Daniel Sturridge

[greasedupdeafguy]

Was gutted when we let him go absolute class player imo if Mancini thinks he can fit him in I would get him.

 

[pudge]

Was gutted when we let him go absolute class player imo if Mancini thinks he can fit him in I would get him.

We didn't let him go, he fucked off.

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

Was gutted when we let him go absolute class player imo if Mancini thinks he can fit him in I would get him.

We didn't let him go, he fucked off.

I don't blame Sturrudge tbh, numerous times Ched Evans was picked over him even though you easily see how talented Sturridge was

 

[pudge]

Was gutted when we let him go absolute class player imo if Mancini thinks he can fit him in I would get him.

We didn't let him go, he fucked off.

I don't blame Sturrudge tbh, numerous times Ched Evans was picked over him even though you easily see how talented Sturridge was

Maybe that was because of his attitude?

Shades of Cole at Arsenal

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

We didn't let him go, he fucked off.

I don't blame Sturrudge tbh, numerous times Ched Evans was picked over him even though you easily see how talented Sturridge was

Maybe that was because of his attitude?

Shades of Cole at Arsenal

Well I cant comment on that no one knows what happened behind the scenes I just feel Sturridge wasn't given a fair chance by hughes.

 

[Any1aBlue]

I don't blame Sturrudge tbh, numerous times Ched Evans was picked over him even though you easily see how talented Sturridge was

Maybe that was because of his attitude?

Shades of Cole at Arsenal

Well I cant comment on that no one knows what happened behind the scenes I just feel Sturridge wasn't given a fair chance by hughes.

Maybe Hughes wasn't that impressed by a 'man' wearing, and placing so much importance on, diamond earrings...........................

 

[kiam06]

Not good enough.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Not good enough.

Not what Bobby thinks. This is what he had to say about him before Chelsea at home:

"I know Sturridge well, I have watched him many times," Mancini says. "It was strange because he started out in Manchester and someone let him out of the club for nothing. Given the chance I think I would have liked to have kept him, but now he is at Chelsea we can do nothing. I know for sure he was one of the best young players that was here. I asked him last year when he played for Bolton why he left Manchester City and he said he didn't know."

"If Sturridge was here today he would be playing in our first team," Mancini says. "This season he can arrive in the national team too. I understand the situation with young players, it is difficult for them to improve if they don't get the games they need, but it is better to send them on loan rather than lose them altogether."

That article in the Guardian goes on to say:

In fact City did make a modest amount of money on Sturridge. As he was both under 24 and out of contract in 2009 a tribunal awarded City £3.5m, rising to £5.5m depending on appearances, and Chelsea will have to forfeit 15% of any future sell-on fee.

That article can be found here:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/10/roberto-mancini-manchester-city-daniel-sturridge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... -sturridge</a>

I'll leave all our transfer dealings with Bobby he knows best.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Not good enough.

Not what Bobby thinks. This is what he had to say about him before Chelsea at home:

"I know Sturridge well, I have watched him many times," Mancini says. "It was strange because he started out in Manchester and someone let him out of the club for nothing. Given the chance I think I would have liked to have kept him, but now he is at Chelsea we can do nothing. I know for sure he was one of the best young players that was here. I asked him last year when he played for Bolton why he left Manchester City and he said he didn't know."

"If Sturridge was here today he would be playing in our first team," Mancini says. "This season he can arrive in the national team too. I understand the situation with young players, it is difficult for them to improve if they don't get the games they need, but it is better to send them on loan rather than lose them altogether."

That article in the Guardian goes on to say:

In fact City did make a modest amount of money on Sturridge. As he was both under 24 and out of contract in 2009 a tribunal awarded City £3.5m, rising to £5.5m depending on appearances, and Chelsea will have to forfeit 15% of any future sell-on fee.

That article can be found here:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/10/roberto-mancini-manchester-city-daniel-sturridge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... -sturridge</a>

I'll leave all our transfer dealings with Bobby he knows best.

He knows enough not to sign Sturridge.

 

[daxman]

Sturridge is such a poor player, I don't know why we would want him back. Awful decision maker, and a personal glory hunter. His stats will always look good, coz some of his dumb decisions will come off. But he is selfish, dribbles into cul de sacs, looks to dribble first, shoot second and pass a distant 3rd. :(
And he is a poor passer of the ball. Nothing that bodes well for playing at City.

He needs to be the star of his team. The guy who can selfishly make horrible mistakes and then finally score 2. We don't need that at City. Let him stay at Chelsea please!