Plain Speaking said:IMO he might flirt with us to get the best deal but why would you want to compete with at least 2 or 3 other world class strikers to start at City when he would be gauranteed a start every match at Chelsea?tolmie's hairdoo said:City are willing to meet both the buy-out clause and the wages.
It's Hazard all over again, in terms of the player having to make a straight choice between us and Chelsea.
As for FFPR, we will have the money covered in January.
They also show a willingness to pay extra agent's fees, (as Hazard!). London as a location is more desireable for many footballers, particularly after the "Olympic roadshow".
I would love him to come to us but I just cant see it.
Wrighty Wrexham said:Time for Tixi to show us what he's made off
jollylescott said:Plain Speaking said:IMO he might flirt with us to get the best deal but why would you want to compete with at least 2 or 3 other world class strikers to start at City when he would be gauranteed a start every match at Chelsea?tolmie's hairdoo said:City are willing to meet both the buy-out clause and the wages.
It's Hazard all over again, in terms of the player having to make a straight choice between us and Chelsea.
As for FFPR, we will have the money covered in January.
They also show a willingness to pay extra agent's fees, (as Hazard!). London as a location is more desireable for many footballers, particularly after the "Olympic roadshow".
I would love him to come to us but I just cant see it.
To me it's what Roman wants, Roman gets. As Tolmie said we probably are offering the same as Chelski.
However he would want to play every game.
With our abundance of strikers we can't offer that.
You have to hand it to Roman. Over summer he rebuilt the team. We simply failed to match that.
tolmie's hairdoo said:City are willing to meet both the buy-out clause and the wages.
It's Hazard all over again, in terms of the player having to make a straight choice between us and Chelsea.
As for FFPR, we will have the money covered in January.
tolmie's hairdoo said:City are willing to meet both the buy-out clause and the wages.
It's Hazard all over again, in terms of the player having to make a straight choice between us and Chelsea.
As for FFPR, we will have the money covered in January.
I agree Falcao seems more consistent than both Tevez and Balo. However if we make too many changes to our strikers thinking we are are making room for Falcao and he goes to Chelsea we could be left with egg on our face and ruin our chances of retaining the PL!NipHolmes said:Wrighty Wrexham said:Time for Tixi to show us what he's made off
The mans hand is the same as Marwoods or any other. He has set perameters and limits. Fee and wages are key but so to the agents backhander which we may not be keen on.
Then you have to factor in the senisble comment that's been said about competition. He has to compete with 4 strikers at the mo whereas as Chelsea he plays every game and competes with a fading Torres and young Daniel.
Common sense says he'll go there. Only way we make it attractive for him and also FFP is if we flog a striker or 2. I'd personally sell Tevez and Mario. One because of last year and the fact he is out of contrcat in 18 months and the other because he isn't consistent enough or good enough to be the focal point of us going forward.
A front line of Aguero and Falcoa is potentially as good as any other in history imo.
Plain Speaking said:I agree Falcao seems more consistent than both Tevez and Balo. However if we make too many changes to our strikers thinking we are are making room for Falcao and he goes to Chelsea we could be left with egg on our face and ruin our chances of retaining the PL!NipHolmes said:Wrighty Wrexham said:Time for Tixi to show us what he's made off
The mans hand is the same as Marwoods or any other. He has set perameters and limits. Fee and wages are key but so to the agents backhander which we may not be keen on.
Then you have to factor in the senisble comment that's been said about competition. He has to compete with 4 strikers at the mo whereas as Chelsea he plays every game and competes with a fading Torres and young Daniel.
Common sense says he'll go there. Only way we make it attractive for him and also FFP is if we flog a striker or 2. I'd personally sell Tevez and Mario. One because of last year and the fact he is out of contrcat in 18 months and the other because he isn't consistent enough or good enough to be the focal point of us going forward.
A front line of Aguero and Falcoa is potentially as good as any other in history imo.
Comrade Buka said:Plain Speaking said:I agree Falcao seems more consistent than both Tevez and Balo. However if we make too many changes to our strikers thinking we are are making room for Falcao and he goes to Chelsea we could be left with egg on our face and ruin our chances of retaining the PL!NipHolmes said:The mans hand is the same as Marwoods or any other. He has set perameters and limits. Fee and wages are key but so to the agents backhander which we may not be keen on.
Then you have to factor in the senisble comment that's been said about competition. He has to compete with 4 strikers at the mo whereas as Chelsea he plays every game and competes with a fading Torres and young Daniel.
Common sense says he'll go there. Only way we make it attractive for him and also FFP is if we flog a striker or 2. I'd personally sell Tevez and Mario. One because of last year and the fact he is out of contrcat in 18 months and the other because he isn't consistent enough or good enough to be the focal point of us going forward.
A front line of Aguero and Falcoa is potentially as good as any other in history imo.
If I was in charge of the transfers, I would probably try and secure Falcao's signature BEFORE shipping out half our squad. Or maybe that just lacks basic logic?