What are you on about? Baffling.
The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
What are you on about? Baffling.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,243
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
brilliant post.
IF nasri stayed at arsenal, he would have become the main star in our side replacing wenger. so even more of a mess up on nasri leaving a side that would have made him the centre piece of the team in favour of warning up the bench at manchester
We don't have any history? Seriously?
You would want to move because your sat there looking at the teams around you constantly improving and building and your not not bringing any players in of similar quality and ultimately falling behind the rest of the “top 4”.
What are the chances that Arsenal are realistically going to challenge in the Prem for example in the next few years if our team carry’s on going as it is and we spend, Chelsea start spending once more and build under AvB and also Spurs carry on as they are and even Liverpool gel as a team they could also be a force.
Players move to better both financially and playing wise. Why not join a team and be successful whilst being paid a nice wage.
What player would you have bought?
Look, I didn’t agree with the Nasri signing at first and at the moment I am not fully impressed but he is getting better game by game imo and a lot of City fans who hated him at first..
However, it is very annoying when he is slated on here for essentially benefiting himself and also Arsenal who gets a nice big sum for him and hopefully City who can win trophies with him in the team.
Last edited:
Not the same history as a club like Arsenal no. Not on the same level.
You mean clubs that are financially unsafe and make massive losses?
Arsenal mounted a very strong title challenge a couple of seasons ago.
You've answered your own question. Who else is going to challenge you on a financial level? Chelsea and City recently have unbalanced the Premier League. It's become a two tier league, people who have money against those that don't have money. Arsenal as I pointed out above have mounted a title challenge in the past couple of years and are currently doing better in Europe.
~some players move for footballing reasons, a good majority move for money. Nasri is the latter.
Err, not sure what this has to do with the debate? I'm overwhelmingly pleased for you.
Why should I offer an alternative? Spending 30 million on someone who's younger, hungrier and has the potential to be a better player then someone who's older and is at his potential for ~only a few million less. Hmm.
You mean you were underwhelmed by signing another mercenary who isn't that good?
City ~might win (although I agree when you spend billions on something you'll eventually reap the rewards, despite the damaging effect on domestic football) trophies with him, but more importantly they'd have probably won them without him.
I'm awaiting Biz to try and tell me how Manchester City are historically a 'big' club or on a par historically compared to Arsenal.
FA Cup; City 5 v Arsenal 10
Top Tier of English football; City 2 v Arsenal 13
League Cup; City 2 v Arsenal 2
Arsenal have also taken part in Europe for more then 2 seasons.
Hell, Giggs probably has more trophies in his trophy room then City do.
FA Cup; City 5 v Arsenal 10
Top Tier of English football; City 2 v Arsenal 13
League Cup; City 2 v Arsenal 2
Arsenal have also taken part in Europe for more then 2 seasons.
Hell, Giggs probably has more trophies in his trophy room then City do.
LOL
Historically they will be known for spending an awful amount of money to buy some trophies...so far this yr the only trophies they will be looking to buy, oops sorry i mean win are the Carling Cup and perhaps the EPL
I wonder what will happen to City when the Sheikh gets bored and ditches his new plaything??.
to be fair though just after warnock got sacked the chairman was quoted on the bbc live text commentary saying how good it was that warnock spoke to him wishing the team well in their game then a few days later warnock was out slagging certain people within the club and media saying they put pressure on his sacking. its what happens in football. dirty washing in public is how they want to play it so they should expect it in return
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,243
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
two wrongs dont make a right
I don't get it?
You appear to have invented an argument that Biz hasn't made, just so you can post some stats that shoot it down?
Unless I've missed the post where he said City and Arsenal are historically similar, that's biggest straw man I've seen in ages.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
They were talking about Nasri, Biz hinting that Nasri would want to move on and join a bigger club? I dunno I haven't read the last few pages, only what has been posted on the current one.
Did I say we were?Not the same history as a club like Arsenal no. Not on the same level.
You mean clubs that are financially unsafe and make massive losses?
Arsenal mounted a very strong title challenge a couple of seasons ago.
