Are we dining at the top table or not?

[SilverFox2]

we couldn't replace Nastasic unless we brought in a mercenary happy to sit out CL or an English player.

we couldn't replace Negredo unless we brought in a mercenary happy to sit out CL or an English player.

Neither of which are suitable options this summer.

All we have to do this season is make Top 3. Make Top 3 and we get the BT CL money, and deprive one of the old guard from having it, they know this and are desperate to climb in the trap door at anyone's expense. I reckon we will have comfortably at least £100m to spend next summer, if not more, and will 2 or 3 marquee players.

We will also have room, when our restrictions are lifted, to buy 1 foreign player without needing to replace, meaning that we can go all out for a star with no concerns. I reckon we will buy a HG star like Barkley, and then we can sit back and watch who's suffering. Whoever missed out on 4th will have a hard time keeping stars, as Real and Barca will swoop for a Ramsey, Sterling etc. and the likes of Sanchez wouldn't want to hang around, thus opening the market for us, either to then buy them up or pick off the players Real and Barca want to offload, which they would have to do.

Perform on the pitch this season and we set ourselves up and firmly shut the trapdoor on the old guard trying to throw us out, because we will then have too much money, and no restrictions, to hinder us, and we will become part of the elite and start being able to sign marquee players as and when we want, and the squad has already been set up to allow this. We are also going to get to the stage where we've got through the academy age groups who have suffered because of the pace of change, and we can already see that even a few of those are being sold on or loaned out to good clubs for a nice fee, but in the next couple of years we'll start to see a few genuine talents emerging and within 5 imo genuinely 2 or 3 make a very game attempt at breaking in as a first team regular.

I think we're setting up very sensibly, we just have to get the players we have to avoid another Stoke at home, the only way we can fuck this up is on the pitch, top 3 and we're sorted.

Excellent analysis JMW. Our club has NEVER in it's history been in more capable hands from top to bottom than it currently is. Nobody is perfect and I'm sure that Txiki, Ferran, Khaldoon, Pellegrini, Marwood, Kloss, the entire board will make the occasional bad decision. They're human. But overall and in terms of our long term health, I wouldn't swap the people running our club for anyone else's decision makers.

I'd like to hear from anyone who would prefer someone else's board of directors and I'd like to hear why they think those people would do a better job or make better decisions.

As you say the entire board.

It should also be remembered that unlike most other clubs the board are answerable to a higher authority (Sheik M.).
Their collective and individual decisions are scrutinised by the person who originally brought them together to invest on his behalf.

Seems unlikely any loose cannon would scupper City's forward progress.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

That's fine, if Nastasic's City career is over then we should have got him out earlier in the summer and got in a replacement imo. If we couldn't do that then we hang on to him and at least we have back up with some Prem experience. What we shouldn't have been doing is trying to get rid at the last minute with no chance to get in a replacement (recurring theme).

We already have a replacement. Boyata. Our H/G quota has dictated this in part as well. Thus it's utterly irrelevant when in the summer he goes. Same as with Negredo (recurring theme).

Yes we won the league last year even though Kompany had injuries but my point is that we had 4 senior centre backs last season, that's how we coped with the injuries at the back. Yet last night we were close to being left with 3.

Was there ever a time where both MdM and Vinny were both unavailable? I don't believe there was so it was a straight choice between Lescott and Nastasic. Now it's a straight choice between Boyata and Mangala, if Mangala doesn't establish himself as first choice which I believe he will.

Again this just seems to be you thinking you know more than the highly paid technical staff we have who actually train with the players week in and week out and know who they rate, who they don't rate, what eventualities are covered for, and who's covering them.

Yes my "flapping" is predicated on us getting injuries because injuries are a reality that happen to all clubs. I'm not interested in Boyata, if we end up using him as centre back in the Prem much this season then we won't win it, simple as that. If you think I'm just moaning and flapping then that's fine, personally I think it is constructive criticism to question being left with 3 strikers when we play 2 up front and attempts to leave us with 3 senior centre halves when we always play 2 in a match. As for Negredo's wishes, well I was quite happy for us to let him go, but we should have made it clear that to some extent it had to be on our terms ie done early enough to get in a replacement or tough shit.

Yes, I think you're flapping. No i don't think you're being particularly constructive, especially when you unilaterally dismiss Boyata and say if we has to play in the PL we won't win it. When you are basically questioning the sense of the people paid to make huge decisions and long term decisions, based on your short term insecurity about injuries. As you say injuries occur at all clubs and if we're short of quality, then so are Chelsea. What happens if Terry or Cahill get injured? Ivanovic better than Mangala? Who comes behind him? What about Liverpool? What are their centre half options? Better than ours?

