Robin van Persie

Status
Not open for further replies.
KingEric7 said:
Funnily enough, I was thinking about this sort of thing the other day only with Carrick in there instead of Scholes. The thinking was that Rooney and Kagawa would drop deep enough to help out with Carrick, not quite providing a midfield 3, but enabling Carrick options so as to help us control games.

My brain is telling me this probably still isn't the best idea, but it's annoying me not being able to work out to fit in all those players in a single formation. We should at least try this once though against one of the weaker teams in the league, in my opinion. It'd require perhaps Nani and Valencia coming inside more often to help defend, but with Rafael and Evra there's a lot of width there anyway.

I dunno...I'm just dying to see all those players in a single line up, I think...
Click to expand...
I dont really see it working tbh. Even with Rooney and Kagawa dropping deep, I reckon we'd struggle to control games.

Though I'm sure we'll see something like it if we are chasing games or playing a very, very weak team.
 
Chabon said:
It's not that City have no history, it's that they're a relatively small club posing as Real Madrid. This is especially irritating because their fans have always had this ridiculous exceptionalism, and they now feel vindicated by an accident. A couple of eras of success and and a moderately-sized fanbase describes maybe two dozen clubs in English football. Manchester City were on a par with Wolves, Derby, Forest, Blackburn, Preston, Burnley and so on until they won the lottery twice in the 2000s. The accurate way of putting the 'no history' charge is that the current City have no 'history' because there's essentially no direct connection between the proud and storied history of Manchester City Football Club and the current institution, which is entirely the creation of a few very rich men.

History is all about narrative, and City are the footballing equivalent of reading the first 343 chapters of War and Peace and then finding the rest of the book has been replaced by Katie Price's autobiography. Their owners essentially have a millenarian character, rendering everything that came before meaningless, and subsequently any footballer willing to play for them can be seen to be betraying the whole idea of history in football.

Put bluntly, ADUG are the Khmer Rouge of football, sort of.
Click to expand...

You didn't go to a comprehensive in Moston did you!

Good post :)
 
Not sure if posted, but...

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has claimed the club have received NO offers for captain Robin van Persie.


Manchester City, rivals Manchester United, and Italian champions Juventus are all believed to have tabled bids for Van Persie last week after he announced he had no plans to sign a new contract at Arsenal.


Van Persie, who has not joined his Arsenal team-mates on their tour of the Far East after being left behind in London to work in his fitness, is entering the final twelve months of his existing deal at Emirates Stadium.


Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson had last week stated the club had made a bid for the 28-year-old, and was less than happy that their interest had been made public, telling MUTV: "Obviously Arsenal have given out the fact that we've made a bid for him.


"We try to keep business as close as possible to us until the moment we conclude a deal. There's no point talking about something that might not happen.


"There are other clubs interested in the player. We've shown an interest and that's where we're at at the moment."


But after seeing his side lose 2-0 to Man City in China on Friday, Wenger blasted reporters for asking about the Netherlands international.


"The Van Persie case doesn’t cross my mind," said the Frenchman, before claiming: "We have had no offers.


"He is close to fitness, of course, but we have not had any contact [from City or United] about him at all.


"We will not come back forever on Van Persie, We have many strikers at home. Van Persie is one of them, but we also have [Lukas] Podolski and [Olivier] Giroud.


"For now, we must prepare for the season and it is about more than one player."


Wenger was further questioned about his skipper and the bids widely believed to have been made last week by three clubs.


"We have talked about Van Persie," Wenger was quoted by the Daily Telegraph as saying.


"We have just played a football game tonight, there are four English people here and there have been four questions about Van Persie.


"I have talked about that, I am not talking about that question anymore. Do you understand?


"If you understand and respect what I said, then why do you ask me again?"


Before the game, City manager Roberto Mancini had on Thursday as good as accused his club's hierarchy of *dragging their heels over new signings.


But speaking after the win over Arsenal, the Italian suggested Wenger was right and that the Premier League champions were yet to make an offer.


"No, I don’t think [we have made an offer]," said Mancini.


"If Wenger said this, I think it is true. Van Persie is one of the best strikers in the world, so it is difficult to buy him."
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, just seen the quotes. Weird. So Arsenal originally said we'd bid for him. Fergie reluctantly confirmed that, and now Wenger's saying no one's bid?

Well, one thing's for sure, the bidding party cannot release untruths about the transfer. Don't want to upset the sellers by saying we've made a bid when we haven't for whatever reason.
 
It's Wenger trying it on to get some other clubs involved, I reckon.

Doesn't want to sell to either us or City, and Juve maybe haven't offered enough? (Don't know what their offer was/if there was one).
 
I'm gunna say in the region of 18-20mill and he's gone. 18m wouldn't be a bad price, in all honesty.
 
