kramer said:Johnny Tabasco said:[quonly1paulsimpson said:and for terry to have alledgedly text bridge to "get me out of here" says to me theres more to this transfer
Seriously, do people honestly believe this stuff ? JT and Bridge arent even that close. Bridge wasnt even at his wedding.
Jody Morris was though.
Maybe he was maybe he wasn't But for sure a Mr Leslie Mark Hughes was there
We can all kid ourselves, did Chelsea buy success? Will City buy success? The answer is, yes and no. In a way we have(or will)both buy success, but what we are both really doing is making a more level playing field against teams that have been milking the corrupt system for years. I recall when Chelsea played the rags at the swamp the Chelsea someone started a topic on the relative cost of the 2 sides and Chelsea's was less than half that of the rags. The press love to feed the legend that is the rags and anyone that tries to compete with them is automatically the bad guys, be it Chelsea or us(a good example of that is that article earlier in the week comparing the skill and class the rags have shown in the off season signings next to our classless approach).fulhamroad22 said:Blue Train said:fulhamroad22 said:Well we were pretty good from 1990 onwards and if I'm not mistaken, most of his investment came around 1993/1994 time, where we were threatened with administration.
In 1990/91 you finished 11th. The following year 14th. Then 11th. Then 14th. Then you got the Harding money and it was two more years of 11th before it kicked in and you were a top 6 side winning trophies from there on.
That's six years of mid-table mediocrity, with significant investment coming in towards the end allowing you to claw your way up to 'success'.
You may not call that 'buying success' but I do.
But it's the parallels with City I find really interesting as that's almost exactly what's happened to us (two seasons ago we started to receive major investment but it didn't immediately show in the league positions)... if, as everyone assumes, we actually do become a top 6 side this season.
Does that not coincide more with the Premier League being formed than Harding's investments?
fulhamroad22 said:Fuzzmaster101 said:fulhamroad22 said:Allegedly we are offering him £150,000 a year, so to bring him level with Lampard, so that surely covers recognition and respect? We have put in an offer for Ribery and plan on signing Sneidjer with the change, so that covers ambition. We will be in the running for the title this year, and, I think this season the trophy will be going South purely because United are much weaker than last season and Liverpool haven't improved, where as if you believe the papers we will have improved hugely, so that covers opportunities for silverware.
We are offering him massive amounts of money, though not the monster wage being offered by City, so that is the only reason I can imagine he'd want to go.
I mean City will have success but, in all respect, they are building up that success. It's not like with Chelsea where we had a Champions League and cup winning squad before the money (and the money turned us into a title winning team within two seasons). This is a job where nearly the whole club with have to be overhauled, and I can't see that happening quickly. Also, the new players will have to learn how to work as a team- this is the problem Chelsea had in 2003/04 (the first season of our buyout) where there were so many new players, it was hard to get them to work together.
So, it's my belief that Terry would either be benched, sold or retired by the time City are in Chelsea's position, and that's why I believe there is only one reason why Terry would leave the club at this point in time.
And what assureances will they give him that the manager won't be changed in the blink of an eye again? I think none!
I doubt City can give a much firmer assurance, though, because when really big money is spent, the owners will expect success.
DontLookBackInAnger said:We can all kid ourselves, did Chelsea buy success? Will City buy success? The answer is, yes and no. In a way we have(or will)both buy success, but what we are both really doing is making a more level playing field against teams that have been milking the corrupt system for years. I recall when Chelsea played the rags at the swamp the Chelsea someone started a topic on the relative cost of the 2 sides and Chelsea's was less than half that of the rags. The press love to feed the legend that is the rags and anyone that tries to compete with them is automatically the bad guys, be it Chelsea or us(a good example of that is that article earlier in the week comparing the skill and class the rags have shown in the off season signings next to our classless approach).fulhamroad22 said:Blue Train said:fulhamroad22 said:Well we were pretty good from 1990 onwards and if I'm not mistaken, most of his investment came around 1993/1994 time, where we were threatened with administration.
In 1990/91 you finished 11th. The following year 14th. Then 11th. Then 14th. Then you got the Harding money and it was two more years of 11th before it kicked in and you were a top 6 side winning trophies from there on.
That's six years of mid-table mediocrity, with significant investment coming in towards the end allowing you to claw your way up to 'success'.
You may not call that 'buying success' but I do.
But it's the parallels with City I find really interesting as that's almost exactly what's happened to us (two seasons ago we started to receive major investment but it didn't immediately show in the league positions)... if, as everyone assumes, we actually do become a top 6 side this season.
