Crustanoid
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,511
We should have tried a bit harder to sign him.
City signing Nasri is the first signing that really improves them IMO. Clichy is no better than Kolarov, Savic is inexperienced and unproven, Aguero is no improvement on Tevez. But if they use him correctly City have one hell of a player in Nasri, different to what they currently have.
We should have tried a bit harder to sign him.
City signing Nasri is the first signing that really improves them IMO. Clichy is no better than Kolarov, Savic is inexperienced and unproven, Aguero is no improvement on Tevez. But if they use him correctly City have one hell of a player in Nasri, different to what they currently have.
City have offered him £185K a weekWe should chuck 30m at arsenal and see if it sticks. No other players of the same pedigree available and worst case is they say no. Or city pay more. Get in there.
We should chuck 30m at arsenal and see if it sticks. No other players of the same pedigree available and worst case is they say no. Or city pay more. Get in there.
As things stand, he probably has a better chance winning things with City than Arsenal.
United were the first club to bid for Nasri this summer but Arsenal made it clear they would not entertain the idea of doing business with the champions. Arsenal's position has been different with City and a deal in the region of £23m is close to being finalised. The player has agreed personal terms, with reports in France stating it will be a five-year contract with a weekly salary of £160,000.
According to Guardian
Strange position taken by Arsenal there. If they're willing to sell to City, then why not to us?
According to Guardian
Strange position taken by Arsenal there. If they're willing to sell to City, then why not to us?
Those ungrateful arse, we have given them Silvestre and yet they refused to return our favour in Nasri.
We should have tried a bit harder to sign him.
United need players who want to play for us. Nasri, if the papers are to be believed, doesn't meet that criteria. He wants to go to City. We can all speculate as to why but ultimately its irrelevant. His heart isn't set on United and as such who cares that he's not coming?
It's less his desire to play for City than being a money grabbing cnut imo.
According to Guardian
Strange position taken by Arsenal there. If they're willing to sell to City, then why not to us?
Those ungrateful arse, we have given them Silvestre and yet they refused to return our favour in Nasri.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to earn more money and it happens in every single profession.
Doesn't matter. I doubt we'd have been willing to match City's wages anyway.
I'll stick to my theory
I don't like your theory, Godfather.
Wenger press conference in a sec. He'll no doubt announce Nasri to City, they're idiots. City are their closest rivals right now in terms of league places.
Arsenal won't sell to us but will to City who will be looking at getting the better of Arsenal over the course of the season.
Why?
Wenger reckons we'll finish ahead of City and Chelsea without Nasri. The aim of the game is to win the league so you don't strengthen the favourites.
It's a bit wierd.
They stand more chance of dislodging City for a top four place. Or maybe they think long term it will be us they will be battling with?
Wenger reckons we'll finish ahead of City and Chelsea without Nasri. The aim of the game is to win the league so you don't strengthen the favourites.