Jimmy & Joe To Sign New Contracts

[BillyShears]

He is not going to get it better at any other club than city, fact.

Guaranteed champions league football, huge salary, club stability, substantial playing time across 4 competitions, popularity amongst supporters, fantastic facilities. He is not going to be signed by Chelsea I wouldn't have thought so any other move is a step down.

Go and be an integral part of a shite Liverpool team every week if that's what you want James. I really don't get it, and I hope he is just using this to put himself in the best bargaining position prior to renewing.

I wouldn't rule out Chelsea making a move for him even if it was purely a F*** you to City. He'll be free, homegrown and they will pay decent wages. He could easily take Ramires spot in their squad.

Back when my doubts first began about Jimmy being less than committed my gut feeling was that he was going to end up at Chelsea to do exactly that, replace Ramires.

 

[chris85mcfc]

I just don't agree with the mercenary tag, its just business

By "it's just business" you mean it's about the money. It's not about the playing time because nobody will guarantee James Milner regular starts in two season's time. All he can do is hope he's as fit next season as this and then he'll play. The mercenary tag for me fits him to a tee. He's not arsed about City, about what he's won here, about what he could win in the future. He cares only about the payday that comes with a free transfer. Whether he goes to Liverpool or Arsenal at best he'll be guaranteed football next season, from the season after is anyone's guess.

As I said previously, and was mooted last summer, he could've said to City "i'll sign but I want a minimum fee release clause if I don't play a certain amount of minutes in the PL or CL". This way City protect their investment, but Milner has an easy out if he doesn't get enough minutes.

In my opinion this has been a calculated strategy by him to get away on a free whilst trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes that it's simply about playing more football. Everyone is readily buying into it because it's big bad City he's going to leave on a free. If this was one of the rags' various English players or Chelsea's or even Arsenal's there'd be uproar in the media and lots of op/ed pieces about what a strange and backwards career move it'd be for him.

Of course its about money, there is not one player in world football that plays for anything other than the money they earn.

But while their earning that money, playing football and winning trophies is probably a close second.

This will be his last contract, or at least his last top contract in this country, so he has to do what is best for him. Like i said, City have done a few things themselves that have hardly been above water in terms of shafting employees, so to sit on your high horse and claim that an employee doing the same to City is a bit contradictory IMO.

You have stated before that he isn't a great player by any stretch, so why the uproar? Boyata was about to walk away on a free last summer before we stepped in and offered a new deal, but i don't remember much uproar about that, or is it different rules for different players?

 

[stony]

On a plus point...we may well have to go balls out for Barkley

We might not be able to. We're still being restricted under the ffp ruling. The amount we will be allowed to spend could vary from between somewhere in the mid £60M range and as little as the mid 30s. It depends how the bent c**ts at UEFA choose to interpret the restrictions they placed upon us.

Khaldoon said we would be operating without sanctions from next summer. I know the FFP wording is vague but I don't envisage us having such strict restrictions when we turned an operating profit in our last set of accounts and would realistically by next summer be operating with even healthier profits.

This is taken from the PDF of the actual document.

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016

No matter what Khaldoon has said, it's down in black and white that we are still being restricted this summer.
Bleacher report says our average yearly spend at our most extravagant was around £83M per year. In recent years, it's only £43M.

A "significant reduction" on either of those figures isn't a very pleasant thought. If they take the most recent average, then it's not so much as a "pinch" but more of a kneecapping.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Would anyone give us 10 million for him now??

How about give him to Everton and 30m for Barkley

I can't see Everton paying him the wages he would get if he seen his contract out and moved to Liverpool.

 

[BillyShears]

I just don't agree with the mercenary tag, its just business

By "it's just business" you mean it's about the money. It's not about the playing time because nobody will guarantee James Milner regular starts in two season's time. All he can do is hope he's as fit next season as this and then he'll play. The mercenary tag for me fits him to a tee. He's not arsed about City, about what he's won here, about what he could win in the future. He cares only about the payday that comes with a free transfer. Whether he goes to Liverpool or Arsenal at best he'll be guaranteed football next season, from the season after is anyone's guess.

As I said previously, and was mooted last summer, he could've said to City "i'll sign but I want a minimum fee release clause if I don't play a certain amount of minutes in the PL or CL". This way City protect their investment, but Milner has an easy out if he doesn't get enough minutes.

In my opinion this has been a calculated strategy by him to get away on a free whilst trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes that it's simply about playing more football. Everyone is readily buying into it because it's big bad City he's going to leave on a free. If this was one of the rags' various English players or Chelsea's or even Arsenal's there'd be uproar in the media and lots of op/ed pieces about what a strange and backwards career move it'd be for him.

Of course its about money, there is not one player in world football that plays for anything other than the money they earn.

But while their earning that money, playing football and winning trophies is probably a close second.

This will be his last contract, or at least his last top contract in this country, so he has to do what is best for him. Like i said, City have done a few things themselves that have hardly been above water in terms of shafting employees, so to sit on your high horse and claim that an employee doing the same to City is a bit contradictory IMO.

You have stated before that he isn't a great player by any stretch, so why the uproar? Boyata was about to walk away on a free last summer before we stepped in and offered a new deal, but i don't remember much uproar about that, or is it different rules for different players?

You keep saying Milner is just looking out for himself as if that somehow makes this all okay. It doesn't, it's precisely why I think the guy is a mercenary twat. He's led the club up the garden path over his proposed new deal and is potentially going to swan off to one of our rivals on a free.

Oh and don't talk soft, I have never ever said that Milner "isn't a great player by any stretch". What I said and what you took exception too last time, was that he's loved because he runs around a lot. It may be a harsh assessment but it's a harsh assessment of some of the people who watch City rather than of Jimmy. I'm well aware he offers much more than that. If it was Boyata, I wouldn't give a toss because the club wouldn't be losing a player they want to keep, and even if they did they'd be losing a player they didn't necessarily need and one who could be readily replaced. None of that is the case with Milner.

 

[BillyShears]

A "significant reduction" on either of those figures isn't a very pleasant thought. If they take the most recent average, then it's not so much as a "pinch" but more of a kneecapping.

I don't believe for a minute that City will have signed off on any agreement which meant they couldn't reshape the squad as they saw fit in the summer of 2015. That's tantamount to a knee capping as you say and as much as Khaldoon is only ever going to pay lip service to the supporters, I don't think he'd be as remiss as to say we'd be operating without sanction from the summer of 2015 AND that it was only a "pinch" if what you're saying is true.

 

[Victoria-bahs]

. quote]

Of course its about money, there is not one player in world football that plays for anything other than the money they earn.

But while their earning that money, playing football and winning trophies is probably a close second.

This will be his last contract, or at least his last top contract in this country, so he has to do what is best for him. Like i said, City have done a few things themselves that have hardly been above water in terms of shafting employees, so to sit on your high horse and claim that an employee doing the same to City is a bit contradictory IMO.

You have stated before that he isn't a great player by any stretch, so why the uproar? Boyata was about to walk away on a free last summer before we stepped in and offered a new deal, but i don't remember much uproar about that, or is it different rules for different players?

In the summer him & his Agent can share say 12/15 million quid as a signing on fee/agent fee..plus his wages..

so the ball is in citys half how much they value him ! ( playing time is a red herring)

 

[blueparrot]

We might not be able to. We're still being restricted under the ffp ruling. The amount we will be allowed to spend could vary from between somewhere in the mid £60M range and as little as the mid 30s. It depends how the bent c**ts at UEFA choose to interpret the restrictions they placed upon us.

Khaldoon said we would be operating without sanctions from next summer. I know the FFP wording is vague but I don't envisage us having such strict restrictions when we turned an operating profit in our last set of accounts and would realistically by next summer be operating with even healthier profits.

This is taken from the PDF of the actual document.

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016

No matter what Khaldoon has said, it's down in black and white that we are still being restricted this summer.
Bleacher report says our average yearly spend at our most extravagant was around £83M per year. In recent years, it's only £43M.

A "significant reduction" on either of those figures isn't a very pleasant thought. If they take the most recent average, then it's not so much as a "pinch" but more of a kneecapping.

The vague word there is 'limit' it doesn't say reduce. Limit to what ? if it's limited to not exceed our income then if we are making a profit this year we are fine. If it was limited to a specific figure as it was this year wouldn't that figure have been stated. Surely Khaldoun wouldn't have agreed to something that he wasn't clear about.

