So what they're all mercenaries with one thing in mind - money. Now I know that in life we all worry about how much we earn but, in Rodwells case, it was reported he went to City for £90k per week whereas United offered £40k. Now I'm sorry but it says a lot about the kid to me. Read into it what you like.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
What a waste
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
So what they're all mercenaries with one thing in mind - money. Now I know that in life we all worry about how much we earn but, in Rodwells case, it was reported he went to City for £90k per week whereas United offered £40k. Now I'm sorry but it says a lot about the kid to me. Read into it what you like.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I'm not arguing with any of that but how many of our players do you think would be with us now if another club was offering more when they signed?
And I agree with the sentiment but we're talking about a big difference in wages not a couple of grand. All of their players are on astronomical wages, wages that they simply wouldn't get anywhere else. Rodwell would've known he wouldn't get first team football at City no doubt yet still chose them over United or even us who would've treated him like a valued member of the squad. It says everything you need to know about the kid and I for one hope his career self destructs.
Err, what?! Do you have any evidence that United were even interested in him? Let alone the wages he is/would have been on at each club? We will have to agree to disagree on the whole subject as we're both too stubborn to see the other side. But this post in particular caught my eye.
Some City players went there because they wanted to play for a big club and try to win things, it wasn't all about the money for all of them.
Do you see how many years everything you're mentioning spans?
Yes, United did that from time to time, every few years they'd drop a hell of a lot of money on someone. But United then was sort of the Real Madrid now, can spend huge money to pull a player out of almost any club in the world to their club, they had the money and were just a huge club. United didn't do that every season, but generally players wanted to go to Man United so they did.
Juve and Lazio are more "one off" type deals and look at the years you go by. Huge deals used to happen once every so often. Between various clubs doing one these off deals for players in Europe there was occasionally a huge deal done by United. (Europe did have those repeat offenders too.)
The thing is, the transfer market didn't totally fudge up.
Real Madrid, as much as I hate to say it did slightly fudge things up when they got Ronaldo and Kaka... Ronaldo was dirt cheap and if Kaka would have stayed at the level he was at, he would have been considered a good deal too... But that was probably too much at once. It was also at a bad time.
The reason it was at a bad time was Chelsea. If it's just one club paying crazy money then that clubs pays X percent more than everyone else but the market doesn't get too fudged up because even the money they push around isn't enough to distort things between all clubs.
I'd be much happier blaming Chelsea for starting it than I am blaming any of the other clubs that potentially fudged up the transfer market.
But City contributed. I think blaming City for the entire way the transfer market is would be harsh... It can't be just City's fault, but you went and paid Arsenal a lot of money for players they wouldn't have got that much for, so that wasn't the best way to get sympathy here.
The real problem is when you take Chelsea, add City, PSG and all the other new big spenders, but there's still huge financial giants that would have been there anyway (Real, Barca, Bayern, etc)... Throw in the Russians and even look at the knockon effects of some of these purchases.
A lot of the spending that'd seriously screw up any other club if it went wrong gets forgotten about. If Everton bought Torres for 50m, they'd be rising going from CL contenders to relegation battlers purely due to the loss of 50m, they can't afford that. Chelsea are only suffering because of that deal because they're playing Torres. If they had bought him and released him the next day, they wouldn't have even been affected by it. But look at the knockon effect of that deal. Carroll to Liverpool for 35m, what madness was that? Not possible without Torres going for 50m... And the resulting money was enough for Saudi Sportswashing Machine to buy players and finish above Chelsea in the league. Ironic, poetic justice and hilarious, but that kind of thing is extremely damaging for the transfer market.
Say we want to buy a top top striker, we can't because the prices are so high that only the clubs that have fudged up the transfer market can actually afford them and those same clubs are pretty much the only ones that can pay their wages.
If you look at the squads of 15 years ago and look at the squads now, it's crazy. Not only are certain clubs buying all the world's best players for top dollar, but they're just leaving them on the bench.
That brings me back to actual topic, I guess.
Balotelli was wasted. (To me he seems the guy that is best left being a club's hero, put him in a good team and let him be a star rather than expect him to be a hard worker with tactical responsibility in a great team.)
Most of the Madrid bench is wasted...
Berba was wasted.
That said, the above played from the bench.... Seeing people just disappear is really messed up.
On the topic of Sinclair, wingers should never try to play for Mancini, he doesn't like them.
--------
Rodwell plays... He usually comes on just in time to make a fudge up. He is not wasted, just injured... Considering City let De Jong go, they don't have amazing options at DM, so that wasn't a terrible career choice. Plus the jump from 40k to 90k is huge, so I wouldn't judge the guy too harshly based on that anyway. The City team isn't easy to get into, but I think Rodwell has got a decent number of appearances. He even played in the CL, I think he had a CL game in which he came on just in time to give away a goal with his first touch...
Man United have only deployed Jones as a DM in a few games, Carrick has been deployed as a DM in the vast majority of their games. I'm not sure he'd have got more game time at United. Given how Fergie reacts when someone makes a fudge up, I'm sure he would have got less actually.
------
David Villa is a strange one. But the Barca and Madrid benches could make a team that could beat any PL team. Hell, there was an argument last year that the 3rd best team in the world was Real Madrid's bench. (Lack of goalkeeper probably ruined it though.)
Do you see how many years everything you're mentioning spans?
Yes, United did that from time to time, every few years they'd drop a hell of a lot of money on someone. But United then was sort of the Real Madrid now, can spend huge money to pull a player out of almost any club in the world to their club, they had the money and were just a huge club. United didn't do that every season, but generally players wanted to go to Man United so they did.
Juve and Lazio are more "one off" type deals and look at the years you go by. Huge deals used to happen once every so often. Between various clubs doing one these off deals for players in Europe there was occasionally a huge deal done by United. (Europe did have those repeat offenders too.)