You've answered your own question. Who else is going to challenge you on a financial level? Chelsea and City recently have unbalanced the Premier League. It's become a two tier league, people who have money against those that don't have money. Arsenal as I pointed out above have mounted a title challenge in the past couple of years and are currently doing better in Europe.
~some players move for footballing reasons, a good majority move for money. Nasri is the latter.
Err, not sure what this has to do with the debate? I'm overwhelmingly pleased for you.
Why should I offer an alternative? Spending 30 million on someone who's younger, hungrier and has the potential to be a better player then someone who's older and is at his potential for ~only a few million less. Hmm.
You mean you were underwhelmed by signing another mercenary who isn't that good?
City ~might win (although I agree when you spend billions on something you'll eventually reap the rewards, despite the damaging effect on domestic football) trophies with him, but more importantly they'd have probably won them without him.
Shocker as a team who wants to win things has to spend money and make losses.
So what if they did a few seasons ago, don’t live in the past look to the future which Nasri clearly was by wanting to move.
Oh boo hoo.
You make it out as though City are like Anzi in Russia who are a mid table team but spending loads of money. Then I would agree he moved for the money.
But the fact that we are top of the prem and are looking strong contenders for the foreseeable future would make it a footballing decision also.
You were talking about we should have signed a younger player who isn’t a mercenary. I am saying we have plenty of young lads so why buy more when we can buy an already seasoned Prem and CL player in Nasri.
I am not underwhelmed at all, I have said the same things in the past about Dzeko for example. It is clear he has the ability but he is just struggling at the moment.
Did I say we are historically a big club? Or that we are on par with Arsenal or are you making this up.
You were making it out as though City have been playing in the conference for the last 100 years and now are in the Prem spending money when we have infact won quite a few trophies during 60’s and 70’s etc.
He probably does but again what has that got to do with anything?
You were hinting at having a better history then you have. Yes.
Shouldn't that be, team spends eye watering amounts of money, further inflates the transfer market and unbalances the English top league?
Arsenal are proof you can challenge for things and not financially ruin your club, they've not ~won things, I concede that. They've certainly come close and probably given a bit more spending in the transfer market could certainly of won something and still being financially solid.
'Did a few seasons ago' It's recently history, Arsenal are a bigger club then you in terms of stature, European reputation, World reputation and are currently doing better then City and United in Europe. They're a club that's had a dip in performances but don't suddenly write them off.
Lol
City ~were a mid table side until the money came in? What's your point?
I'm talking about you could have signed someone younger, hungrier and with more potential / talent. Nasri hasn't impressed and unlike Dzeko doesn't have the excuse of moving from a foreign league.
See above. He's moved from abroad and has had to adjust to a lot, on and off the pitch.
See first reply. You were hinting at it.
Didn't you only win a the league once during that time?
Not at all, you're deluded if you think you were anywhere near where you are now without the money. You'd not been I take the point that investment for mid table sides lets them move up the leagues, but is it really ~right to spend Billions on it? Billions. Not millions.
Remember you were in the third tier of English football not 20 years ago, it's an incredible turn around without the money.
In the seasons before the money (08) you'd finished 14th, 15th, 8th, 16th, 9th I'd call that mid table.
I don't like Manchester City spending so much money, despite not having the history nor stature that other sides have. The money is neither here nor there, my main problem is with the need for instant gratification by throwing Billions at something. I disagreed with Chelsea doing this too.
It's the 'Sky' mentality that all that matters is here and now and teams should spend vast amounts of money to help make there here and now more successful.
It was merely a comparison.
I wasn’t hinting at it at all because we don’t have better history but for you to say we have no history is why I replied.
Again boo hoo.
Well the fact of the matter is that they haven’t. They might be financially more stable but the chances they will win anything whilst every team around them improves season on season is very low.
Am I writing them off or am I saying that it will be very difficult to win things now because of how much stronger everyone else has got.
My point is that we are not midtable now so for Nasri to be joining City it isn’t only for the money because we are doing better than Arsenal also so that is an incentive to move as well.
