Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
In that case, might as well leave him there the rest of the season on the off chance he gets injured playing for us.
FFS Jim.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Antoine Semenyo | Medical at City Thursday - Sky (p230)
- Thread starter Rodri’s ACL
- Start date
FFS Jim.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
I’d rather him score the winner for us and secure us the 3 points we need than him play for Bournemouth.100%.
The cards have dropped nicely for us to have an ‘inside man’ this Sunday.
Why anyone would want him on our bench or to play 60min v Chelsea instead of him playing V Arsenal needs to give their head a wobble.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Agreed. He could get a long term injury meaning he’s then worth fuck all to them.You see I don’t fully get why Bournemouth want him v Arsenal. It’s like playing a player with a niggle (as Pep would say) It looked very much like goodbye v Chelsea and he has apparently stated he wants to move to City before the Arsenal game. From a psychological point of view they would be playing a player with no desire to be there and probably concerned that he is one bad tackle from his dream move collapsing.
Form Bournemouth’s point of view the only thing I can think of is that if he was to get injured they ultimately make more money as the £65 million clause would run out after 10th January.
There is literally no world where him staying and playing against Arsenal is better than him just signing for us and cracking on.
Paul Moulden's Golden Balls
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 May 2014
- Messages
- 185
- Team supported
- MCFC OK
88? Did she take her teeth out?BJ 88, Gran Canaria if I remember correctly, always remembered Glaswegian (girls) fondly ever since
Vester
Well-Known Member
By that logic there is no point of ever picking any of your best players since they could get injured.He could get a long term injury meaning he’s then worth fuck all to them.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
If he was staying with them yes. He isn’t, he’s leaving. They’d be beyond mental to risk the deal falling through. As would we.By that logic there is no point of ever picking any of your best players since they could get injured.
Vester
Well-Known Member
I could understand your argument if Bournemouth was desperate to sell. It seems to me like they are more being forced to sell because of his release clause and would prefer not to sell him at all this window.If he was staying with them yes. He isn’t, he’s leaving. They’d be beyond mental to risk the deal falling through. As would we.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant. The bottom line is they are selling him and getting 65m for him. Business.I could understand your argument if Bournemouth was desperate to sell. It seems to me like they are more being forced to sell because of his release clause and would prefer not to sell him at all this window.
Sk@mcfc
Well-Known Member
People do realise we’re only a few hours into the window don’t they
Protein Junkie
Well-Known Member
Because they are Welsh and also not in the Cartel although the latter started out at the Dippers.Class little player. Him and Harry Wilson at Fulham are mad underrated.
Vester
Well-Known Member
Since there is no downside in playing him they will obviously keep doing it until he is sold. If the "downside" is that they will get to keep him, they would probably consider that as a win. Only reason not to play him is if they are desperate for the deal to go through and/or the players head is not in the right state of mind.Irrelevant. The bottom line is they are selling him and getting 65m for him. Business.
Last edited:
Protein Junkie
Well-Known Member
Ben White is not the Pope.Taking any notice, or giving any credibility, to anything anyone on Sky Sports says. They'd tell you that the pope was an orange man, and expect you to believe them.
hilts
Well-Known Member
If he is coming here he would be mad to play tbh. Too much of a risk for the lad.
Marvin.
Well-Known Member
They could ask him to play. I think he's going to.If he is coming here he would be mad to play tbh. Too much of a risk for the lad.
come-on-barney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 12,309
They could ask him to play. I think he's going to.
If he didn’t go back on the team coach, his reaction to fans and team players, would be a surprise if he isn’t already in Manchester.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Yeah i get that, he would be daft to play though. Also if they think anything of him its a bit shitty tbh.They could ask him to play. I think he's going to.
GX Blue
Well-Known Member
I’d rather him score the winner for us and secure us the 3 points we need than him play for Bournemouth.
You not think we’ll beat Chelsea with our current team who has won 8 in a row?
I’d rather we beat Chelsea anyway and then Bournemouth have a much better chance at a win/draw with him playing.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
I’m guessing he means “imagine” rather than “assume”No, I don't think so. I'm sure I read somewhere that, come 10 o'clock tonight, every PL club will have played 18 of the remaining 19 clubs (one of them twice). This coming weekend will see the remaining club crossed off the list. City, for example; come FT tonight, we'll have played Sunderland twice. But we haven't played Chelsea yet. I'm assuming it's the same for every club? I think it has something to do with simplifying the compilation of the coming season's fixtures at the end of the previous season.
We have no idea do we ,everyone is guessing and putting forward imaginary scenarios. None of us know whether there is a release clause for the summer or there isn’t.If there isn’t and he gets up to 25 + G/A he could go for more, of he loses form and goes for less.
Besides none of this is down to Bournemouth it’s out of their hands,We could trigger the move tomorrow and its done, or we negotiate with Bournemouth for better terms and he plays Saturday.Balls in our court.
Ornstein reported the summer release clause in November. Pretty much as good as read.
Agree with all the rest. I think we're doing what we often do - get complete assurance from the player that we are their only choice and use that as a tool to negotiate the fee to our needs. In this case, I think it's that we aren't wanting to pay the release clause in 1 hit and would prefer a delayed payment structure. But if push comes to shove, we'll activate the clause before the 10th.
jimharri
Well-Known Member
Possibly. But I can only take him at what he said.I’m guessing he means “imagine” rather than “assume”