Does that not coincide more with the Premier League being formed than Harding's investments?
blueinsa said:fulhamroad22 said:Fuzzmaster101 said:fulhamroad22 said:Allegedly we are offering him £150,000 a year, so to bring him level with Lampard, so that surely covers recognition and respect? We have put in an offer for Ribery and plan on signing Sneidjer with the change, so that covers ambition. We will be in the running for the title this year, and, I think this season the trophy will be going South purely because United are much weaker than last season and Liverpool haven't improved, where as if you believe the papers we will have improved hugely, so that covers opportunities for silverware.
We are offering him massive amounts of money, though not the monster wage being offered by City, so that is the only reason I can imagine he'd want to go.
I mean City will have success but, in all respect, they are building up that success. It's not like with Chelsea where we had a Champions League and cup winning squad before the money (and the money turned us into a title winning team within two seasons). This is a job where nearly the whole club with have to be overhauled, and I can't see that happening quickly. Also, the new players will have to learn how to work as a team- this is the problem Chelsea had in 2003/04 (the first season of our buyout) where there were so many new players, it was hard to get them to work together.
So, it's my belief that Terry would either be benched, sold or retired by the time City are in Chelsea's position, and that's why I believe there is only one reason why Terry would leave the club at this point in time.
And what assureances will they give him that the manager won't be changed in the blink of an eye again? I think none!
I doubt City can give a much firmer assurance, though, because when really big money is spent, the owners will expect success.
Morning Fulhamrd mate and welcome.
What City are doing here is very very clever.
Yes we want Terry, who wouldnt, a born winner and a leader.
If we pull this off great but if not we have still won and let me explain pal.
We are now flexing our financial muscle to the point where the money on offer at City is way beyond what anyone else can sustainably afford. Yes you might keep Terry but he now knows the type of package that we are willing to give and believe me he will want the same to stay at Chelsea. We are upping the anti for all the so called big 4 in this country because all of your future targets i think its fair to say will be of interest to us as well. Money talks mate and for you to get them will mean paying much more in both transfer fees and wages than you want. You will then have the rest of your squads banging on the door asking for parity or they will be off.
This is ecactly what you boys did to the rest of the prem when Red Rom entered the fray and now its exactly the thing that our owners are going to do.
The question is, does Red Rom have the finances and more importantly the appetite to take us on?
Johnny Tabasco said:Bluemer said:You read these queer magazines ?
no but my bird does. you saying you wouldnt pick one up if they had pics of Stephen Irelands wedding in there ?
Actually, imagine that. I suspect that wedding would be a whole new level of tastelessness.
fulhamroad22 said:Blue Train said:fulhamroad22 said:Well we were pretty good from 1990 onwards and if I'm not mistaken, most of his investment came around 1993/1994 time, where we were threatened with administration.
In 1990/91 you finished 11th. The following year 14th. Then 11th. Then 14th. Then you got the Harding money and it was two more years of 11th before it kicked in and you were a top 6 side winning trophies from there on.
That's six years of mid-table mediocrity, with significant investment coming in towards the end allowing you to claw your way up to 'success'.
You may not call that 'buying success' but I do.
But it's the parallels with City I find really interesting as that's almost exactly what's happened to us (two seasons ago we started to receive major investment but it didn't immediately show in the league positions)... if, as everyone assumes, we actually do become a top 6 side this season.
Does that not coincide more with the Premier League being formed than Harding's investments?
Blue Train said:fulhamroad22 said:Blue Train said:fulhamroad22 said:Well we were pretty good from 1990 onwards and if I'm not mistaken, most of his investment came around 1993/1994 time, where we were threatened with administration.
In 1990/91 you finished 11th. The following year 14th. Then 11th. Then 14th. Then you got the Harding money and it was two more years of 11th before it kicked in and you were a top 6 side winning trophies from there on.
That's six years of mid-table mediocrity, with significant investment coming in towards the end allowing you to claw your way up to 'success'.
You may not call that 'buying success' but I do.
But it's the parallels with City I find really interesting as that's almost exactly what's happened to us (two seasons ago we started to receive major investment but it didn't immediately show in the league positions)... if, as everyone assumes, we actually do become a top 6 side this season.
Does that not coincide more with the Premier League being formed than Harding's investments?
Premier League was formed two years before Harding's investment. I suppose you can discount it as a major factor because every other team also received SKy money and Chelsea were only a mid-table team. It was Harding that gave you the edge and provided the platform to launch you into the top 6.
Seems to me that's exactly what's happening at City. We've just had a much shorter time period between our Harding (Thaksin) and our Abramovitch (Mansour). Same effect, though: stability achieved, another two frustrating seasons in mid-table, and then (hopefully) top 6 cemented and trophies galore.
Thanks for the blueprint ;-)