Jimmy & Joe To Sign New Contracts

[BillyShears]

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.

Are you related to Milner or do you just have a very low opinion of the club you support? I could give less of a fuck what happened to Hughes (or Mancini) because they both walked away with huge severance packages. These "so called business men" are charged with doing what is best for MCFC, and as such they should have our unwavering support rather than some mercenary twat who's prepared to drive up the road to play for a rival whilst the club lose out on a big transfer fee.

This is about money for Milner, but it's also about money for MCFC. As you can see from the separate conversation being had about the FFP sanctions, every 10 million counts if you've got net spend sanctions.

 

[stony]

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>

You have to remember that the sanctions were deliberately vague when they were announced and it was only subsequently that the details slowly began to emerge. What gives me hope is that the big cop out from UEFA was that when they reduced our CL squad size they also pro-rata'ed down the number of HG players we needed to have. This caused Wenger to rage at how weak UEFA were.

If you notice although the settlement talks about our limiting our spending, the net spend figure isn't included because it what negotiated after this statement. At the same time certain sanctions like the CL squad limitation one is clearly stated as being for one season with it being lifted if we don't breach the financial sanctions with regards to losses. This has already happened.

The last point and I guess the one which will be central to City's argument next summer if there is another conversation to be had, is this at the start of the settlement agreement "A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time." We've broken even this season. Lets say we turn a profit of 50 million next summer, which isn't unthinkable if you look at the number of new sponsorship deal being announced, then the club will I'm sure expect to be able to spend that amount on top of whatever the settled "net" spend limit is. That's if we are to operate under sanctions at all.

That seems to be perfectly reasonable, but when have UEFA ever been reasonable. They could use the argument that despite us breaking even, the two-year restriction is a punishment for our past transgression and breaking even or being in profit now is completely unrelated to that.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

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.

Sorry I for one can't take you seriously after that post.

No, City have been offering a new contract for the best part of 12 months because they want to protect what they see as a considerable financial asset of the club worth the bed part of £10m on the open market.

In addition, he is considered a valued 'squad member'.

Milner thinks otherwise, which is convenient at the age of 29, having won everything domestically and been paid handsomely for the privilege.

All he had to do was sign last year and City would not have stood in his way if his supposed game time continued to be an issue.

People can say what they want about Tevez, but he also put it in on the pitch every single time.

The only difference being he made it abundantly clear he did not want to stay.

Milner has chosen to drag the situation out and no clarification in this window would be the biggest fuck you to our club.

Someone has probably tapped him up. The only club he would do as well at in terms of style of play (having a player to pick out his runs) is Chelsea with Fabregas. I said earlier I wonder if Chelsea are looking to replace Ramires and have started work on Mr. Milner. Chelsea buy players like the rich Russians they are: with cash, no strategy and with a competitive streak.

 

[BillyShears]

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>

You have to remember that the sanctions were deliberately vague when they were announced and it was only subsequently that the details slowly began to emerge. What gives me hope is that the big cop out from UEFA was that when they reduced our CL squad size they also pro-rata'ed down the number of HG players we needed to have. This caused Wenger to rage at how weak UEFA were.

If you notice although the settlement talks about our limiting our spending, the net spend figure isn't included because it what negotiated after this statement. At the same time certain sanctions like the CL squad limitation one is clearly stated as being for one season with it being lifted if we don't breach the financial sanctions with regards to losses. This has already happened.

The last point and I guess the one which will be central to City's argument next summer if there is another conversation to be had, is this at the start of the settlement agreement "A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time." We've broken even this season. Lets say we turn a profit of 50 million next summer, which isn't unthinkable if you look at the number of new sponsorship deal being announced, then the club will I'm sure expect to be able to spend that amount on top of whatever the settled "net" spend limit is. That's if we are to operate under sanctions at all.

That seems to be perfectly reasonable, but when have UEFA ever been reasonable. They could use the argument that despite us breaking even, the two-year restriction is a punishment for our past transgression and breaking even or being in profit now is completely unrelated to that.

True enough but this is where I have faith in the so called business men who run our club. So far they've been pretty true to their word, Khaldoon in particular, and as such I'm going to roll with the idea that next summer we can spend as we like - and if there is a sanction - it'll be connected to last summer's accounts which have recently been released.

You could be right though and they could well try and be harsh, but then I'd expect city to react with fury and with legal action.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

You have to remember that the sanctions were deliberately vague when they were announced and it was only subsequently that the details slowly began to emerge. What gives me hope is that the big cop out from UEFA was that when they reduced our CL squad size they also pro-rata'ed down the number of HG players we needed to have. This caused Wenger to rage at how weak UEFA were.

If you notice although the settlement talks about our limiting our spending, the net spend figure isn't included because it what negotiated after this statement. At the same time certain sanctions like the CL squad limitation one is clearly stated as being for one season with it being lifted if we don't breach the financial sanctions with regards to losses. This has already happened.

The last point and I guess the one which will be central to City's argument next summer if there is another conversation to be had, is this at the start of the settlement agreement "A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time." We've broken even this season. Lets say we turn a profit of 50 million next summer, which isn't unthinkable if you look at the number of new sponsorship deal being announced, then the club will I'm sure expect to be able to spend that amount on top of whatever the settled "net" spend limit is. That's if we are to operate under sanctions at all.

That seems to be perfectly reasonable, but when have UEFA ever been reasonable. They could use the argument that despite us breaking even, the two-year restriction is a punishment for our past transgression and breaking even or being in profit now is completely unrelated to that.

True enough but this is where I have faith in the so called business men who run our club. So far they've been pretty true to their word, Khaldoon in particular, and as such I'm going to roll with the idea that next summer we can spend as we like - and if there is a sanction - it'll be connected to last summer's accounts which have recently been released.

You could be right though and they could well try and be harsh, but then I'd expect city to react with fury and with legal action.

Funny that i posted this on the FFP thread:

I see there would appear to be some confusion over our restrictions in the transfer market.

It's clear that the club feel that we're in the clear having taken our "pinch". I just wonder if there were to be further reins on our ability to spend next summer and say Messi was available or we had to spend big to meet Homegrown rules, would the club at that stage just do ignore the FFP end of things and buy the players it felt were needed?

Only something I was considering in the light of the situations with Milner and of course the issues at Barca.

 

[B\connellblue]

Good honest player james. Not the most gifted and his goal per game ratio for an offensive player is poor. Still does a good job for us and is surely worth 3 more years. If he doesn't sign a new contract then so be it, we move on and so will he.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Sorry I for one can't take you seriously after that post.

No, City have been offering a new contract for the best part of 12 months because they want to protect what they see as a considerable financial asset of the club worth the bed part of £10m on the open market.

In addition, he is considered a valued 'squad member'.

Milner thinks otherwise, which is convenient at the age of 29, having won everything domestically and been paid handsomely for the privilege.

All he had to do was sign last year and City would not have stood in his way if his supposed game time continued to be an issue.

People can say what they want about Tevez, but he also put it in on the pitch every single time.

The only difference being he made it abundantly clear he did not want to stay.

Milner has chosen to drag the situation out and no clarification in this window would be the biggest fuck you to our club.

Someone has probably tapped him up. The only club he would do as well at in terms of style of play (having a player to pick out his runs) is Chelsea with Fabregas. I said earlier I wonder if Chelsea are looking to replace Ramires and have started work on Mr. Milner. Chelsea buy players like the rich Russians they are: with cash, no strategy and with a competitive streak.

No doubt, although the timing of Gerrard making his decision public smells to high heaven.

There is a weekly spot for Milner at a club still in the area who can get an England international for free and pay him less than Gerrard.

