John Terry [Merged]

Status
Not open for further replies.
if this transfer doesn't come off where do we go from here? i mean lescott isn't nailed on by any means, the season starts in 3 weeks! and our defence is by far the worst area of our side! im not panicking but i really do hope hughes has got plans like he said he did! the thought of starting with the same back 4 is laughable! if it fails i'd go straight to spuds and offer 20mil for woodgate! anyone know what bruno alves is like his name gets banded about but i've never seen him play i dont think?
 
not arsed about losing face or pulling plugs first, frankly this just needs sorting one way or the other, if SSN and talk shite report it as City being rejected again so what - sticks and stones and all that. This just needs sorting one way or the other and frankly JT's dithering, whichever we he goes, is piss poor and says to me his leadership skills are not as great as most people seem to think they are - great leaders do not dither, charles fucking hawtrey used to dither
 
Hughes_head_scout said:
CFCnibs said:
Ha Ha Ha!!!

(Chelsea Fan laughing his head off!)

Seriously, I think the amounts being touted about, both transfer fee and wages are absurd for a player like Terry.
Don't get me wrong, he has been very instrumental to our success and he's a great leader and all that but the sums involved should only be for a top flair playr / match winner - NOT a defender (however good) with a bad back problem.

You'd be much better off getting Carvalho off us for a whole lot less.

HA HA HA

Nice try i see what you did there. I think we'll stick with terry thanks but maybe you would like a richard dunne its in mint condition only scored a couple of own goals. Body works a bit shabby but nothin a good big mac wouldnt sort.

That Richard Dunne offer is very tempting. About as tempting as us re-signing Frank Sinclair or Erland Johnsen.

I wasn't joking though. It was only a little while back I was hearing how Terry wasn't the best defender at Chelsea and that it was Carvalho who made him look good. Now he seems to be the mutt's nuts's again!
 
BringBackSwales said:
not arsed about losing face or pulling plugs first, frankly this just needs sorting one way or the other, if SSN and talk shite report it as City being rejected again so what - sticks and stones and all that. This just needs sorting one way or the other and frankly JT's dithering, whichever we he goes, is piss poor and says to me his leadership skills are not as great as most people seem to think they are - great leaders do not dither, charles fucking hawtrey used to dither
quite right often thought that leaders are born and not created and leaders of men are the last to leave the ship, they dont jump coz the the next to sail past is bigger and shinier.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Cambridgeblue said:
Frankly i'm not too bothered if he does sign a new contract with chelsea... at the end of the day it means less money chelsea have to spend on new players and an increasingly likelyhood that Lampard and Ballack will want to engineer new deals - costing them even more money.

Until we hear from the player himself though we should reserve judgement... if we get him, great, if not we move on to our next target. Lescott will be a quality addition and maybe him and Onuoha will be enough. If we're still desperate for another defender someone like Hangerlaand would be good.

Bridge is looking much better this season, man of the match for me against kaiser chiefs, and I think Richards will return to form too. Ned will go from strength to strength and improve on last year so all in all we're already looking stronger than last season without new recruits... especially if you consider that we've got Kompany as an option in defence when he's fit again.

That's assuming Ned stays with us long term - we seem able to pay £100k a week to the likes of bridge and bellamy, but it seems far lower amounts are applicable to the likes of Nedum and Daniel Sturridge - (even Stevie Ireland as a more established young player was apparently not amused with the contract offer at one stage). I personally think we should value the good young players within in a similar way to those we buy, so I am still not 100% convinced we will see the Onouha's and Mee's develop with us long term, but it is just my personal opinion and I hope I am very bloody wrong indeed - I want to see a MANCHESTER CITY team continue with a strong academy presence, it means a lot to a lot of City fans

If you're suggesting that Nedum should be on anywhere near £100k a week then I'm sorry but you are dead wrong... Bridge and Bellamy are experienced premiership players and established in their respective international teams.

When Nedum is 28 and has more international caps to his name he WILL be on £100k a week assuming he continues to improve enough to remain at the club.

It's just like any other job, as you get older and prove yourself then you earn the big pay rises... you don't get handed them on a plate. It's not like they are going to get paid anywhere near as much elsewhere (Sturridge being perhaps the exception as there was no doubt a sizable sign on fee).
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Dyed Petya...loved your insights from last night, this morn.

Out of interest, are you able to tell me how Abramovich and old car dealer mate were able to find $400m dollars for that well-below-value stake in, was it, Sibneft?

Incredible. Was it just a case that Putin put people around a table and asked what his cut would be.

If so, feel sorry for Russia's previously richest man, Khorokovsky, the media guy?

Surely, the patsy in this whole cover-up.