Personally, £20m.

Liam147 said:
Well they have two options, let him run his contract down, whereby he'd leave for nothing at the end of the season, or sell him for ~£20m now and possibly get a replacement (although with Giroud and Podolski I'm not sure they'd both). If Wenger really thinks the team could get fourth without RVP, they must sell and get £20m in the bank, but if he thinks they wouldn't get fourth with the team he has now (or a £20m addition), he might just be worth keeping.

Of course we all know what's going to happen.
Click to expand...

That post is basically my justification.
 
If we went to 18 for RVP and 28 for Lucas and got them both, would we be happy? I know I would. For me it would be a big statement of intent, signing the worlds most in form striker and one of the highest rated youngsters in the world, to add to Kagawa and an already very strong team. Personally I'd rather sign those two than pay over the odds for a CM like Modric or Moutinho, when I think Carrick, Kagawa, Scholes, Cleverley, Anderson, Giggs and Powell can do a job in midfield.
 
Chabon said:
It's not that City have no history, it's that they're a relatively small club posing as Real Madrid. This is especially irritating because their fans have always had this ridiculous exceptionalism, and they now feel vindicated by an accident. A couple of eras of success and and a moderately-sized fanbase describes maybe two dozen clubs in English football. Manchester City were on a par with Wolves, Derby, Forest, Blackburn, Preston, Burnley and so on until they won the lottery twice in the 2000s. The accurate way of putting the 'no history' charge is that the current City have no 'history' because there's essentially no direct connection between the proud and storied history of Manchester City Football Club and the current institution, which is entirely the creation of a few very rich men.

History is all about narrative, and City are the footballing equivalent of reading the first 343 chapters of War and Peace and then finding the rest of the book has been replaced by Katie Price's autobiography. Their owners essentially have a millenarian character, rendering everything that came before meaningless, and subsequently any footballer willing to play for them can be seen to be betraying the whole idea of history in football.

Put bluntly, ADUG are the Khmer Rouge of football, sort of.
Click to expand...

That should be framed and hung up somewhere.
 
TDon69 said:
If we went to 18 for RVP and 28 for Lucas and got them both, would we be happy? I know I would. For me it would be a big statement of intent, signing the worlds most in form striker and one of the highest rated youngsters in the world, to add to Kagawa and an already very strong team. Personally I'd rather sign those two than pay over the odds for a CM like Modric or Moutinho, when I think Carrick, Kagawa, Scholes, Cleverley, Anderson, Giggs and Powell can do a job in midfield.
Click to expand...

I think we would destroy the premiership if we got those two, but would fall short in europe where getting some foothold in midfield is too important.
 
skeeta said:
The prohibitive is the '10m a year contract' which is way over our ceiling. With these alleged demands, RVP will never get the opportunity to pen to paper with us.
Click to expand...

Imagine if we did sign him to similar terms and he reverted back to the old RVP who could only manage 18-20 games a season. That would be catastrophic.
 
Dragging on a bit now this, Mancini is a prick too with his mind games.

RVP would be a big signing, despite his age and injury record he is a proven premier league player and goalscorer and as many have said will prove our intent. I hope this materialises.

As for Lucas, yes he is talented but he looks like an out and out right winger- do we need another winger? We got Valencia, nani, young, giggs already. ID rather us leave well alone and use money to get modric who us exactly what we need, a dominant midfielder who can control a game.
 
DevilRed said:
Imagine if we did sign him to similar terms and he reverted back to the old RVP who could only manage 18-20 games a season. That would be catastrophic.
Click to expand...

That is my concern. RVP could prove to be a disastrous investment and would possibly trigger fan and owner umbrage. The cost-benefits ratio has to stack up. If the anticipated benefits don't succeed the burdensome cost, then I can't see this deal being countenanced.
 
DevilRed said:
Imagine if we did sign him to similar terms and he reverted back to the old RVP who could only manage 18-20 games a season. That would be catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Not if his 20 games won us the league and gave a better european campaign
 
yamo123x said:
Dragging on a bit now this, Mancini is a prick too with his mind games.

RVP would be a big signing, despite his age and injury record he is a proven premier league player and goalscorer and as many have said will prove our intent. I hope this materialises.

As for Lucas, yes he is talented but he looks like an out and out right winger- do we need another winger? We got Valencia, nani, young, giggs already. ID rather us leave well alone and use money to get modric who us exactly what we need, a dominant midfielder who can control a game.
Click to expand...

Its a bit rich moaning about mind games given fergie has been at it for years, and giggs is 38, 38 years old. Lucas is 19, no harm in getting this lad if he is as good as the hype
 
I think wherever he goes, RvP may prove a flop. Before this season his injury record was terrible, he was always one of those players who was quality when fit but couldnt be relied upon. Arsenal will do well to cash in while the interest is high IMO.
 
