Wait...
They have money though
Sky harp on about "Big" clubs all the time, a lot of these have no history, and hold no European status.
People preach about where they are now, which is a point, but you don't become a big club over night.
** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here
- Thread starter Loki
- Start date
- Status
Wait...
They have money though
Sky harp on about "Big" clubs all the time, a lot of these have no history, and hold no European status.
People preach about where they are now, which is a point, but you don't become a big club over night.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Wait...
They have money though
Sky harp on about "Big" clubs all the time, a lot of these have no history, and hold no European status.
People preach about where they are now, which is a point, but you don't become a big club over night.
Okay if you take City's money away which sounds more promising:
Chelsea
Man Utd
Arsenal
Liverpool
Man City
I would pick any of those above City. They're nobodies in the world of football, they win the biggest wagebill for the most average players and that's about it. Sure Liverpool and Arsenal have been off the pace recently, but they are still big clubs, Liverpool have a massive history in terms of domestic and European glories, and while Arsenal may not have won the Champions League when it's been labelled as such, they are still a big club, UEFA coefficient 2011 puts Arsenal 6th, Man Utd 1st, Liverpool 4th and Chelsea 3rd. Barcelona were 2nd before anyone chimes in, and where were Man City? A lowly 47th.
The only players that want to go to City are the ones that are only interested in their paychecks.
Manchester United / Liverpool giants of English and European football.
Chelsea don't have enough history, Arsenal have a decent history, just have never done much in Europe.
City have nothing other then money. I think it's a shame that clubs such as city get this money, why not spend the money on a club with history and bring them back up to their glory days?
Chelsea don't have enough history, Arsenal have a decent history, just have never done much in Europe.
City have nothing other then money. I think it's a shame that clubs such as city get this money, why not spend the money on a club with history and bring them back up to their glory days?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
It is a shame. I also think there is no way that they will accomplish their goal of becoming bigger than Utd... no way in hell. Until they get a decent manager who doesn't base his transfers on Football Manager then they haven't got a chance.
Until they get a decent manager who doesn't base his transfers on Football Manager then they haven't got a chance.
"Balotelli will be the best player in the world in 2 years. In my game, he scored 50 goals in that season!"
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Well I wouldn't have just signed Yaya Toure and then proceeded to keep another 2 or 3 DM's who are not going to be happy riding the bench, of course Mancini's solution to this problem is to play 3 defensive midfielders which is just beyond a joke, 7 defenders on the pitch at the same time, awesome...
You just spunked all that money up the wall for Milner who, while he had a good year in terms of points last year I don't consider him to be worth the amount you paid for him, Andrei Arshavin cost less, by a considerable amount, who would you prefer in your team? Lego head Milner? Or an on form Arshavin? No contest whatsoever.
The problem is that Manchester City aren't going to attract any decent managers, Mourinho would have done an excellent job with those kinds of resources, but you've had Mark Hughes and Mancini who has a questionable history. Even Hodgson would have been a decent shout.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Whos the other 2 or 3 dms? Viera?
I dont consider Milner worth the money but we needed a new midfielder and there was no one else available who would come,
I think Mancini is a decent manager and you cant say that he isnt as his record says different...technically we didnt have Hughes as he was already there....
I dont consider Milner worth the money but we needed a new midfielder and there was no one else available who would come,
I think Mancini is a decent manager and you cant say that he isnt as his record says different...technically we didnt have Hughes as he was already there....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Wendy Ramos had a great record too... for a dietician. Look where that got him. A nanny job at Real Madrid for a year, and sacked from CSKA Moscow.
EDIT: Bah. I should be asleep rather than talking crap.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
De Jong, Barry, Yaya Toure, Vieira, there's four, you're telling me that if you adopted a traditional (read proper) approach and used 1 DM per game that the other three will just be happy to sit on the bench for the remainder of the time? Adebayor is already ****ed off that he sees himself hardly playing due to Ballotelli's arrival, you've just sold one of the most promising and exciting young players you had at the club in Stephen Ireland as well as selling Robinho, and you brought in Milner. The creative flair meister extrodanaire.
Also Mancini is showing he is anything but a good manager, he clearly can't cope with the pressure all his hairs fallen out! In all seriousness the best of his victories came at a time when Italian football was covered in match fixing scandals so you can see why people will doubt him, that, on top of the fact he looks absolutely clueless at times and has even resorted to fighting David Moyes over footballs... the man is crazy, Jens Lehmann crazy.
GIVE ME YOUR KETCHUPS!
