tolmie's hairdoo said:.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
I have been enjoying your postings. Keep 'em coming.
Apparently we should go back for Barkley in a few years, should he prove himself at the top level, despite playing at a club that can't ever aspire to such a level as ours.
The glaring fault in this cunning plan being we can't complain when the price is double what it would have previously cost us to try and develop a clear talent.
stony said:tolmie's hairdoo said:.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
I have been enjoying your postings. Keep 'em coming.
Apparently we should go back for Barkley in a few years, should he prove himself at the top level, despite playing at a club that can't ever aspire to such a level as ours.
The glaring fault in this cunning plan being we can't complain when the price is double what it would have previously cost us to try and develop a clear talent.
I'd rather spend £60M on a proven player who is already world class, than spunk £40M on Barkley who may or may not come good.
With the CFA in place, the only players we should be buying are world class players. If we take a chance on youth, then it should be kids promoted from our own academy.
stony said:tolmie's hairdoo said:.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
I have been enjoying your postings. Keep 'em coming.
Apparently we should go back for Barkley in a few years, should he prove himself at the top level, despite playing at a club that can't ever aspire to such a level as ours.
The glaring fault in this cunning plan being we can't complain when the price is double what it would have previously cost us to try and develop a clear talent.
I'd rather spend £60M on a proven player who is already world class, than spunk £40M on Barkley who may or may not come good.
With the CFA in place, the only players we should be buying are world class players. If we take a chance on youth, then it should be kids promoted from our own academy.
we are a different club now than when we bought kompany though. If I remember correctly, he had a few major injuries at the time, and a club with where we are at now would see him as to risky to buy.Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:stony said:tolmie's hairdoo said:I have been enjoying your postings. Keep 'em coming.
Apparently we should go back for Barkley in a few years, should he prove himself at the top level, despite playing at a club that can't ever aspire to such a level as ours.
The glaring fault in this cunning plan being we can't complain when the price is double what it would have previously cost us to try and develop a clear talent.
I'd rather spend £60M on a proven player who is already world class, than spunk £40M on Barkley who may or may not come good.
With the CFA in place, the only players we should be buying are world class players. If we take a chance on youth, then it should be kids promoted from our own academy.
We should be doing both invest in world class players and buy young players we can turn into world class players. I t would be stupid and unrealistic to spend 60 m every time we buy a player. Great example being company only cost 4 m, we need to be looking for those players
.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
No please tell us what ridiculousness you see in his post as it looks spot on to most people I should thinkSitka said:.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
Without going in to all the ridiculousness you spewed here, what makes you think Barkley can match Toure's passing?
I agree with a lot of this, but you are overpraising British talent..A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
Ricster said:.A. said:Put Koke or Pogba in this years Everton team and the hipsters wouldn't be anywhere near as insistent that we sign them. Put Barkley in the laughably declining Serie A in the same team next to Tevez, Pirlo and Vidal and he'd look astounding.
It's a shame Pellegrini's anglophobia has transmitted onto most on here; most big money flops in the Premier League have been foreign, but the prospect of signing Lamelas, Soldados and Paulinhos, or Mangalas, Fernandos or Robinhos is more exciting than investing in and developing a young domestic talent for the modern football fan of a modern money club.
The most successful club of the Premier League era was identifiably British, and they had a big impact on Europe as well; the notion that British players aren't up to standard is simply moronic. The likes of Scholes, Lampard, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Giggs and Rooney have more top-level medals and have starred in more latter-stage European Cup games than Manchester City Football Club.
To refuse to acknowledge and adopt that winning formula is naive to the point of stupidity on the part of both those running the club, and the fans who pine for exclusively foreign transfer activity. If we one day want to be a club like Bayern or Barca, we have to forge a similar identity to those clubs; if Barkley was German Bayern would have signed him last summer, while Ferguson would have spent the Herrera money on him instead. That's what those who know how to build sustainable success do.
Barkley has had more of an impact on top-level football than Toure did at 21, and has all of the tools to both succeed and exceed him in our midfield. He can match Toure's passing, driving runs and has a good enough shot with either foot to gradually score 10+ goals from midfield, while also having an extra willingness/capability to chase down and tackle.
I find it hard to understand some logic on here; we now read that Gareth Bale isn't good enough for us. Says it all really.
The modern City fan wouldn't have wanted us to sign Colin Bell either.
Best post I've seen for a long time on Bluemoon and agree 100%. I think everyone would have Barkley on last season's form, and if the price is right, all would take him. It's all about the price. 25m max for me.