Chabon said:
It's not that City have no history, it's that they're a relatively small club posing as Real Madrid. This is especially irritating because their fans have always had this ridiculous exceptionalism, and they now feel vindicated by an accident. A couple of eras of success and and a moderately-sized fanbase describes maybe two dozen clubs in English football. Manchester City were on a par with Wolves, Derby, Forest, Blackburn, Preston, Burnley and so on until they won the lottery twice in the 2000s. The accurate way of putting the 'no history' charge is that the current City have no 'history' because there's essentially no direct connection between the proud and storied history of Manchester City Football Club and the current institution, which is entirely the creation of a few very rich men.

History is all about narrative, and City are the footballing equivalent of reading the first 343 chapters of War and Peace and then finding the rest of the book has been replaced by Katie Price's autobiography. Their owners essentially have a millenarian character, rendering everything that came before meaningless, and subsequently any footballer willing to play for them can be seen to be betraying the whole idea of history in football.

Put bluntly, ADUG are the Khmer Rouge of football, sort of.
Click to expand...


The football club is the fans. We were the same ones who saw the shit and we are enjoying the good times now. How can there be no direct connection between the club in the past and the now?

So by your reckoning to maintain our history, we should have stayed shit??
 
newtonheathdave said:
The football club is the fans. We were the same ones who saw the shit and we are enjoying the good times now. How can there be no direct connection between the club in the past and the now?

So by your reckoning to maintain our history, we should have stayed shit??
Click to expand...

no you should just accept your not a big club?..:angel:
 
newtonheathdave said:
The football club is the fans. We were the same ones who saw the shit and we are enjoying the good times now. How can there be no direct connection between the club in the past and the now?

So by your reckoning to maintain our history, we should have stayed shit??
Click to expand...

You should have progressed or regressed in some coherent way, your fortunes should have waxed and waned in response to events, like every other club in the land. There's no narrative consistency at Manchester City, one day you were one thing, the next, by act of God, you were a completely different entity. In a way you have a lot in common with the handful of weirdos who stayed with Wimbledon after their rebranding and relocation.

I know you'll never accept any of this, and in that regard there's no point arguing with you, but the understanding of football history I elaborated on was once what Manchester City fans were supposedly all about. They were the real fans of the real club, in supposedly stark contrast to United's embrace of commercialism, which now looks positively parochial by comparison to what City have done. To enjoy your success now is to not care about what you have been made into, to betray everything you ever claimed to stand for. That's your call, of course, and there's a hardcore of about 20,000 real City fans whose joy I find it hard to begrudge because the last twenty years were such a nightmare, but there's no coherent rebuttal to my point, it's a simple fact: Sergio Aguero does not play for the same football club that Paul Dickov did.
 
Chabon said:
You should have progressed or regressed in some coherent way, your fortunes should have waxed and waned in response to events, like every other club in the land. There's no narrative consistency at Manchester City, one day you were one thing, the next, by act of God, you were a completely different entity. In a way you have a lot in common with the handful of weirdos who stayed with Wimbledon after their rebranding and relocation.

I know you'll never accept any of this, and in that regard there's no point arguing with you, but the understanding of football history I elaborated on was once what Manchester City fans were supposedly all about. They were the real fans of the real club, in supposedly stark contrast to United's embrace of commercialism, which now looks positively parochial by comparison to what City have done. To enjoy your success now is to not care about what you have been made into, to betray everything you ever claimed to stand for. That's your call, of course, and there's a hardcore of about 20,000 real City fans whose joy I find it hard to begrudge because the last twenty years were such a nightmare, but there's no coherent rebuttal to my point, it's a simple fact: Sergio Aguero does not play for the same football club that Paul Dickov did.
Click to expand...

Well said. Chabon for Prime Minister.
 
Chabon said:
You should have progressed or regressed in some coherent way, your fortunes should have waxed and waned in response to events, like every other club in the land. There's no narrative consistency at Manchester City, one day you were one thing, the next, by act of God, you were a completely different entity. In a way you have a lot in common with the handful of weirdos who stayed with Wimbledon after their rebranding and relocation.

I know you'll never accept any of this, and in that regard there's no point arguing with you, but the understanding of football history I elaborated on was once what Manchester City fans were supposedly all about. They were the real fans of the real club, in supposedly stark contrast to United's embrace of commercialism, which now looks positively parochial by comparison to what City have done. To enjoy your success now is to not care about what you have been made into, to betray everything you ever claimed to stand for. That's your call, of course, and there's a hardcore of about 20,000 real City fans whose joy I find it hard to begrudge because the last twenty years were such a nightmare, but there's no coherent rebuttal to my point, it's a simple fact: Sergio Aguero does not play for the same football club that Paul Dickov did.
Click to expand...