If it were Chelsea, then Milner's previous assertions would only make him look an even bigger twat.

As it is, Chelsea are already stacked and the lad Loftus Cheek is the real deal.

 

[chris85mcfc]

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.

Are you related to Milner or do you just have a very low opinion of the club you support? I could give less of a fuck what happened to Hughes (or Mancini) because they both walked away with huge severance packages. These "so called business men" are charged with doing what is best for MCFC, and as such they should have our unwavering support rather than some mercenary twat who's prepared to drive up the road to play for a rival whilst the club lose out on a big transfer fee.

This is about money for Milner, but it's also about money for MCFC. As you can see from the separate conversation being had about the FFP sanctions, every 10 million counts if you've got net spend sanctions.

In that case, why didn't we look to ship him out in the summer rather than 'risk' losing him for nothing this summer.

You will find that most match going fans love Milner, and will wish him all the best wherever he goes, as he has been nothing but professional on and off the pitch.

The reason you have given is that we 'took his word for it', well im sorry but that just isn't enough. Yes he has had game time this season, but its mainly been because he has been one of our most consistent performers so far, its not just some gimmick so that the club can some how get him to sign a new deal.

I agree the club should have my support, and they do. If they had chose to get rid in the summer it wouldn't have bothered me one bit, we would have got upwards of £15 million and would have been able to replace him. But given the situation the club is in now, its no fault but their own IMO, they have left it to the 11th hour to either get him to sign a deal or to get rid this January, otherwise he will go on a free.

In fact even if we were to choose to sell him in January we would struggle to get £15 million, the club should have sold him in the summer, at least that way Milner wouldn't have been able to show these mercanary tendancies.

 

[BigOscar]

If Milner goes on a free, which would leave me really disappointed in him (because he has the game time he publicly said was the reason behind his hesitation), bring back Lopes to fill the homegrown role (well he can't be registered in the 25 but we can name one less and use him as an U21) and use the money on top class signings from abroad. Instead of spending £30m+ on an English player who isn't worth the price.

Yup, exactly this. We have players waiting for a chance, a space opening up for them is far from the worst thing in the world. Let Lopes and the other young players fight over that place and they will more than fill the gap left by Milner. Lopes has already shown in the few games he's played for us that he is up to the task and can be trusted (more than some of our signings have in a lot more games) so we don't need to go running around like headless chickens overpaying for any old english player to fill some imaginary quota.

 

[BillyShears]

In that case, why didn't we look to ship him out in the summer rather than 'risk' losing him for nothing this summer.

Because he told them that if he played more football he'd stay and sign a contract. They were also in the unenviable position of having transfer sanctions limiting their spend, so losing a player important to the first team squad was never going to be a good thing when signing a replacement wasn't possible.

You will find that most match going fans love Milner, and will wish him all the best wherever he goes, as he has been nothing but professional on and off the pitch.

You'll find you aren't the appointed mouthpiece for the match going fans, and notwithstanding that, since most of the match going fans thought sacking Mancini was tantamount to returning to the days of "Typical City", that the match going fans aren't a barometer for what is the right or wrong decision for City.

The reason you have given is that we 'took his word for it', well im sorry but that just isn't enough. Yes he has had game time this season, but its mainly been because he has been one of our most consistent performers so far, its not just some gimmick so that the club can some how get him to sign a new deal.

I've no idea what that means. He wanted more game time. Club gave it to him. He hasn't signed a new deal. You think this is the club's fault? IMO that's bollocks.

I agree the club should have my support, and they do. If they had chose to get rid in the summer it wouldn't have bothered me one bit, we would have got upwards of £15 million and would have been able to replace him. But given the situation the club is in now, its no fault but their own IMO, they have left it to the 11th hour to either get him to sign a deal or to get rid this January, otherwise he will go on a free.

Again blaming the club for Milner being a liar is just ridiculous. I find your entire stance on this situation ridiculous. So we'll leave it there.