The Official Manchester City Thread

[RickG16]

9 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 Club's put clauses in all the time. Particularly where rivals are concerned. 

Are you sure? According to the Telegraph it's an "unprecedented step"

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/01/05/brahim-diazleaves-man-city-real-madrid-deal-worth-22m-added/

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

But it's not lucrative if they have to now spend 50 or 60m to replace him in the future, such as what happened with Sancho, sold him for 8m and bought Mahrez for 60m,so it's cost them 52m for a player to play in the same position and who is 9 years older plus Mahrezs value has now depreciated and Sanchos value has increased so that another chunk of money that they have lost. i thought that was their business plan 10 years ago when the new owners took over, i.e. bring players through the academy to save money on expensive buys !

JADON SANCHO

Sancho cost us £66,000. He wanted to leave. City were desperate to keep hold of him, even reportedly offering him around £30,000 a week - a deal which would've been the biggest in the history of the club's academy. Contract discussions stalled so City made the decision to leave him out of the summer USA 2017 tour. In response, Sancho failed to turn up for training – HE EFFECTIVELY WENT ON STRIKE AND ENGINEERED HIS DEPARTURE. He refused to return so what choice did City have: make him sit out until he might give in and possibly lose out (sale value, relationship with Sancho (which we retained) OR sell him on. Sancho – who had never made a 1st team full appearance at that time - felt he had more chance of playing first team football elsewhere and wanted to leave. City sold him overseas (clearly didn’t want to sell him to a Premier rival) to Dortmund for £8m. At that £8m stage it was viewed as a reasonable price for a player who had only played junior level at club and country. City inserted a buyback clause in his Dortmund contract.

 

Why did he choose to leave? My opinion is that it was because he was behind Sane and Sterling for the left wing position and didn’t feel he could get the position off them so felt it better to move on. At that stage (or now in my opinion), he could not be considered as an equal to Sane, Sterling or yet-to-be-bought Mahrez. He was extremely raw still (I saw him play a few times for our juniors in their champions league tournament – he was exciting but raw).

 

Alfie stated “sold him for 8m and bought Mahrez for 60m,so it's cost them 52m for a player to play in the same position and who is 9 years older plus Mahrezs value has now depreciated and Sanchos value has increased so that another chunk of money that they have lost”. Actually as noted above, 18 yr old Sancho was up against our players who play on the left, i.e. 22 yr old Sane and 24 yr old  Sterling. Mahrez basically never plays left side! We had no choice but to sell a player who was determined to leave. So his point is incorrect.

 

Brahim Diaz

City bought him 5 years ago. He played as the creative midfield postion for the junior teams but has had to play wide right for the 1st team. Wide right he’s behind Sterling Mahrez and Bernardo. In midfield hes behind Silva KDB Gundogan and Foden. If he sticks around as we wanted him he would have continued to feature in cup games and minutes in the Premier. He too has decided to move on, IN MY OPINION, because he doesn’t think he can take a position off the players I mentioned. City have negotiated a great deal for a player out of contract in the summer.

[Bredbury Blue]

1 minute ago, RickG16 said:

Are you sure? According to the Telegraph it's an "unprecedented step"

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/01/05/brahim-diazleaves-man-city-real-madrid-deal-worth-22m-added/

Then its genius!

[mrbojangles]

4 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Are you sure? According to the Telegraph it's an "unprecedented step"

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/01/05/brahim-diazleaves-man-city-real-madrid-deal-worth-22m-added/

The article states "It's the first time city have done this" 

[RickG16]

25 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Its good business. .Not all will be good enough. The diamonds we will try to keep and the rest we will sell. It subsides the academy.

I'll give you the massive benefit of the doubt, and assume that Foden becomes a first XI player over the next couple of years.

 

So when will Zinchenko hold down a first team place? Because actually he's the only other one with a realistic chance isn't he? Or should I say no chance. 

[Bredbury Blue]

6 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

No i can't , please explain.

 

'kin hell

[Bredbury Blue]

1 minute ago, RickG16 said:

I'll give you the massive benefit of the doubt, and assume that Foden becomes a first XI player over the next couple of years.

 

So when will Zinchenko hold down a first team place? Because actually he's the only other one with a realistic chance isn't he? Or should I say no chance. 

