Hmm good to hear that, hopefully it'll be backed by action.
David Gill Transfer warchest v2012
- Thread starter wr8_utd
- Start date
Hmm good to hear that, hopefully it'll be backed by action.
He's been talking about it at some awards ceremony today apparently. I think they've been showing it on SSN.
PL 20 year awards ceremony.
He's been saying almost that exact sentence every year for ages. Mind you, it is his job to say these things. And to be fair, we always will attract the best. It's whether we want to pay the big prices you have to, to get them that's the question.
Yep, despite some people's wishes to the contrary, Fergie doesn't try to sign every player that moves.
big grin when asked about Kagawa. He said something along the lines of 'skysports will be one of the first to hear when a deal is announced' amongst his usual spiel. Don't think he was talking about Kagawa in particular though.We'll believe it when we see it, David.
I'd prefer him not to say this at all every year. I don't mind the policy we employ on transfers, but he keeps saying otherwise every year and then more often than not it does not materialise.
Dont disagree. We couldve and shouldve gotten someone in. It was a mistake that needs to be corrected.
Just dont think that mentioning the net spending and suggesting we cant sign a midfielder because the glazers wont give Fergie the money is accurate either.
We have a budget.. Fergie decided signing Young was a more important than getting a midfielder despite winning the league and getting to the CL finals with a set of wingers, all of whom were still staying at the club (well, not Obertan, but Valencia was out for large parts due to his leg break so that evens out)
This isnt against Young... just saying that if a midfielder was the top priority, we couldve signed him instead of a winger.
Fergie didnt think it was worth it and he couldnt get anyone better than the ones already at the club. In hindsight, he got that wrong.
He'll sort it out.
We arent likely to spend 40m/200k in wages.. but there are other options.
Yep. got that wrong. Didnt check, was off the top of my head. Had Liverpool at around 120m and us at 150+ (from the swissramble blog I read recently)
turns out its 18%
129m and 153m
How many City players are on above £150k?
Toure - £220
Tevez - £200
Aguerro - £200
Nasri - £170?
Adebayor - £170
Silva - £160
Toure -£150?
Anymore. There are a load on £100k plus.
We cannot and should not ever compete with that madness. We did when we bought Berba and we got our fingers singed.
Toure - £220
Tevez - £200
Aguerro - £200
Nasri - £170?
Adebayor - £170
Silva - £160
Toure -£150?
Anymore. There are a load on £100k plus.
We cannot and should not ever compete with that madness. We did when we bought Berba and we got our fingers singed.
Anyone? Or one of our targets that we failed to sign?
Not sure what gives you that idea?
Wayne Bridge is supposedly on 90k, forget all the above wages, this one's the most outrageous.
Actuall how ridiculous is it that
Wayne Bridge
Adebayor
Santa Cruz
are still on Citys payroll.
I bet Robinho wages are somehow still being subsidised by City.
Chelsea were crazy in the arly 2000's but City are just pure mental.
...after we've paid the interest on the debt and the Glazers have taken their cut, we'll see what's left over. Should be a few crumbs.
Not someone at random.. obviously not. We have a huge scouting network. If it was such a priority, we couldve had a bigger list. There are more than a couple of midfielders who can get into the current side.
Probably the fact that we signed Young and not a central midfielder.
I'm not saying there wasnt money for a midfielder and signing Young stopped us from getting a central midfielder...
I dont think we got one because Fergie couldnt get his target/couldnt find someone he thought was worth adding.
It wasnt to do with not having money for one.
The Young example was to say If we were short of money, we couldve saved the Young money and put that in the midfielder fund.. and the fact that didnt happen, suggest, to me, that not signing a midfielder wasnt about lack of funds. It was more about Fergie's decision to not look beyond a couple he had in mind.
He probably expected the ones we had at the club to do enough to get us through. For various reasons, that didnt work out too well. We were short in the middle
Carrick - great season
Scholes - cannot play in all the games
Fletcher - Huge question mark over his health
Giggs - cannot play in all the games
Anderson - injury prone, form is inconsistent
Cleverley - no consistency due to injuries - jury still out
Pogba - talented but looks likely to leave
If we start the next season with the same players as above in midfield then I really will be flabbergasted. Is Fergie as blind as Wenger when it comes to midfielders?
Scholes - cannot play in all the games
Fletcher - Huge question mark over his health
Giggs - cannot play in all the games
Anderson - injury prone, form is inconsistent
Cleverley - no consistency due to injuries - jury still out
Pogba - talented but looks likely to leave
If we start the next season with the same players as above in midfield then I really will be flabbergasted. Is Fergie as blind as Wenger when it comes to midfielders?
Fergie is a stubborn man who overrates our current squad. Well, that's what it sounds like in his interviews anyway.
But if by now he hasn't realized than our midfield is not good enough at this level then I firmly believe he's lost the feckin' plot!