Last edited:
Well De Jong and Toure are starters so really its Barry on the bench as Viera isnt used much nowadays at all....Who cares about Adebayor seriously picking up 150k+ pw and hes complaining about being on the bench and when he comes on/starts he does nothing to merit a start next game anyways.,
'one of the most promising and exciting young players you had at the club in Stephen Ireland' if hes so promising why did we have to put him as a part ex? surely someone would have wanted him? or like us they would see he had one good season and has done nothing since...Robinho was never going to play for us as he didnt want to so we may as well have sold him....We brought in Silva? and Johnson and also M Johnson to come back? pretty creative midfielders.
'one of the most promising and exciting young players you had at the club in Stephen Ireland' if hes so promising why did we have to put him as a part ex? surely someone would have wanted him? or like us they would see he had one good season and has done nothing since...Robinho was never going to play for us as he didnt want to so we may as well have sold him....We brought in Silva? and Johnson and also M Johnson to come back? pretty creative midfielders.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
You had to put him as part ex because A. you got shafted by Villa and B. your manager is clueless and thinks that Milner is worth that much more over Ireland, when he isn't. Every time I have seen Ireland play he has worked his arse off and I've never seen him give less than 100% every game, it seems he's had some rough treatment from Mancini and he didn't even need to be sold, you had a great player and swapped him for an overpriced, overhyped one. Silva has not impressed me so far, has he even got a goal or an assist to his name in the 3 matches so far? And how much did you pay for him?
As for not caring about Adebayor, great attitude to have toward your players
You just creamed 24 million up the wall for him and a season later you couldn't give a rats ass. Whoever said you City fans are becoming everything you hated, well, they're exactly right.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
I love it when I'm right.
Will i dont know what games you watched but Ireland hasnt given 100% for a while....see the Utd game for an example...no Silva hasnt but did C Ronaldo?,
Well if he cared about the team and actually tried once in a while then i would also...and isnt it Arsenal fans (not necessarily you) but they hated Ade'barn'door when he didnt do well?
and give me a example?
Well if he cared about the team and actually tried once in a while then i would also...and isnt it Arsenal fans (not necessarily you) but they hated Ade'barn'door when he didnt do well?
and give me a example?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
So you're comparing David Silva to Ronaldo?
We 'hated' Adebayor because he basically blamed the fans for his poor form and made numerous public comments that he wished to leave and play elsewhere, was that a Mancini signing or a Hughes one? Legendary City managers eh!
Just to put things into perspective about the great and powerful Silva, who I'm convinced will be yet another flop. The following stats take into account games for both club and country okay?
Code:
2009/10
Starts: 39 Sub Appearances: 4 Goals: 13 Assists: 9
2008/09
Starts: 38 Sub Appearances: 5 Goals: 6 Assists: 10Compared to Ronaldo:
Code:
2009/10
Starts: 37 Sub Appearances: 2 Goals: 33 Assists: 7
2008/09
Starts: 66 Sub Appearances: 5 Goals: 34 Assists: 9
Last edited:
I am not comparing them but your saying hes a bad signing because he hasnt done much in 3 games and Ronaldo didnt either...
So you're comparing David Silva to Ronaldo?
We 'hated' Adebayor because he basically blamed the fans for his poor form and made numerous public comments that he wished to leave and play elsewhere, was that a Mancini signing or a Hughes one? Legendary City managers eh!
Well he hasnt blamed the fans i agree but he doesnt show any heart when hes playing and thats why we hate him...and love Tevez for example
And it was a Sheikh signing if anything a hughes signing was Santa Cruz and Balotelli was a Mancini signing.
Silva is an established player He was part of a World Cup winning Spain side?
He cost close to double what C. Ronaldo did at United?
*If talking about Ronaldo coming to United, he wasn't established and certainly wasn't expected to come in to the first team and churn out amazing performances.
*If talking about his time at Real, he was one of their best player last season imo, made things happen.
He was part of a World Cup winning Spain side?He cost close to double what C. Ronaldo did at United?
*If talking about Ronaldo coming to United, he wasn't established and certainly wasn't expected to come in to the first team and churn out amazing performances.
*If talking about his time at Real, he was one of their best player last season imo, made things happen.
Manchester City seem to be chucking money around in the hope they can win things.
I dislike the amount of money in the game, and the way Chelsea bought their way to the league title, but I'd say they went about it better then City have.
I dislike the amount of money in the game, and the way Chelsea bought their way to the league title, but I'd say they went about it better then City have.
- Status