Will Foden make it? And by that I mean will he make it to a comparable level of a Silva or KDB and therefore have a starting place at City. Hard to say. Talented, but has a lot to learn. I'm 50/50 from what I've seen to date.

 

Zinchenko is clearly talented. I don't think he'll ever be a Silva or KDB but I can see him being to the level of Gundogan in time. By all accounts Zinchenko will be sold in the summer. Have to admit I really like him and he's doing the best he can as a fullback though he's way out of his league as a Premier LB. He's a very decent squad player, a first 15 player but not a first 11 player.

[mrbojangles]

3 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

I'll give you the massive benefit of the doubt, and assume that Foden becomes a first XI player over the next couple of years.

 

So when will Zinchenko hold down a first team place? Because actually he's the only other one with a realistic chance isn't he? Or should I say no chance. 

Sandler came on last night and looks very handy. TBH I don't see enough of the academy to know who's ready to break through

 

[alfieconn]

2 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

JADON SANCHO

Sancho cost us £66,000. He wanted to leave. City were desperate to keep hold of him, even reportedly offering him around £30,000 a week - a deal which would've been the biggest in the history of the club's academy. Contract discussions stalled so City made the decision to leave him out of the summer USA 2017 tour. In response, Sancho failed to turn up for training – HE EFFECTIVELY WENT ON STRIKE AND ENGINEERED HIS DEPARTURE. He refused to return so what choice did City have: make him sit out until he might give in and possibly lose out (sale value, relationship with Sancho (which we retained) OR sell him on. Sancho – who had never made a 1st team full appearance at that time - felt he had more chance of playing first team football elsewhere and wanted to leave. City sold him overseas (clearly didn’t want to sell him to a Premier rival) to Dortmund for £8m. At that £8m stage it was viewed as a reasonable price for a player who had only played junior level at club and country. City inserted a buyback clause in his Dortmund contract.

 

Why did he choose to leave? My opinion is that it was because he was behind Sane and Sterling for the left wing position and didn’t feel he could get the position off them so felt it better to move on. At that stage (or now in my opinion), he could not be considered as an equal to Sane, Sterling or yet-to-be-bought Mahrez. He was extremely raw still (I saw him play a few times for our juniors in their champions league tournament – he was exciting but raw).

 

Alfie stated “sold him for 8m and bought Mahrez for 60m,so it's cost them 52m for a player to play in the same position and who is 9 years older plus Mahrezs value has now depreciated and Sanchos value has increased so that another chunk of money that they have lost”. Actually as noted above, 18 yr old Sancho was up against our players who play on the left, i.e. 22 yr old Sane and 24 yr old  Sterling. Mahrez basically never plays left side! We had no choice but to sell a player who was determined to leave. So his point is incorrect.

 

Brahim Diaz

City bought him 5 years ago. He played as the creative midfield postion for the junior teams but has had to play wide right for the 1st team. Wide right he’s behind Sterling Mahrez and Bernardo. In midfield hes behind Silva KDB Gundogan and Foden. If he sticks around as we wanted him he would have continued to feature in cup games and minutes in the Premier. He too has decided to move on, IN MY OPINION, because he doesn’t think he can take a position off the players I mentioned. City have negotiated a great deal for a player out of contract in the summer.

But he plays on the right for Dortmond hence why i compared him with Mahrez, anyway all your waffling doesn't detract from the fact that he is probably as good as player as Mahrez is now, perhaps the management are at fault as they obviously didn't see anything in him that Dortmond did and certainly didn't see that he can play on the right. 

Anyway i wouldn't worry too much as it's only cost you 52m plus approx another 42m in appreciation / depreciation so not a hugh mistake ????

 

Incidently after all this time on here do you still not know how to quote someone ?

[alfieconn]

25 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Blimey. Your Ole' s rise from the ashes has made you a bit giddy. Club's put clauses in all the time. Particularly where rivals are concerned. If he goes to you we cash in, which makes it even better for us. Funded by United.

Name me one other club !

[RickG16]

Well that's fine, you don't seem to be too fussed with hanging on to (or developing) any kind of identity at your club. So I'll get on with the rest of my day ????