Get some perspective and man up.

Your point about Chelsea is bollocks. They have Kurt Zouma who I think I'd just about prefer to Boyata as a back up being that one wasn't good enough to nail down a place at Bolton and the other is one of the best up and coming centre backs in Europe. I'm not bothered about comparing our squad balance/depth to Liverpool's because I don't believe they have enough depth to challenge this season right at the top anyway whilst being in the CL, whereas we are trying to win the league and go as far as possible in CL. This is all moot anyway as Nastasic stayed (luck not judgement on our part imo) but I think my question isn't unreasonable, why were we actively trying to leave ourselves with 3 decent, reasonably experienced centre backs? Last season we had plenty of time where we had two centre halves out admittedly one of those was Nastasic but the point is that getting 2 injuries at centre back is far from improbable. Do you remember what it was like last Autumn/winter when we were going for 4 trophies, it was absolutely relentless and injuries just became inevitable not just a bit of bad luck here and there. You may be happy with Boyata, I think he is way off being good enough. And I can guarantee I'm not flapping, it is possible to be question things that happen at the club without it being flapping. In fact I'd say you are being incredibly lazy to make that accusation when I am clearly being constructive and just questioning something and giving arguments as to why I'm concerned. It is generally accepted that our real strong point is our strength in depth, it was what won us the league in the end in what was an outrageously demanding season. Looking at our CL group, I think this season is going to be just as demanding. Nastasic's City career may be "over" but I for one am incredibly relieved that he chose not to accept the moves on offer.

 

[OB1]

I am a big admirer of Txiki and Ferran – shit, I even like Marwood – but I do not consider them infallible and only time will tell whether they have erred in this instance.

What I do know is that we entered last weekend with what I considered to be the league’s best set of strikers and a few short days later we may not even have the second best set of strikers. That is not my idea of squad improvement; it is my idea of taking a risk, albeit that it may only be a short-term risk.
The risk is that we have injury problems with our strikers before we get to January, which is not an inconsequential risk given the track records of both Aguero and Jovetic. City also face the risk that they will not be able to bag a suitable replacement in January.

On the other hand, we know that Negredo was going to have limited availability prior to the opening of the next transfer window. In the meantime, City may be able to draft Iheanacho, who looks to be a precocious talent, into the squad. However, nothing is guaranteed in that regard.

Given how much we are getting for Negredo, it could ultimately look like a smart piece of business but it seemed to be an open secret that he was unsettled in England and therefore the club should have planned for this eventuality. Whether Falcao was ever part of such planning seems unclear but, as a fan, the idea of strengthening the squad by upgrading to him from The Beast was floated before us only to be well and truly ripped away by him pitching up at the Rags and that leaves a sour taste for now. That said, if the numbers being quoted are right, I can see why City would have baulked at the deal but it still doesn’t sweeten matters. What does matter is that we do not look back and rue this when prize-giving time comes around again.

Floated before us by who though! Certainly was;nt the club and lets be real, if City wanted him he'd be a City player right now, The Rags where 3rd choice and they where so desperate to try and appease their fans that they'd literally let themselves be raped by Falcaos Agent and Monaco, oh how times have changed, we in the meantime done our required business when others where sleeping,

Doesn't matter who floated the idea: I am just talking about the emotions of supporters.

The likelihood that if City had wanted Falcao, they would probably have got him is of no consolation to anyone who got the teeniest bit excited about the possibility of fielding an Aguero / Falcao front two. Personally, I never expected to sign Falcao (the proof is on Twitter) but as much as your head knew that and as much as one can see that the price was not right, I cannot find any joy in the prospect of facing rather than fielding Falcao in the next Derby...


What is significant though whether City have taken a risk that will not be rewarded?

 

[BillyShears]

I thought we were doing precisely that. Questioning the timing of selling Negrado with no time to get adequate cover and whether potentially weakening our strike force will come back to bite us when it comes to prize giving day. Refer to OB1's post for a detailed summary.

Check out my previous post. I don't believe we were ever intending to sign a replacement for Negredo due to the CL restrictions. More likely the Falcao deal just happened to be one which we were willing to do probably because the mercenary fuck was prepared to sit out another season in the CL. A, lets say, very unique situation.

 

[BobKowalski]

Spot on, City where never on the lookout for Falcao, he was put up to us by his Agent and we would have been foolish to not even listen to terms requested, as it is there is no way on this earth that we would do the deal that Utd have with him and I suspect same could come out regarding Arsenal.

