Are we dining at the top table or not?

[Lancet Fluke]

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.

I think I'm right in saying Chelsea generally only play one up front (?) and we certainly did under Mancini when the media were questioning how we would keep them all happy. If the manager genuinely wants to change to one up front then it isnt an issue, if he is still comitted to 442 then I don't see how it isn't an issue.

 

[blueparrot]

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.

The injuries did help manage the 4 strikers, if Jovetic Aguero and Negredo had all stayed fit then we would have lost Dzeko this summer as he wouldn't have played enough last year.

 

[BillyShears]

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

Judging it in the short term is - well just too short termist. If we finish 2nd this season but not signing a replacement for Negredo this summer allows us to move for a genuinely world class player next summer who is of a better age and better pedigree than Falcao, then I'd say the decision is vindicated.

Last summer (and the window before) we sold Tevez and Balotelli and replaced them with Jovetic and the Beast. At the time many many people said we had made a bad decision, weakened the squad, and that we would pay the price.

I guess the point is that time will tell with the Negredo decision but the current state of flap seems excessive when you consider we still have Kun, Dzeko, and Jovetic, when some of us think Kelechi is the dogs bollocks and could get a look in because of this sale, and that whoever we would've signed unless they were English couldn't have played in the CL anyway.

 

[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 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.

I would rather have our 3 strikers too. But then I would rather have 4. Plus Chelsea play with 1 striker so 3 is fine. We play with 2 so 4 is the magic number. And to date it's Pellers who has had the big issue and last season we were at pains to structure our squad so that it had 4 strikers and going into this season it was no different hence questions are being raised.

As for Negrado again if he wants to go and you know this well in advance then sort it out in advance. It's what Txiki is paid to do and does on the whole very well. This time I think Pellers was resisting the sale and ended up getting railroaded with a last minute deal that had progressed too far for it to be killed. Just my personal view.

 

[OB1]

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.

Chelsea play a different formation and, TBF, I would play a different formation and three central strikers would be fine for that but Pellers almost always plays two upfront. I don't want to recycle last season's debate but even when people thought he played one upfront, he didn't. Now that does of course go to show that Silva can be used as an auxiliary striker; as can others, including Lamps through to the next window. Sooner or later we will see how much Pellers wants / needs four recognised strikers.

The Valencia deal may have hotted up two weeks ago but I had someone telling me since last Monday that we would sign Falcao (and me telling him that we wouldn't!).

 

[Henkeman]

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.

The injuries did help manage the 4 strikers, if Jovetic Aguero and Negredo had all stayed fit then we would have lost Dzeko this summer as he wouldn't have played enough last year.

Exactly. Which is why having four strikers is pretty unusual. Unless there are injuries and exceptional management of them, someone gets left out and leaves in frustration. United clearly didn't want four - when they signed Falcao they got rid of Welbeck. I don't see too many pundits berating them for leaving them light up front, even with a known injury risk to both Van Persie and Falcao.

 

[Danamy]

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.

Chelsea play a different formation and, TBF, I would play a different formation and three central strikers would be fine for that but Pellers almost always plays two upfront. I don't want to recycle last season's debate but even when people thought he played one upfront, he didn't. Now that does of course go to show that Silva can be used as an auxiliary striker; as can others, including Lamps through to the next window. Sooner or later we will see how much Pellers wants / needs four recognised strikers.

The Valencia deal may have hotted up two weeks ago but I had someone telling me since last Monday that we would sign Falcao (and me telling him that we wouldn't!).

I'm going over old ground now but MP is no stranger to 4-2-3-1, he played it enough times at Malaga so we may see it here more often in the near future, we certainly have the players to play the system?

In regards Falcao, it looks like you were right and your mate was wrong ;-)

 

[kaz7]

The usual suspects who thinks he walks on water and never makes mistakes,of course he has and will,i believe this is one,time will tell,until then i don't need to be insulted by you

what's he done wrong? Taking all factors into consideration... *genuine question*

You beat me to it. Would love to know what these bad decisions are that our board have made since they were appointed. Genuinely as well because there seems to be an awful lot of people who seem to be wandering around with a sense that Soriano and our director of football are somehow chancers who don't know what they're doing. In fact I think i read that exact phrase used to describe them just this morning.

Anyway yes, Karen, would love to hear what these bad decisions are you think that the powers that be have made.

I was aiming it at those who thinks he never gets it wrong and calls out anyone who thinks he has made a mistake not replacing Alf,i'm sick of being called a flapper because i am not a happy clapper.I recall a discussion with the names of players who he brought to Barca that didn't quite work out,no-one gets it right all of the time
My opinion is we are weaker because we did not bring in cover for Alf,a loan,anything
We know sergio could break down at any moment and yaya is away jan/feb
It's an opinion,i'm not the one having a go at anyone who has the opposite one and neither do i want mine to be the right one come may
I am happy with what txiki has achieved since he came to us but not on this one

 

[OB1]

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

Judging it in the short term is - well just too short termist. If we finish 2nd this season but not signing a replacement for Negredo this summer allows us to move for a genuinely world class player next summer who is of a better age and better pedigree than Falcao, then I'd say the decision is vindicated.

Last summer (and the window before) we sold Tevez and Balotelli and replaced them with Jovetic and the Beast. At the time many many people said we had made a bad decision, weakened the squad, and that we would pay the price.

I guess the point is that time will tell with the Negredo decision but the current state of flap seems excessive when you consider we still have Kun, Dzeko, and Jovetic, when some of us think Kelechi is the dogs bollocks and could get a look in because of this sale, and that whoever we would've signed unless they were English couldn't have played in the CL anyway.

I am not sure how much flapping is going on but it is legitimate to consider whether this situation has been handled as well as it might have been.

We won't know in the short-term how this will pan out, and we may never be able to be definitive, but the questions remain about risk.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Whilst accepting 4 is better than 3, too much being made of the striker issue IMO. How did we do when we were down to starting with 1 striker last year? Here is the run after the Barcelona defeat:

2-0 Hull
5-0 Fulham
3-0 Rags
1-1 Arsenal
4-1 Southampton
2-3 Scouse

Also we started with 1 against Villa 4-0 home as well.

Silva, for one, was magnificent when he was playing behind.