 

To develop young players fully you need to be prepared to suffer from their inconsistency. But in the long run, you can reap the benefits. 

[mrbojangles]

27 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Well that's fine, you don't seem to be too fussed with hanging on to (or developing) any kind of identity at your club. So I'll get on with the rest of my day ????

 

To develop young players fully you need to be prepared to suffer from their inconsistency. But in the long run, you can reap the benefits. 

You can't live off the "Class of 92" forever you know. That era has passed and you haven't been that successful with bringing that many more through. Yes, more than City have but you had an already successful academy.

[BangrakBob]

51 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

But he plays on the right for Dortmond hence why i compared him with Mahrez, anyway all your waffling doesn't detract from the fact that he is probably as good as player as Mahrez is now, perhaps the management are at fault as they obviously didn't see anything in him that Dortmond did and certainly didn't see that he can play on the right. 

Anyway i wouldn't worry too much as it's only cost you 52m plus approx another 42m in appreciation / depreciation so not a hugh mistake ????

 

Incidently after all this time on here do you still not know how to quote someone ?

Sancho is now keeping a lad out the Dortmund team that Chelsea have paid 58M for. It’s a massive cock up or as discussed, the multiple clubs owned and their academy are nothing more than puppy farms 

[RickG16]

49 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

That era has passed and you haven't been that successful with bringing that many more through. 

Rashford, Lingard and Pogba seem to be doing alright.

 

The Class of 92 didn't just happen without risks being taken. I remember hearing that Ince and Kanchelskis had been shipped out, and being appalled at the news! These youngsters simply can't flourish fully unless you bite the bullet and make room for them.

 

For that reason, I expect Lingard to start ahead of Alexis vs Spurs. 

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

But he plays on the right for Dortmond hence why i compared him with Mahrez, anyway all your waffling doesn't detract from the fact that he is probably as good as player as Mahrez is now, perhaps the management are at fault as they obviously didn't see anything in him that Dortmond did and certainly didn't see that he can play on the right. 

Anyway i wouldn't worry too much as it's only cost you 52m plus approx another 42m in appreciation / depreciation so not a hugh mistake ????

 

Incidently after all this time on here do you still not know how to quote someone ?

But Alfie he played on the left during his City days so ive explained to you why I believe he left (no pun intended) the club (because od Sane and Sterling) but lets assume he played on the right then he would have been behind Sterling and Bernardo and possibly Diaz. Incidentally Mahrez joined a year later - you do realise he's a past PFA Players' Player of the Year award don't you. Your comparing Sancho, a player of potential of about 30 games, with mahrez: maybe in the future he might be as good but a bit premature now don't you think if you intend making such comparisons.

 

Waffling? Informing you about something you had no idea about. You probably thiught City sold him because they wanted to...titter.

 

So Alfie how should a club like City keep very tanted players like Sancho and Diaz at the club if they're not currently  good enough to hold down a position but they aren't willing to hang around until they've got to the stage where they are?

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, RickG16 said:

Well that's fine, you don't seem to be too fussed with hanging on to (or developing) any kind of identity at your club. So I'll get on with the rest of my day ????

 

To develop young players fully you need to be prepared to suffer from their inconsistency. But in the long run, you can reap the benefits. 

You don't seem to be understanding the situation. City wanted to sign extended contracts while they develop but THOSE TWO PLAYERS have chose not to stick around. Why haven't  they stuck around? Well it's  either impatience  to get 1st team football  somewhere or they don't  think or are unsure that they can nail down a 1st team position at City - i think its the latter. Do you see now the difference between my explanation of the situation  at City and your misunderstanding  of the situation? 

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, BangrakBob said:

Sancho is now keeping a lad out the Dortmund team that Chelsea have paid 58M for. It’s a massive cock up or as discussed, the multiple clubs owned and their academy are nothing more than puppy farms 

What's  a massive cock up Bob? 

[RickG16]

12 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 are unsure that they can nail down a 1st team position at City 

Exactly... because they know that the bigger money players in their mid to late 20s won't be sacrificed for a younger player that could make more mistakes.

 

If you have enough money, your model can work, but only for a certain amount of time. I believe that a model which prioritises young players' development is the better long term option. You end up with individuals who love and understand the club, and can pass that down to future generations. 