I doubt any of us actually know how serious or not we were with the Falcao deal. We do know that to make things happen with the Falcao deal we had to offload a striker and the Negrado deal started to hot up at the same time. We also know that Pellers wants/needs 4 strikers because he has said so. Now he has 3. We may buy in January, we may be pinning our hopes on a 17 y/o but we have taken justifiable satisfaction at how we plan our squad in terms of shape and balance so this deal does look at odds with that ethos. As for maximising transfer value with a last minute deal well that is poor planning given an earlier sale at a million or two less but securing adequate cover makes more sense from a footballing perspective. Leave the last minute crap to Daniel Levy.

I agree with Blue2112 that the Negrado deal went too far for it to be walked back and it made more sense for it to go through then kill it but it still leave Pellers short of his desired striker quota.

The point is that maybe there was never any intention of signing a replacement for Negredo. The Falcao deal just happened to be one which was doable and worthwhile in that instance.

Just because Pellegrini says "I want four strikers" doesn't mean he genuinely feels that way. Watch him say next week either "Silva and Yaya can both play there so I'm not worried" or "Kelechi is someone who wanted to give a chance to and we had no intention of signing another player". Either way, the timing of Negredo's sale is only problematic if you believe City were desperate for a replacement for him, which would seem odd when that replacement would more than likely not even be registered in the CL squad this season. As I say, the most likely scenario is that Falcao being available and Negredo wanting to leave at the same time was coincidental. City would've let Negredo go regardless if their valuation was met.

No shit. You think Pellers will dismiss any questions or suggestions that selling Negrado weakens us or cannot be adequately covered? Well guess what so do I. Of course he is going to spin it that way. It does weaken us though. It may not matter come prize giving day but it is legitimate to question the sale given the manager's oft stated need for 4 strikers and more pertinently the timing given it is at odds with our SOP to date.

 

[Danamy]

I don't see the two connected to be honest

As i said in the transfer forum i still don't believe we were ever in for Falcao, he may have been offered to us with all the noise was coming from Mendes but with them weekly prices you can see why City told him to do one.

The Negredo deal was always going to happen with him wanting the move and the figures being right for both club and player, if it's the right move only time will tell.

Spot on, City where never on the lookout for Falcao, he was put up to us by his Agent and we would have been foolish to not even listen to terms requested, as it is there is no way on this earth that we would do the deal that Utd have with him and I suspect same could come out regarding Arsenal.

I doubt any of us actually know how serious or not we were with the Falcao deal. We do know that to make things happen with the Falcao deal we had to offload a striker and the Negrado deal started to hot up at the same time. We also know that Pellers wants/needs 4 strikers because he has said so. Now he has 3. We may buy in January, we may be pinning our hopes on a 17 y/o but we have taken justifiable satisfaction at how we plan our squad in terms of shape and balance so this deal does look at odds with that ethos. As for maximising transfer value with a last minute deal well that is poor planning given an earlier sale at a million or two less but securing adequate cover makes more sense from a footballing perspective. Leave the last minute crap to Daniel Levy.

I agree with Blue2112 that the Negrado deal went too far for it to be walked back and it made more sense for it to go through then kill it but it still leave Pellers short of his desired striker quota.

The Negredo to Valencia deal started to hot up a couple of weeks ago, it was always going to happen if the deal was right for both club and player, that question was answered last night.

I don't see the big issue with only having 3 strikers, everyone's favourites including mine (Chelsea) are only running with 3 strikers, Costa, Drogba and Remy, i know which three i'd rather have.

 

[OB1]

I doubt any of us actually know how serious or not we were with the Falcao deal. We do know that to make things happen with the Falcao deal we had to offload a striker and the Negrado deal started to hot up at the same time. We also know that Pellers wants/needs 4 strikers because he has said so. Now he has 3. We may buy in January, we may be pinning our hopes on a 17 y/o but we have taken justifiable satisfaction at how we plan our squad in terms of shape and balance so this deal does look at odds with that ethos. As for maximising transfer value with a last minute deal well that is poor planning given an earlier sale at a million or two less but securing adequate cover makes more sense from a footballing perspective. Leave the last minute crap to Daniel Levy.

I agree with Blue2112 that the Negrado deal went too far for it to be walked back and it made more sense for it to go through then kill it but it still leave Pellers short of his desired striker quota.

The point is that maybe there was never any intention of signing a replacement for Negredo. The Falcao deal just happened to be one which was doable and worthwhile in that instance.