Anzi are still midtable and are buying players so those players I would say are going for the money.
Well moving to a new team that has itself only just gelled would be hard for any player. Don’t write him off just because he has not had a great first 6 months.
It is irrelevant what we won during that time we still won trophies and had a very good team inc Colin Bell etc. I am saying you are making us out to be some conference team that has no history at all.
Have I ever said that or are you just making another argument? No team would be where they are without spending money.
Has been the case with many of signings; Hart, Kompany, Johnson, Clichy and then players like Silva weren't cheap but worth the money we paid.
Last edited:
Nasri joined for the money /end of argument. City weren't even his first choice 
Yes, teams would be where they were without spending on a level like Chelsea / City (I take the point that Liverpool and United and Tottenham have spent 'big' but it's relative and they're revenue allows them too) Arsenal are literally the perfect example of living within your means, having a great side and playing great football. They've dropped off recently but they're proof you don't have to spend money to mix with the big boys. Granted they didn't win anything, but they came close and the worst thing is, they were only a few players away from being the closet rival to Barcelona.
Also; I don't think Clichy has been anything to shout about, he's yet to find the form of a few seasons ago. Silva, while sublime has dropped off massively recently, is he another Nasri?
City aren't financially viable or *stable*, I say that because without serious bailout money they'd have gone under.
Kompany has got to be up there with best bang for your buck buys in the last few seasons. Hart while he's a good young keeper, he's not ~better then the other young keepers at top sides. There difference between them all is marginal at best and their potential allows them all to step up and be top quality keepers.
Yes, teams would be where they were without spending on a level like Chelsea / City (I take the point that Liverpool and United and Tottenham have spent 'big' but it's relative and they're revenue allows them too) Arsenal are literally the perfect example of living within your means, having a great side and playing great football. They've dropped off recently but they're proof you don't have to spend money to mix with the big boys. Granted they didn't win anything, but they came close and the worst thing is, they were only a few players away from being the closet rival to Barcelona.
Also; I don't think Clichy has been anything to shout about, he's yet to find the form of a few seasons ago. Silva, while sublime has dropped off massively recently, is he another Nasri?
City aren't financially viable or *stable*, I say that because without serious bailout money they'd have gone under.
Kompany has got to be up there with best bang for your buck buys in the last few seasons. Hart while he's a good young keeper, he's not ~better then the other young keepers at top sides. There difference between them all is marginal at best and their potential allows them all to step up and be top quality keepers.
In your opinion. Ok. I don’t think any of the players we have signed recently had City has no 1 choice but quite frankly I couldn’t care less as they are delivering on the pitch and that’s all that matters.Nasri joined for the money /end of argument. City weren't even his first choice
Yes, teams would be where they were without spending on a level like Chelsea / City (I take the point that Liverpool and United and Tottenham have spent 'big' but it's relative and they're revenue allows them too) Arsenal are literally the perfect example of living within your means, having a great side and playing great football. They've dropped off recently but they're proof you don't have to spend money to mix with the big boys. Granted they didn't win anything, but they came close and the worst thing is, they were only a few players away from being the closet rival to Barcelona.
Also; I don't think Clichy has been anything to shout about, he's yet to find the form of a few seasons ago. Silva, while sublime has dropped off massively recently, is he another Nasri?
City aren't financially viable or *stable*, I say that because without serious bailout money they'd have gone under.
Kompany has got to be up there with best bang for your buck buys in the last few seasons. Hart while he's a good young keeper, he's not ~better then the other young keepers at top sides. There difference between them all is marginal at best and their potential allows them all to step up and be top quality keepers.
No they wouldn’t be.
Well I think he has and so do City fans. Considering our previous LB’s it is not exactly hard to see how much better he is.
Gone under? What?
Well done, you said that all of 16mins before your post.
Hart cost 500k, was golden glove last year has conceded the least amount this year and is England’s no 1. That is a bargain imo.
What other keepers are you talking about?
/End of argument. We are clearly never going to agree and are arguing for the sake of it because it is easy to pick out Nasri.
- Status