that aren't contradictory and post the fantastically descriptive "lol" I really can't tell which part you've been incapable of reading incorrectly, so where would I start to point out where you were wrong, work with me here. Put in a whole sentence then I can show you how wrong you are, ok.
 
Last edited:
One More Solo said:
That's exactly what you said. Please explain what you actually meant then.
Click to expand...

It's really very simple, you quoted it, no where in what you quoted did I say he would only be paid for what he did on the pitch, does that need more explanation, really? You've suggested I meant one thing, by quoting a post that said nothing remotely close to what you said.
 
drunkenmaster said:
EDIT:- Actually I just realised what post you were refering to, and I ignored it because there wasn't much to say about it without calling you a name that mocked your intelligence. Neither of the posts you decided to quote say anything even slightly contradictory. Another case of you interpreting whatever I say to whatever you want it to mean.
Click to expand...

The bit where you say at first Henry joining can only harm Arsenal, before concluding that he will be an improvement over Gervinho.

Edit: I should add that you criticised Arsenal massively for short term thinking before saying later that having someone potentially good for two months will be a "god send".
 
Last edited:
One More Solo said:
The bit where you say at first Henry joining can only harm Arsenal, before concluding that he will be an improvement over Gervinho.

Edit: I should add that you criticised Arsenal massively for short term thinking before saying later that having someone potentially good for two months will be a "god send".
Click to expand...

You really are full of ****, as I absolutely said NEITHER or anything even close.

You quoted both of my posts, the words harm didn't enter my post at all, You really are full of making crap up.

This is one of the posts you qouted

Our panic buying of players in the summer was bad enough. Henry is NOT going to fix or improve Arsenal long term, so what the hell is the point?
Click to expand...

Hmm, NOT GOING TO FIX.......... Harm, same thing, not even close.

then the second one.

Not too much change to the teams playing style? How crap do you think Henry is that Arsenal will play the same with Gervinho and Henry.

Gervinho has been utter, utter, utter gash, having someone good for two months will be a god send.... unless of course Henry turns out to be past it.

Honestly I don't know how good he is, I watch way too much football as it is, can't keep up with MLS games as well. I have no doubt he could still be brilliant, he was vastly under rated in his time at Barca. But if he's spent 2 years barely putting in any effort, not playing against decent sides and barely trying he simply won't be sharp or have form and maybe not the right fitness level.

If he were coming for 6 months or a year or two I think he'd have every chance of gaining some form and sharpness and be great. Over two months, it really depends what level he was playing at before the loan.

Either way, even barely trying and just cashing checks in the MLS, he can't be anything but a large improvement over Gervinho......
Click to expand...

Lets ignore the fact that I was responding in jest to someone suggesting something along the lines of not changing the way we play and the whole post being largely about mocking Gervinho and having an actually footballer on the wing will most certainly change the way we play. If you expanded on the other post you quoted, that is one of the original reasons I gave for why Henry won't be a fix.... if we get used to playing with Henry, then we go through yet another adjustment period when he leaves.

As I said, with no contradiction in site, Henry is massively better than Gervinho........ but its still pointless to loan in someone for two months, because it will make no fundamental difference to the team over the season.

You really do have this habit of randomly adding words I used....... which I actually never came close to using at all. its beyond a joke, its closer to trolling than being unable to read properly.


As for the other post you are purposefully misrepresenting, please quote something I posted that specifically says Rooney's advertising value is only linked to his performances on the pitch..... if you can't, because I infact said no such thing could you refrain from posting such utter rubbish.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
You really are full of ****, as I absolutely said NEITHER or anything even close.

You quoted both of my posts, the words harm didn't enter my post at all, You really are full of making crap up.
Click to expand...

What does this mean then:

drunkenmaster said:
So buy a short term solution that really can only backfire on us, maybe worse the better he actually is, and buy an actual left winger, for the long term, who will improve the team full stop. Hell, if Henry is good enough I'd have no problem buying him, though I think the bulls would want a too serious a fee for a too old a player for it to be a good option.
Click to expand...

Yes, the word "harm" did not enter your post (note that I never said you used that exact word) but you said that Henry can only "backfire on [Arsenal], maybe worse". How is that not the same as harming the team? So I'm really not full of ****.

drunkenmaster said:
As for the other post you are purposefully misrepresenting, please quote something I posted that specifically says Rooney's advertising value is only linked to his performances on the pitch..... if you can't, because I infact said no such thing could you refrain from posting such utter rubbish.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said either, which is unfortunate since you are insisting on lecturing me about comprehension. I was making a point that Rooney's wages are based less on his ability than his commercial value. I don't know what you're talking about above, it's nothing to do what I said.

You're obsessed with this notion that we could sell Rooney and bring in 3 or 4 players with his wages. That may be the case, but Rooney is paid what he is not necessarily because he is our best player but because he is our most valuable commercial asset. Performance and marketability is not linked, as David Beckham demonstrates. He was a great player for sure, but until he joined LA Galaxy he's never even been his team's best player (and even then Donovan runs him close).

Rooney is paid whatever he is paid because the club believe he is worth that much to the club on and off the pitch as our marquee player. Regardless of what you think of him, if he signed for another English club - City included - he would be their main man too.

Anyway, I don't want to make you more emotional so I'll leave it there.
 
One More Solo said:
That may be the case, but Rooney is paid what he is not necessarily because he is our best player but because he is our most valuable commercial asset.
Click to expand...

he's a public liability though? shows no respect. that's why he was fined and dropped last week. great marquee player!

rooney would not be city's best or most important player either. kompany is city's most important player and in attack, balotelli and silva are better and ok balotelli's had his fair share of news time but nothing such as crass as what rooney has done
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom