Michael Johnson

If I was a highly rated promising young footballer,tipped for city and England greatness and had the run of bad luck and injuries MJ suffered i would surely have bouts of depression and low self esteem no doubt comforted by the odd drinking binge to ease the pain..he's a young lad, give him a break. We can afford to pay him..he will repay our faith in the long run
 
Just another overreaction by City fans to a decent youth prospect.

Forget the injuries, forget the drinking or whatever.
We should get rid of him purely because he wouldn't be good enough.
He was decent for us in the end of the Pearce era, and okay but inconsistent during Sven's season. That's it, nothing else. He's never EVER prove himself to be anything but 'decent but a good prospect' and some of the jokers on here make out like he was going to be Steven Gerrard.

Being injured isn't his fault. But after an injury-series like this, he's only going to get worse. Just sell him.
 
RyantheBlue said:
Just another overreaction by City fans to a decent youth prospect.

Forget the injuries, forget the drinking or whatever.
We should get rid of him purely because he wouldn't be good enough.
He was decent for us in the end of the Pearce era, and okay but inconsistent during Sven's season. That's it, nothing else. He's never EVER prove himself to be anything but 'decent but a good prospect' and some of the jokers on here make out like he was going to be Steven Gerrard.

Being injured isn't his fault. But after an injury-series like this, he's only going to get worse. Just sell him.
Click to expand...


Thats why, for several years, Liverpool pestered us to part with him for 8m........................
 
Been said before, and is the usual comments in a Johno thread apart from the usual idiots.

I really can't see him playing for us again, but i'd absolutely love to see him make it with us. Potential to be a very good, maybe great player, but after the injuries and the length of time out i can't see him playing at the top level again

I'd love to be wrong though
 
AntonDonJuan said:
Been said before, and is the usual comments in a Johno thread apart from the usual idiots.

I really can't see him playing for us again, but i'd absolutely love to see him make it with us. Potential to be a very good, maybe great player, but after the injuries and the length of time out i can't see him playing at the top level again

I'd love to be wrong though
Click to expand...


didn’t have the same ability as Paul Lake, but the same circumstances.
 
ANY1aBLUE said:
RyantheBlue said:
Just another overreaction by City fans to a decent youth prospect.

Forget the injuries, forget the drinking or whatever.
We should get rid of him purely because he wouldn't be good enough.
He was decent for us in the end of the Pearce era, and okay but inconsistent during Sven's season. That's it, nothing else. He's never EVER prove himself to be anything but 'decent but a good prospect' and some of the jokers on here make out like he was going to be Steven Gerrard.

Being injured isn't his fault. But after an injury-series like this, he's only going to get worse. Just sell him.
Click to expand...


Thats why, for several years, Liverpool pestered us to part with him for 8m........................
Click to expand...

Ah right, so because we bought Jo for £19million he's quality - no.
 
While not taking sides in this argument... the fact is that Johnson IS in breach of his contract, due to him not being able to meet his side of the contract.

While his injury is unfortunate, that does not stop the club being entitled to cancel his contract as a result of a "frustration" of the contract... that Johnson is incapable of being fit enough to play.

The reality is that football clubs just don't do this. They bite the bullet and accept that paying players who are injured is part and parcel of the deal. The PFA would be up in arms if a club did do this, but I predict that the day is not very far off when a club does decide to cancel the contract of a long-term injured player and go to court if necessary.

I assume City think he'll either get back fit again and be part of the squad, or get fit enough to sell him on, or get any insurance for him if he fails to recover.

But I find it strange that in my job I have to routinely sack people with illnesses such as cancer, heart problems or even bad backs ... and they get 6 months to recover or they're out!

Yet millionaire footballers are given far, far more flexibility in their recovery.
 
Soulboy said:
While not taking sides in this argument... the fact is that Johnson IS in breach of his contract, due to him not being able to meet his side of the contract.

While his injury is unfortunate, that does not stop the club being entitled to cancel his contract as a result of a "frustration" of the contract... that Johnson is incapable of being fit enough to play.

The reality is that football clubs just don't do this. They bite the bullet and accept that paying players who are injured is part and parcel of the deal. The PFA would be up in arms if a club did do this, but I predict that the day is not very far off when a club does decide to cancel the contract of a long-term injured player and go to court if necessary.

I assume City think he'll either get back fit again and be part of the squad, or get fit enough to sell him on, or get any insurance for him if he fails to recover.

But I find it strange that in my job I have to routinely sack people with illnesses such as cancer, heart problems or even bad backs ... and they get 6 months to recover or they're out!

Yet millionaire footballers are given far, far more flexibility in their recovery.
Click to expand...
But we dont know whats in his contract he could have allsorts written in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.