Sinclair

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

City Watch ‏@City_Watch 51m51 minutes ago
Mirror: Aston Villa continue to insist they will not pay more than £1.5m for Scott Sinclair, with City demanding £3m for the winger.

He's gonna be worth £3m if yer compare what others are getting for their dross!

 

[CatMan]

I can see no situation where keeping him would be beneficial to us?

Why not let him go for a minimal fee? am I missing something?

I can only think City are confident someone else will offer more. #Doubtful

Try#More-chance-of-poking-fog-up-a-cat's-arsehole-using-a-knitting-needle!

 

[FantasyIreland]

I can see no situation where keeping him would be beneficial to us?

Why not let him go for a minimal fee? am I missing something?

It's easy to be pragmatic about it and let him go cheaply, but in the long run other clubs will think they can carry on taking the piss. So it's better that we make a stand on Sinclair, let other clubs know we're willing and able to take the hit rather than let them have one of our players on the cheap.
I'd rather we lose a couple of million on Sinclair than continue having a reputation for being an easy touch when we want a player gone. Better to make a stand while it will cost peanuts, rather than take a massive hit when we want rid of someone like Dzeko.

I guess that is the only reason,it does make long term sense.....I just want rid of the lad,it seems he has a total lack of ambition.

 

[Ray78]

I can see no situation where keeping him would be beneficial to us?

Why not let him go for a minimal fee? am I missing something?

It's easy to be pragmatic about it and let him go cheaply, but in the long run other clubs will think they can carry on taking the piss. So it's better that we make a stand on Sinclair, let other clubs know we're willing and able to take the hit rather than let them have one of our players on the cheap.
I'd rather we lose a couple of million on Sinclair than continue having a reputation for being an easy touch when we want a player gone. Better to make a stand while it will cost peanuts, rather than take a massive hit when we want rid of someone like Dzeko.

I guess that is the only reason,it does make long term sense.....I just want rid of the lad,it seems he has a total lack of ambition.

We are better off putting our foot down on this. It's not like we asking for what we originally paid for the player. £3m is chicken feed.

 

[FantasyIreland]

The fee is 'chicken feed' but unfortunately his wage isn't.Very few clubs can afford to take it on,which has to be their main consideration.

He simply isn't value for money.

 

[Ray78]

The wage issue is not our problem. They agree a fee with us then they negotiate with the player we shouldn't completely foot the bill. If Sinclair is that serious about moving then he should pay or forego his 'loyalty bonus'

 

[mad zab]

Well Kyle Naughton has just been sold for between £4m/£5m and he hardly played for Spurs, so I don't think we are asking too much for Sinclair.

So I am happy we have told Villa to pay up or shut up!

 

[Davs 19]

I can see no situation where keeping him would be beneficial to us?

Why not let him go for a minimal fee? am I missing something?

It's easy to be pragmatic about it and let him go cheaply, but in the long run other clubs will think they can carry on taking the piss. So it's better that we make a stand on Sinclair, let other clubs know we're willing and able to take the hit rather than let them have one of our players on the cheap.
I'd rather we lose a couple of million on Sinclair than continue having a reputation for being an easy touch when we want a player gone. Better to make a stand while it will cost peanuts, rather than take a massive hit when we want rid of someone like Dzeko.

Exactly this mate. We've dropped our pants far too easily in the past and need to make others aware that those days are gone.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

And according to Dolittle's, Villa are rated as one of the biggest revenue earners in European football, along with the rest of the EPL. If Villa want to keep it that way, and if Sinclair has any ambition, then there should be no problem in Villa stumping up the money and Sinclair agreeing a deal with that club. There's no reason for City to set themselves up as a charity, and Platini wouldn't approve of that anyway. Far better to make a stand as Chelsea would, and demand top whack money with the true intent of selling Sinclair off at reasonable cost rather than as a giveaway.

 

[alanblue]

The wage issue is not our problem. They agree a fee with us then they negotiate with the player we shouldn't completely foot the bill. If Sinclair is that serious about moving then he should pay or forego his 'loyalty bonus'

Fucking loyalty bonus my arse