Just because Pellegrini says "I want four strikers" doesn't mean he genuinely feels that way. Watch him say next week either "Silva and Yaya can both play there so I'm not worried" or "Kelechi is someone who wanted to give a chance to and we had no intention of signing another player". Either way, the timing of Negredo's sale is only problematic if you believe City were desperate for a replacement for him, which would seem odd when that replacement would more than likely not even be registered in the CL squad this season. As I say, the most likely scenario is that Falcao being available and Negredo wanting to leave at the same time was coincidental. City would've let Negredo go regardless if their valuation was met.

No shit. You think Pellers will dismiss any questions or suggestions that selling Negrado weakens us or cannot be adequately covered? Well guess what so do I. Of course he is going to spin it that way. It does weaken us though. It may not matter come prize giving day but it is legitimate to question the sale given the manager's oft stated need for 4 strikers and more pertinently the timing given it is at odds with our SOP to date.

Bloody hell, Bob, we are on the same page ;-)

 

[BillyShears]

No shit. You think Pellers will dismiss any questions or suggestions that selling Negrado weakens us or cannot be adequately covered? Well guess what so do I. Of course he is going to spin it that way. It does weaken us though. It may not matter come prize giving day but it is legitimate to question the sale given the manager's oft stated need for 4 strikers and more pertinently the timing given it is at odds with our SOP to date.

It's not spin. It's a fact. Yaya and Silva can both play off a forward. Many on here screamed for Pellegrini to do that more last season because it can be seen as more effective. Well now they may get their wish. His oft stated two players for every position is a fantastic way to make the whole squad feel very important and to ensure that anyone wishing to take a first team player will have to pay serious money.

 

[Henkeman]

Spot on, City where never on the lookout for Falcao, he was put up to us by his Agent and we would have been foolish to not even listen to terms requested, as it is there is no way on this earth that we would do the deal that Utd have with him and I suspect same could come out regarding Arsenal.

I doubt any of us actually know how serious or not we were with the Falcao deal. We do know that to make things happen with the Falcao deal we had to offload a striker and the Negrado deal started to hot up at the same time. We also know that Pellers wants/needs 4 strikers because he has said so. Now he has 3. We may buy in January, we may be pinning our hopes on a 17 y/o but we have taken justifiable satisfaction at how we plan our squad in terms of shape and balance so this deal does look at odds with that ethos. As for maximising transfer value with a last minute deal well that is poor planning given an earlier sale at a million or two less but securing adequate cover makes more sense from a footballing perspective. Leave the last minute crap to Daniel Levy.

I agree with Blue2112 that the Negrado deal went too far for it to be walked back and it made more sense for it to go through then kill it but it still leave Pellers short of his desired striker quota.

The Negredo to Valencia deal started to hot up a couple of weeks ago, it was always going to happen if the deal was right for both club and player, that question was answered last night.

I don't see the big issue with only having 3 strikers, everyone's favourites including mine (Chelsea) are only running with 3 strikers, Costa, Drogba and Remy, i know which three i'd rather have.

The issue is that everyone got used to four - but you're right about that, and if I remember rightly, for the first year or so of City having that many the media and pundits would constantly question how City intended to keep all those strikers happy if they didn't play regularly. It was not felt to be normal or even desirable, only the matter of City managing it well (allied to injuries) stopped those criticisms.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

The point is that maybe there was never any intention of signing a replacement for Negredo. The Falcao deal just happened to be one which was doable and worthwhile in that instance.

Just because Pellegrini says "I want four strikers" doesn't mean he genuinely feels that way. Watch him say next week either "Silva and Yaya can both play there so I'm not worried" or "Kelechi is someone who wanted to give a chance to and we had no intention of signing another player". Either way, the timing of Negredo's sale is only problematic if you believe City were desperate for a replacement for him, which would seem odd when that replacement would more than likely not even be registered in the CL squad this season. As I say, the most likely scenario is that Falcao being available and Negredo wanting to leave at the same time was coincidental. City would've let Negredo go regardless if their valuation was met.

No shit. You think Pellers will dismiss any questions or suggestions that selling Negrado weakens us or cannot be adequately covered? Well guess what so do I. Of course he is going to spin it that way. It does weaken us though. It may not matter come prize giving day but it is legitimate to question the sale given the manager's oft stated need for 4 strikers and more pertinently the timing given it is at odds with our SOP to date.

Bloody hell, Bob, we are on the same page ;-)

Happy clappers vs not happy flappers...