But if by now he hasn't realized than our midfield is not good enough at this level then I firmly believe he's lost the feckin' plot!
Why? At least your list has Scholes in it. I looked at that list last year, minus Scholes, and said to myself, well at least we will definitely sign a midfielder now Scholes has gone. We didn't. We struggled till Jan then resigned Scholes!
We now have him for another year, so at least we have more quality now than we did when he was retired.
I have been thinking that since last year, and after some of his decisions this season, he hasn't really done much to change my view. I think the lack of a strong number 2 with occasionally contrary opinions is affecting him, either that or he is losing it.
Fergie isn't stubborn, by all accounts he tried for Sanchez and Nasri last summer. I'm sure the midfield will be recognized this summer.
I hope for the sake of everyone's sanity, that's Yaya.
Why would they be on the payroll if they've been on loan ?
Well Tottenham aren't paying Adebayor's wages in full. It something like £70k Tottenham/ £100k Man City.
No idea about the other 2 although I highly doubt Sunderland are stumping up 80 grand a week for Bridge.
Saf was never afraid of investing big money when he could do such a thing. Could it the case that theres a link between Saf and wenger reluctance to spend and the fact that arsenal are builing a new stadium and united are sitting on a mountian of debt?
The loan deals were organised such that a fair chunk of their salaries were still paid by City.
Wow, that's amazing if true. I suppose that makes sense for City just to get those players out on loan whilst knowing their wages are prohibitive for other clubs to fully pay for.
As if anyone else would pay their wages.
Well yes obvious logic dictates they are better off playing elsewhere with a subsidiary for their wages then them sitting around the training ground at city not doing a lot.
Whenever the stories arise about Tottenham wanting to sign Adebayor permanently, they always mention he'd have to take a pay drop as Tottenham don't have the money/wage structure to afford his wage.
How Bridge is on £80k a week I'll never know, makes me tempted to ring up and see if they'll pay me a couple of grand a week to sit around and pretend to work.
It is. City are going to struggle to get rid of some of their players, and they have done with Bridge. He was happy to stay at City on the wages he was on and they struggled to offload him. I'm sure that the wages he is on at Sunderland are at least partly paid for by City. Adebayor's wages are definitely mainly paid for by City while he's at Spurs. I think it is around the figure Levo has said. Spurs want to keep Adebayor but they can't afford those kinds of wages so if they want to make it permanent there would need to be some sort of compromise between the club and the player for him to go on wages that are a fair bit lower than what he is on now.
From what I read on a Spurs forum, Ade won't drop his wage demands, so a loan renewal for next year is the best that can be hoped for.
I nearly signed him on FM for £1.2m for West Ham. I could afford about £70k a week and he was asking £180k
They seem to get it spot on in FM all the time I can't see what he's hoping to achieve with this. He's on £170,000 a week, not many clubs can afford to pay him such a whack. Spurs could probably manage £100,000 a week for him which is a considerable drop but still let's be honest it's a very good wage for a footballer.
I don't see him getting back in at City and other teams don't seem to need him all that much. Madrid didn't seem to want to take the option of purchasing him and he isn't good enough for Barca, unless one of the big Italian two come in with a bid I can't see a solid future for him.
I agree. Staying with Spurs is the best option for him and his career. It seems that he wants to stay at Spurs, but doesn't want a reduction in wages either so wants something similar to happen like this season where he had the same wages (partly paid for by City) but a lot of game time too.
Yep, he needs to put the footballing sense before the money. It isn't like he won't be able to afford pretty much whatever he likes with a 'measly' £100,000 a week. I'd of loved him here a few years ago, he was unplayable at times in his peak for Arsenal.
when was this? on SSN today?
Yes. He was there to accept an award on Fergie's behalf for the 20 seasons thing. They then interviewed him, asked about potential transfer targets and Kagawa in particular. He grinned when Kagawa was mentioned but like pocco said I don't think too much can be read into what he said.
Exactly!
City gave him the contract and if he can get his playing time while still getting that, why would he lower his wage demands? It seems he's happy to keep costing them money for treating him poorly. It's City who want to get rid of him because they don't want to hold up the contract they made with him for stupid money. City will send him on loan so the other club can part of his wages to lower the cost, but he should just keep that up if it benefits him. He has no obligation to do what's best for City. Their other option would be to buy it out and let him go wherever he wants. If he refuses other offers, City don't have any choice but to pay him or buy him out.I agree. No reason for him to oblige City. They made their bed...
Yep it's all well and good calling players "Mercenaries" because they are doing all they can to keep their ridiculous wage but why should they do any different? City can't have their cake and eat it. If they offer stupid wages for 4/5/6 year contracts, then they will have to learn the hard way when a player decides to see out that contract for longer than they need him to.
Didn't say he had to honour City
Meant if he wanted a move to Tottenham then he should accept a paycut. If it was me I'd want to play as often as possible.