 

[chris85mcfc]

By "it's just business" you mean it's about the money. It's not about the playing time because nobody will guarantee James Milner regular starts in two season's time. All he can do is hope he's as fit next season as this and then he'll play. The mercenary tag for me fits him to a tee. He's not arsed about City, about what he's won here, about what he could win in the future. He cares only about the payday that comes with a free transfer. Whether he goes to Liverpool or Arsenal at best he'll be guaranteed football next season, from the season after is anyone's guess.

As I said previously, and was mooted last summer, he could've said to City "i'll sign but I want a minimum fee release clause if I don't play a certain amount of minutes in the PL or CL". This way City protect their investment, but Milner has an easy out if he doesn't get enough minutes.

In my opinion this has been a calculated strategy by him to get away on a free whilst trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes that it's simply about playing more football. Everyone is readily buying into it because it's big bad City he's going to leave on a free. If this was one of the rags' various English players or Chelsea's or even Arsenal's there'd be uproar in the media and lots of op/ed pieces about what a strange and backwards career move it'd be for him.

Of course its about money, there is not one player in world football that plays for anything other than the money they earn.

But while their earning that money, playing football and winning trophies is probably a close second.

This will be his last contract, or at least his last top contract in this country, so he has to do what is best for him. Like i said, City have done a few things themselves that have hardly been above water in terms of shafting employees, so to sit on your high horse and claim that an employee doing the same to City is a bit contradictory IMO.

You have stated before that he isn't a great player by any stretch, so why the uproar? Boyata was about to walk away on a free last summer before we stepped in and offered a new deal, but i don't remember much uproar about that, or is it different rules for different players?

You keep saying Milner is just looking out for himself as if that somehow makes this all okay. It doesn't, it's precisely why I think the guy is a mercenary twat. He's led the club up the garden path over his proposed new deal and is potentially going to swan off to one of our rivals on a free.

Oh and don't talk soft, I have never ever said that Milner "isn't a great player by any stretch". What I said and what you took exception too last time, was that he's loved because he runs around a lot. It may be a harsh assessment but it's a harsh assessment of some of the people who watch City rather than of Jimmy. I'm well aware he offers much more than that. If it was Boyata, I wouldn't give a toss because the club wouldn't be losing a player they want to keep, and even if they did they'd be losing a player they didn't necessarily need and one who could be readily replaced. None of that is the case with Milner.

So why did we offer Boyata a new deal? Any answer apart from the fact he is filling a quota of homegrown/club-trained players is wrong. We actually needed Boyata, but for completely different reasons to those of Milner. The club wants to keep Milner because he is a good footballer as well as the fact he helps fill a quota, and then there is the fact he is a £20 million footballer, where as we would be lucky to get rid of Boyata even if we paid his airfare.

And no, Milner isn't loved because he runs around a lot at all. He is loved because he has been at the club for a good few years now and every time he plays he gives everything, which is what paying fans want to see. He isn't the best player by a long way, but fans are more likely to side with a player that gives his all as opposed to the likes of Kolarov and Dzeko that tend to look uninterested at times

If these so called business men that have struck all these commercial deals, and worked wonders since they have walked through our door, have been led up the garden path by James Milner, then more fool them. Like i said before employees have been shafted before by our club, namely Hughes even tho he was dross, so less of the double standards.

 

[stony]

A "significant reduction" on either of those figures isn't a very pleasant thought. If they take the most recent average, then it's not so much as a "pinch" but more of a kneecapping.

I don't believe for a minute that City will have signed off on any agreement which meant they couldn't reshape the squad as they saw fit in the summer of 2015. That's tantamount to a knee capping as you say and as much as Khaldoon is only ever going to pay lip service to the supporters, I don't think he'd be as remiss as to say we'd be operating without sanction from the summer of 2015 AND that it was only a "pinch" if what you're saying is true.

I hope I'm wrong Billy I really do. Up to now I haven't been worried about the FFP restrictions. After reading Bleacher Report and then looking at the original PDF from UEFA, I am worried.
I've posted this a few times hoping that someone on here will come back with something in black and white to show an exception to that statement, but no one has. All I've heard is that Khaldoon has said it would be ok.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>