The thing is, the transfer market didn't totally fudge up.
Real Madrid, as much as I hate to say it did slightly fudge things up when they got Ronaldo and Kaka... Ronaldo was dirt cheap and if Kaka would have stayed at the level he was at, he would have been considered a good deal too... But that was probably too much at once. It was also at a bad time.
The reason it was at a bad time was Chelsea. If it's just one club paying crazy money then that clubs pays X percent more than everyone else but the market doesn't get too fudged up because even the money they push around isn't enough to distort things between all clubs.
I'd be much happier blaming Chelsea for starting it than I am blaming any of the other clubs that potentially fudged up the transfer market.
But City contributed. I think blaming City for the entire way the transfer market is would be harsh... It can't be just City's fault, but you went and paid Arsenal a lot of money for players they wouldn't have got that much for, so that wasn't the best way to get sympathy here.
The real problem is when you take Chelsea, add City, PSG and all the other new big spenders, but there's still huge financial giants that would have been there anyway (Real, Barca, Bayern, etc)... Throw in the Russians and even look at the knockon effects of some of these purchases.
A lot of the spending that'd seriously screw up any other club if it went wrong gets forgotten about. If Everton bought Torres for 50m, they'd be rising going from CL contenders to relegation battlers purely due to the loss of 50m, they can't afford that. Chelsea are only suffering because of that deal because they're playing Torres. If they had bought him and released him the next day, they wouldn't have even been affected by it. But look at the knockon effect of that deal. Carroll to Liverpool for 35m, what madness was that? Not possible without Torres going for 50m... And the resulting money was enough for Saudi Sportswashing Machine to buy players and finish above Chelsea in the league. Ironic, poetic justice and hilarious, but that kind of thing is extremely damaging for the transfer market.
Say we want to buy a top top striker, we can't because the prices are so high that only the clubs that have fudged up the transfer market can actually afford them and those same clubs are pretty much the only ones that can pay their wages.
If you look at the squads of 15 years ago and look at the squads now, it's crazy. Not only are certain clubs buying all the world's best players for top dollar, but they're just leaving them on the bench.
That brings me back to actual topic, I guess.
Balotelli was wasted. (To me he seems the guy that is best left being a club's hero, put him in a good team and let him be a star rather than expect him to be a hard worker with tactical responsibility in a great team.)
Most of the Madrid bench is wasted...
Berba was wasted.
That said, the above played from the bench.... Seeing people just disappear is really messed up.
On the topic of Sinclair, wingers should never try to play for Mancini, he doesn't like them.
--------
Rodwell plays... He usually comes on just in time to make a fudge up. He is not wasted, just injured... Considering City let De Jong go, they don't have amazing options at DM, so that wasn't a terrible career choice. Plus the jump from 40k to 90k is huge, so I wouldn't judge the guy too harshly based on that anyway. The City team isn't easy to get into, but I think Rodwell has got a decent number of appearances. He even played in the CL, I think he had a CL game in which he came on just in time to give away a goal with his first touch...
Man United have only deployed Jones as a DM in a few games, Carrick has been deployed as a DM in the vast majority of their games. I'm not sure he'd have got more game time at United. Given how Fergie reacts when someone makes a fudge up, I'm sure he would have got less actually.
------
David Villa is a strange one. But the Barca and Madrid benches could make a team that could beat any PL team. Hell, there was an argument last year that the 3rd best team in the world was Real Madrid's bench.
(Lack of goalkeeper probably ruined it though.)
Armchair Expert
Vedran Corluka
Do you think ? :ross:
I'm sure Aguero joined for his deep rooted love of Emirates Marketing Project and your excellent standing in the game over the past 30 years :lol:
Its quality that City fans even attempt to rationalise and justify some logical explanation for their somewhat hasty rise rather than purely oil £££££££
Why don't they just accept what they are and enjoy the ride. If they just came out and said "yeah, for the last 15 years we yo yo'd around the lower reaches of English football and mid table premier league was a massive success for us, then we got bought by an Arab and spunked billions, now we win things and i'm going to enjoy it" then maybe people would respect them more.
TRying to make out that "the project" is anything other than what it is is just mind boggling.
But everyone has said this a million times over so I don't know why i'm even bothering to post it.
I think in PL terms Nani is one of the worst cases of wasted talent. Exceptional on his day.
Last edited:
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
I have to say I hope SWP keeps posting on here as he seems like a decent poster and I enjoy talking about football with other teams fans in real life and on here. But it does give me great joy that all Emirates Marketing Project have managed to win since Sheikh Mansour came in about 5 years ago is one premier league title and one FA cup. Chelsea won the league in their 2nd year under Abramovich, and they didn't just win it, they tinkled it ahead of a team that went unbeaten a season earlier. They won it easily the next season too AND regularly got to the latter stages of the CL whilst Emirates Marketing Project have flopped in Europe.
BushHillSpurs
Banned
Watch out Mumorn, its the internet police.
BushHillSpurs
Banned
Anyway moving on, Rosicky at Arsenal.
How Ramsey is keeping him out of the team is beyond me. Rosicky is a cut above the welsh lad and I think Wenger is trying to make sure he comes good.
How Ramsey is keeping him out of the team is beyond me. Rosicky is a cut above the welsh lad and I think Wenger is trying to make sure he comes good.
Lol was about to say...
jurgen lineker
Radek Cerny
Kaka.
I'm certainly not too stubborn I quite enjoy admitting when I'm wrong actually. However, if you think any player wants to join City above United for any other reason than money then that's down to you but, IMO, that'd be laughable.
Dr Rosenrosen
Ramon Vega
Tevez.