 

I think the league table shows your model can be better in the short term. But I'm not so sure it can be consistently successful. Basically due to player discontent; both younger players disenchanted that they won't be given the chances to break through, and bigger money players who don't get enough games.

Edited January 7, 2019 by RickG16

[BangrakBob]

1 hour ago, RickG16 said:

Exactly... because they know that the bigger money players in their mid to late 20s won't be sacrificed for a younger player that could make more mistakes.

 

If you have enough money, your model can work, but only for a certain amount of time. I believe that a model which prioritises young players' development is the better long term option. You end up with individuals who love and understand the club, and can pass that down to future generations. 

 

I think the league table shows your model can be better in the short term. But I'm not so sure it can be consistently successful. Basically due to player discontent; both younger players disenchanted that they won't be given the chances to break through, and bigger money players who don't get enough games.

It doesn’t matter that they let a player go for buttons and he is now worth more than Pullisic, the model does work across the board.

They have clubs around the globe developing and selling off young talent. Even if you don’t cut it at City you are getting gigs at Real Madrid or Dortmund off the back of being at City.

Most established players that go to City go for the money, play or don’t play they all don’t seem that arsed. How many established players walk away from a City pay day to go to a bigger club, not on that wedge they don’t. 

Loving and understanding a club days are fading, you get a player for x amount of time and that’s it, his career is about him not your club. 

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, RickG16 said:

Exactly... because they know that the bigger money players in their mid to late 20s won't be sacrificed for a younger player that could make more mistakes.

 

If you have enough money, your model can work, but only for a certain amount of time. I believe that a model which prioritises young players' development is the better long term option. You end up with individuals who love and understand the club, and can pass that down to future generations. 

 

I think the league table shows your model can be better in the short term. But I'm not so sure it can be consistently successful. Basically due to player discontent; both younger players disenchanted that they won't be given the chances to break through, and bigger money players who don't get enough games.

Sancho didn't fancy it and moved on.

 

Diaz is Spanish and been tempted by the biggest club in Spain (the world?) so i think we can understand why he's leaving us.

 

Foden is living the dream playing for HIS team during their most successful  and is prepared to stick around  and fight for his place.

 

All are different, not same same as you are trying to make out.

[RickG16]

1 hour ago, BangrakBob said:

It doesn’t matter that they let a player go for buttons and he is now worth more than Pullisic, the model does work across the board.

They have clubs around the globe developing and selling off young talent. Even if you don’t cut it at City you are getting gigs at Real Madrid or Dortmund off the back of being at City.

Most established players that go to City go for the money, play or don’t play they all don’t seem that arsed. How many established players walk away from a City pay day to go to a bigger club, not on that wedge they don’t. 

Loving and understanding a club days are fading, you get a player for x amount of time and that’s it, his career is about him not your club. 

They won a league last season and look unlikely to retain it. They look no closer to winning a CL. The club which spends the most (on academy, staff, players, the whole lot) in English football isn't able to dominate English football. So for me the model isn't working. And can't bring sustainable success. 

 

We've already given everyone the blueprint on how to be the most successful club in the country for a long period. Largely, it's been ignored. Spurs are the closest to have nailed it, but failed to supplement the homegrown talent with genuine world class buys.

 

Hopefully now we will go back to using our own blueprint. 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by RickG16

[Bredbury Blue]

23 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

They won a league last season and look unlikely to retain it. They look no closer to winning a CL. The club which spends the most (on academy, staff, players, the whole lot) in English football isn't able to dominate English football. So for the model isn't working. And can't bring sustainable success. 

 

We've already given everyone the blueprint on how to be the most successful club in the country for a long period. Largely, it's been ignored. Spurs are the closest to have nailed it, but failed to supplement the homegrown talent with genuine world class buys.

 

Hopefully now we will go back to using our own blueprint. 

 

 

Wow Rick, and they call us the bitters. You seem to have some bottled aggression spewing out these past few weeks: probably coincides with your recent upturn with the return of the messiah, OGS. Don't see you having much of a go at Liverpool - aren't they your big rivals afterall. What's really going on in your world? ????

