Jorginho

[deano ou812]

Sanchez. We've just got Mahrez due to missing out on Sanchez again. Missed out on Laporte, ended up with Stones and Laporte. Missed out on Ter Stegen, after a year of Bravo we got Ederson. Missed out on Villa, got Silva. Missed out on a crocked 34 year old Dani Alves, got Danilo.

Cheers mate that’s right Sanchez it was,that worked out ok and so did the others ...

 

[richards30]

That's my recollection, too, but others are now disputing it.

Sam has said on the last ninetythreetwenty podcast though recently that Fred was always the number one target still but tolmie disputes that! Lol

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Sanchez. We've just got Mahrez due to missing out on Sanchez again. Missed out on Laporte, ended up with Stones and Laporte. Missed out on Ter Stegen, after a year of Bravo we got Ederson. Missed out on Villa, got Silva. Missed out on a crocked 34 year old Dani Alves, got Danilo.

Missed out on Hazard, got Scott Sinclair. :)

 

[Banned Tosspot]

Sam has said on the last ninetythreetwenty podcast though recently that Fred was always the number one target still but tolmie disputes that! Lol

Sam Lee does get a lot right.

 

[TRUE BLUE NO1]

Im missing something here. Why is it fair to say the issue belongs with us?

The issue is we should never have briefed it was a "ruse" and he had "no contact with Chelsea" when the facts (that were in the public domain at the time of the briefing told a different story)....As Tolmie just said mate....."It may emerge as City being lied to, but at this stage, nothing warrants us believing something is gospel and still briefing"

In my opinion, this issue belongs with us because, not only was the brief incorrect, it seemed poor judgement to brief the press without knowing all the facts.

Again, not slagging off the club just an observation mate...

 

[kaz7]

It depends on the price of his replacement?

Sterling has improved massively under Pep but you can see the frustration he can cause, look at Pep's face after Sterling's misses in the derby.

Pep said to sky he can forgive anything including misses if the players run for each other,sky showed a graphic showing how many goals raz and sane had been invoived in v last season and it was a huge jump for both of them,raz still has a way to go but he'll get there

 

[aguero93:20]

It depends on the price of his replacement?

Sterling has improved massively under Pep but you can see the frustration he can cause, look at Pep's face after Sterling's misses in the derby.

It doesn't depend on the price of a ready made replacement as we're a buying club and unless the market collapses a replacement will always cost more than that. We could buy a project, but we'd still want our market value for Sterling and that market has more than doubled since we paid £44m for him.

 

[aguero93:20]

Missed out on Hazard, got Scott Sinclair. :)

Win some, lose some :)

 

[Plain Speaking]

It doesn't depend on the price of a ready made replacement as we're a buying club and unless the market collapses a replacement will always cost more than that. We could buy a project, but we'd still want our market value for Sterling and that market has more than doubled since we paid £44m for him.

As I said in my editted post above Brandt at £36m looks very decent from his cameo's at the WC

 

[deano ou812]

Missed out on Hazard, got Scott Sinclair. :)

Lol.

 

[aguero93:20]

The issue is we should never have briefed it was a "ruse" and he had "no contact with Chelsea" when the facts (that were in the public domain at the time of the briefing told a different story)....As Tolmie just said mate....."It may emerge as City being lied to, but at this stage, nothing warrants us believing something is gospel and still briefing"

In my opinion, this issue belongs with us because, not only was the brief incorrect, it seemed poor judgement to brief the press without knowing all the facts.

Again, not slagging off the club just an observation mate...

You don't know that the brief was incorrect, you've just chosen to take a proven liar's words over the club's brief. When City know that a player is going to another club or that a value is being asked that they've no interest in meeting, they make it very clear publicly that they're walking away. I'd take the club at their word before De Laurentagob.

 

[chaddblue]

Win some, lose some :)

Or in that particular case you lose some you lose some

 

[aguero93:20]

As I said in my editted post above Brandt at £36m looks very decent from his cameo's at the WC

He's not a patch on Sterling. Doesn't have the movement.

 

[aguero93:20]

Or in that particular case you lose some you lose some

That was the lose some. My earlier post contained the wins.

 

[mosssideblue]

The issue is we should never have briefed it was a "ruse" and he had "no contact with Chelsea" when the facts (that were in the public domain at the time of the briefing told a different story)....As Tolmie just said mate....."It may emerge as City being lied to, but at this stage, nothing warrants us believing something is gospel and still briefing"

In my opinion, this issue belongs with us because, not only was the brief incorrect, it seemed poor judgement to brief the press without knowing all the facts.

Again, not slagging off the club just an observation mate...

How reputable were the"public domain" sources. You are blaming city because you are stating we issued a brief without knowing the facts. What facts did the club have?

 

[mosssideblue]

Pep said to sky he can forgive anything including misses if the players run for each other,sky showed a graphic showing how many goals raz and sane had been invoived in v last season and it was a huge jump for both of them,raz still has a way to go but he'll get there

Jorginho thread :)

 

[mosssideblue]

You don't know that the brief was incorrect, you've just chosen to take a proven liar's words over the club's brief. When City know that a player is going to another club or that a value is being asked that they've no interest in meeting, they make it very clear publicly that they're walking away. I'd take the club at their word before De Laurentagob.

That's better than the way I have asked him the same question

 

[kaz7]

The issue is we should never have briefed it was a "ruse" and he had "no contact with Chelsea" when the facts (that were in the public domain at the time of the briefing told a different story)....As Tolmie just said mate....."It may emerge as City being lied to, but at this stage, nothing warrants us believing something is gospel and still briefing"

In my opinion, this issue belongs with us because, not only was the brief incorrect, it seemed poor judgement to brief the press without knowing all the facts.

Again, not slagging off the club just an observation mate...

You are consistent in blaming city i'll give you that

 

[kaz7]

Jorginho thread :)

Just adding something to the other posters post

 

[BlueDeadHead]

Fair. I wasn't aware our main interest was because Jorginho wasn't available at that time.

Edit: Also, "a lie?" Come on. There's so much going around transfers that it's hard to know all the facts all the time. There's no call to say I'm a liar.

Fair enough, but it was widely reported at the time and plenty on here are willfully ignoring the facts to push their agenda. If you aren't, my apologies.