Suppose it pays to have friends in high places when it comes to Roman, eh?

It's long and complex and I can only be brief.

Back in the 1990s, when you had the privatisations and loans for shares and so on, it was Yeltsin who was in power. The 1996 Presidential election was a big thing - Yeltsin looked like he was going to lose and Zyuganov, the Communist, would have got in. In 1995, they devised a thing called the 'loans for shares' programme, to stop the big state enterprises from going bankrupt and to help finance Yeltsin's campaign (obviously, he won the election).

This was effectively a privatisation of huge swathes of Russia's natural assets through the transfer into private hands of companies like Sibneft - and also the likes of Norilsk Nickel, LUKoil, Yukos and many others. The companies were effectively auctioned off, leased to commercial bank in return for loans to central government: subsequently, the loans were written off, and so the share transfers became permanent. Unfortunately, they auctions were all rigged.

The way it tended to work was as follows. All of the major oligarchs at the time owned banks, and for each of the privatisations, the bank of a given oligarch would be appointed by the government to handle the privatisation. Bids to loan the government money in return for leasing the shares were invited, and all bids would be disqualified except the one from the organising bank. Needless to say, they invariably only paid a fraction of the true value.

As for Khodorkovsky - he took on Putin, so was clamped down on, simple as that. He was financing opposition political parties and so on. Abramovich has never tried to take on the Kremlin. Simple as that, really.
 
the god Gerry Gow said:
Chippy_boy said:
What evidence do you have for this?

None.

Since when did anybody have to have evidence for an opinion. Oh sorry forgot this is the land where we hound people off a public forum for daring to not agree with the keyboard warriors.

Opinions are like shits... everyone has them and they all stink ;)

I think the point he was making is that opinions like yours without any apparent foundation to back them up aren't really adding to the debate and so really aren't of interest to anybody.
 
Cambridgeblue said:
the god Gerry Gow said:
Since when did anybody have to have evidence for an opinion. Oh sorry forgot this is the land where we hound people off a public forum for daring to not agree with the keyboard warriors.

Opinions are like shits... everyone has them and they all stink ;)

I think the point he was making is that opinions like yours without any apparent foundation to back them up aren't really adding to the debate and so really aren't of interest to anybody.

Absolutely right.

Posting "Terry is not coming. End of" is just as bad as posting "Terry will be a City player in August".

Don't post things as fact if it's an opinion.
 
Incidentally, it's off topic because it's nowt to do with Terry, but I was banging on earlier in the thread about our owners being interested in development the Sportcity site and the desire to take the club forward for the benefit it will bring to other business ventures which will end up being conducted on neighbouring land.

There was a report earlier today, now denied by Everton, that they could be ripe for a takeover. It contained this interesting little extract:

Businessman Christopher Nathaniel has revealed that he is working with a UAE based consortium with a view to buying Everton Football Club.

“I can confirm I am acting on behalf of a UAE-based business consortium, who are chaired by a prominent Dubai businessman, and that I am currently in discussions with a number of Premier League clubs, one of which is Everton Football Club,” said Nathaniel.

“In this case, I’ve been approached because of my background in the entertainment industry. I can bring that element of big celebrity names and concerts – I can help realise my client’s plans to make a football club a wider entertainment platform. The Middle East understands the entertainment element, and how introducing it to football clubs can turn loss-making vehicles into profit-making ones.”

Very much what ADUG have planned, I think we'll see in due course.
 
Cambridgeblue said:
BringBackSwales said:
That's assuming Ned stays with us long term - we seem able to pay £100k a week to the likes of bridge and bellamy, but it seems far lower amounts are applicable to the likes of Nedum and Daniel Sturridge - (even Stevie Ireland as a more established young player was apparently not amused with the contract offer at one stage). I personally think we should value the good young players within in a similar way to those we buy, so I am still not 100% convinced we will see the Onouha's and Mee's develop with us long term, but it is just my personal opinion and I hope I am very bloody wrong indeed - I want to see a MANCHESTER CITY team continue with a strong academy presence, it means a lot to a lot of City fans

If you're suggesting that Nedum should be on anywhere near £100k a week then I'm sorry but you are dead wrong... Bridge and Bellamy are experienced premiership players and established in their respective international teams.

When Nedum is 28 and has more international caps to his name he WILL be on £100k a week assuming he continues to improve enough to remain at the club.

It's just like any other job, as you get older and prove yourself then you earn the big pay rises... you don't get handed them on a plate. It's not like they are going to get paid anywhere near as much elsewhere (Sturridge being perhaps the exception as there was no doubt a sizable sign on fee).

I never mentioned a figure regarding the kids, I was talking about a principle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.