 

You talking about Liccle Old City dominating the football world, well while that would be nice WE'VE never expected it to happen. If we can just (1) continue doing better than the biggest team in england (but geographically just outside Manchester) every season and (2) keep winning trophies on a regular basis then we'll be very happy Man City fans. ????

 

You're turning it to one of those TV football thread protagonists. That's  not a good thing mate.

[RickG16]

27 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 What's really going on in your world? ????

 

???? Not a great deal of excitement today, hence my increased post count 

 

28 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

You're turning it to one of those TV football thread protagonists. That's  not a good thing mate.

 Not at all. I think it's a relevant debate worth having.

 

Bob thinks that the City model is a success because you are generating money from the academy production line. To me a football club doesn't exist to make money. The reason it exists is because of the fans.

 

You are happy if the City model is bringing you a trophy here and there. I think with the amount you've spent for years, your ceiling should be much higher. But having said that I'm not too surprised by your lack of ambition. 

[Kadilo]

 Need to rename it the Green thread. 

[Bredbury Blue]

8 hours ago, RickG16 said:

???? Not a great deal of excitement today, hence my increased post count 

 

 Not at all. I think it's a relevant debate worth having.

 

Bob thinks that the City model is a success because you are generating money from the academy production line. To me a football club doesn't exist to make money. The reason it exists is because of the fans.

 

You are happy if the City model is bringing you a trophy here and there. I think with the amount you've spent for years, your ceiling should be much higher. But having said that I'm not too surprised by your lack of ambition. 

Football fans like to think that the club exists because of them. Owners of some football clubs seem to think differently. (Blackpool, Newcastle, ManU during the yankie owner out phase, etc).

 

City's owners ceiling is probably as high or higher than ManUs owners judging by their respective  investments these past 10 years - the Glazers dont seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at making you at top team.

 

Personally I'm happy if we can do better than ManU each season and if we can win the Premier; im not too fussed about the CL, much rather be champions of England over 38 games than win the european  semi league / knockout cup thingy, honestly.

 

Whats your ambition as a ManU fan? Guessing its quite low based on the past 5 years of toil. Finish above Arsenal im guessing and within 10 points of City.

[smokie36]

What Rick says above regarding the team model is absolutely correct although where Utd's youth player wheels came off is unclear.

 

I hope the same does not happen at Spurs as our conveyor belt is at full tilt right now!

[carmine]

26 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

What Rick says above regarding the team model is absolutely correct although where Utd's youth player wheels came off is unclear.

 

I hope the same does not happen at Spurs as our conveyor belt is at full tilt right now!

It won't. The direction we were going was made clear a few years ago when we invested 40m in a new training complex, rated by some journalists i've read as the best they have seen.  Now you see Winks, Skipp, Walker-Peters, Amos and Kane. I can think of three more that will be seen next season. 

[mrbojangles]

2 hours ago, RonniePickering22 said:

What Rick says above regarding the team model is absolutely correct although where Utd's youth player wheels came off is unclear.

Don't be lazy Ronnie. Quote the bit you agree with

[carmine]

14 hours ago, RickG16 said:

They won a league last season and look unlikely to retain it. They look no closer to winning a CL. The club which spends the most (on academy, staff, players, the whole lot) in English football isn't able to dominate English football. So for me the model isn't working. And can't bring sustainable success. 

 

We've already given everyone the blueprint on how to be the most successful club in the country for a long period. Largely, it's been ignored. Spurs are the closest to have nailed it, but failed to supplement the homegrown talent with genuine world class buys.

 

Hopefully now we will go back to using our own blueprint. 

 

 

City look unlikely to retain the league title?!!!!  Its halfway through the season and that's just nonsense.

 

They look no closer to winning the CL?!!  What are you smoking!!! Utter tosh! They are one of the favorites and look every bit the real deal to win it.

 

As far as giving everyone the blueprint i'm presuming you mean its was all down to Ferguson and him being given a lot of cash when he wanted it.

[mrbojangles]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 5:36 PM, Bredbury Blue said:

Another period, when City were away on a saturday, we'd  go watch Rochdale or Oldham or Bolton (never went to Bury).

Rochdale play City U21's tonight in the Checkatrade Trophy