To be fair the one thing that has changed in regards to City is other people perceptions to it.
At the end of the day we support City through thick and thin. We have seen enough thin in our times as blues so we are enjoying the thick wedge we are experiencing now.
It is ludicrous to say we are not the same club and our history should be ripped up.
 
You're the same ones who took the piss out of the poznan and then a week or two later were doing it yourselves.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Yes I agree, that was a rather embarrassing episode. Not nearly as embarrassing as your lot making death threats against you best player and turning up at his house in balaclavas though is it?
Click to expand...

Yes because that was an entire stadium full of supporters that did that, stop being a fecking tit head and just accept City are a small time club that hit it lucky to be an oii rich Arab's play thing.
 
Ramshock said:
Yes because that was an entire stadium full of supporters that did that, stop being a fecking tit head and just accept City are a small time club that hit it lucky to be an oii rich Arab's play thing.
Click to expand...

But was it the entire stadium that was mocking the poznan fans for doing it? I don't think so, hence me pointing out that a few United fans also carried out embarrassing actions.

Now please show me one post of mine where I said that we did not hit it lucky?

Also I think you need to expalin to me what a fecking tit head is. It is not something I am common with.
 
Chabon puts his point nicely but it just seems like wishful thinking to me - or whatever that phrase is for when you believe something to make yourself feel better.

City are a famous old club who were for a long time more established and fashionable than us. Yes they've hit the jackpot, and yes as with Chelsea there's something rubbish about that, because their success is not much to do with any virtue associated with running a club (though I think Mancini has played his lucky hand well, building up solidity first and then flair). And yes it's ridiculous, but inevitable, how their fans have immediately gone from despairing at the role of money in the game and how it's helped United to revelling in it. It goes to show they were doing the same thing when we were far above them - rationalising a sort of tribal humiliation to make themselves feel better.

But this big club stuff... whatever 'big club' means, if City aren't one now, when they can already attract the best players in the world, they will be soon, once they've won a load of trophies. There's no point denying reality, and at least it will be good for Manchester to have two of the biggest clubs in the world.
 
Plechazunga said:
Chabon puts his point nicely but it just seems like wishful thinking to me - or whatever that phrase is for when you believe something to make yourself feel better.

City are a famous old club who were for a long time more established and fashionable than us. Yes they've hit the jackpot, and yes as with Chelsea there's something rubbish about that, because their success is not much to do with any virtue associated with running a club (though I think Mancini has played his lucky hand well, building up solidity first and then flair). And yes it's ridiculous, but inevitable, how their fans have immediately gone from despairing at the role of money in the game and how it's helped United to revelling in it. It goes to show they were doing the same thing when we were far above them - rationalising a sort of tribal humiliation to make themselves feel better.

But this big club stuff... whatever 'big club' means, if City aren't one now, when they can already attract the best players in the world, they will be soon, once they've won a load of trophies. There's no point denying reality, and at least it will be good for Manchester to have two of the biggest clubs in the world.
Click to expand...

Plech talking sense again.
 
Plechazunga said:
Chabon puts his point nicely but it just seems like wishful thinking to me - or whatever that phrase is for when you believe something to make yourself feel better.

City are a famous old club who were for a long time more established and fashionable than us. Yes they've hit the jackpot, and yes as with Chelsea there's something rubbish about that, because their success is not much to do with any virtue associated with running a club (though I think Mancini has played his lucky hand well, building up solidity first and then flair). And yes it's ridiculous, but inevitable, how their fans have immediately gone from despairing at the role of money in the game and how it's helped United to revelling in it. It goes to show they were doing the same thing when we were far above them - rationalising a sort of tribal humiliation to make themselves feel better.

But this big club stuff... whatever 'big club' means, if City aren't one now, when they can already attract the best players in the world, they will be soon, once they've won a load of trophies. There's no point denying reality, and at least it will be good for Manchester to have two of the biggest clubs in the world.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that apart from the despairing about money part. City fans by and large were never arsed about money. We never had any and were too busy worrying about relegation to give a toss about the bigger picture. When chelsea got the money most City fans were envious but not resentful. We all dreamed of buying superstar players but we all wanted chelsea to win stuff and stop United winning it.
 
newtonheathdave said:
I agree with most of that apart from the despairing about money part. City fans by and large were never arsed about money. We never had any and were too busy worrying about relegation to give a toss about the bigger picture. When chelsea got the money most City fans were envious but not resentful. We all dreamed of buying superstar players but we all wanted chelsea to win stuff and stop United winning it.
Click to expand...

:lol: Are you sure you've actually met any City fans? I think you might have actually been going to Coventry all these years...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.