so this agenda thing.

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

He's not exactly wrong in saying that moving to us would be a bad move for him right now.

But Lescott and Milner were first choice until this season just gone. Rodwell was never fit.

Sinclair we can have no excuse for. Mancini ruined him.

if you really believe this then we should knock down the much vaunted academy and sell off all the kids as no-one will ever make it at City from the ranks by your reckoning

I think that's a little different. The likes of Lopes, Huws and Rekik clearly aren't ready yet from what we've seen of them in the first team, that's why we're sending them out on loan. I imagine that Zuculini will be the one who we sell for a decent fee in a couple of years' time. Our academy will start to bear fruit consistently before we hit 2020, though.

But anyway, my point: coming from the academy, and the fact that none of them are English, means they'll have time to quietly develop away from the media spotlight. City will also have the sentimental attachment. Huws has had an exceptional season for Birmingham, but who outside of Birmingham and us know that? Nobody. That's because nobody in the English press cares about whether Huws is the man to lead Wales to a World Cup finals or whether Rekik will replace Martins Indi in the Holland side, but everybody has their eye on Barkley.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone had their eye on a young Scott Parker at Charlton Athletic, or a young Shaun Wright-Phillips at Manchester City. I don't blame either player for the moves they made because their talent far outshone the clubs they played for, but Barkley fits right in at Everton because they're both on the cusp of something special. If Barkley allows himself to believe that he'll become the next Frank Lampard or Stephen Gerrard, just like Parker did (just watch out for the comparisons) he'll be another England drone from the production line of failures.

Keeping Barkley at Everton keeps him grounded. Martinez is a smart guy who'll be well aware that Barkley has that something which could take him to stardom. It's the same reason most Spanish players don't leave Spain until they're older than 23 - they learn the important bits until they're old enough to leave and apply their trade elsewhere. Sending Barkley to City, Chelsea, Barcelona, United, whoever, adds pressure he doesn't need. Barkley is far from the finished article but it won't take him long to get there. There's no point signing him this summer for an over-inflated fee when he's not ready to take over from Yaya. He'd be a small fish in a very big pond at a club who, if they see Barkley is dragging the team down, can replace him at the click of a finger.

 

[blightee]

Sinclair has never been a good enough footballer for this club, that's the difference. No one "ruined" him, he's simply not talented enough. Only the cream of the crop in our academy will even have a chance at the first team, because the majority will not be good enough.
Barkley's performances last season (especially vs us) show that he is a very good player already and could be a backup player in our first team right now. At his age he has plenty of time for improvement so he could very well be a superstar. I guess it depends on what is more beneficial to his development, being in a world class environment and being aided by some of the best players & coaches in the world, or by playing more alot more often in a team with lower expectations under a good manager with limited resources. At 20 I think that its in his best interest to stay at Everton, and at 22-24 should he outgrow his team then he would be better off moving on to a more competitive team

Basically I think that the way Bale's career developed is the best way for a player to reach his potential (obviously in his case there was alot of potential anyway, but he has definitely improved since moving to madrid)

 

[stony]

He's not exactly wrong in saying that moving to us would be a bad move for him right now.

There is no way on god's earth that such an article would be written at this stage in connection with a mooted move to united.

Bang on the button. I eagerly await his article on Wilfred Zaha.

 

[bluechampion7891]

My opinion on the matter is that last season Pellegrini was under some pressure to deliver, hence he didn't give youth (Lopes and Huws) more minutes. I think he is a very good manager who has in the past massively influenced the development of younger players (see Isco who was 21 when he left Malaga) and he would also develop Barkley brilliantly.

Although my gut feeling is that it would probably be better for Barkley personally to play 1 more season at Everton, I think we would be wouldn't be favourites to sign him next season (unless we have an agreement now with Everton). If United are back in CL, they will bid for him in the same way they out bid for Shaw. So that's a risk IMO. However, playing with World class players too can have a positive effect, and has been mentioned, in a setup where we have better coaches it might be more beneficial. I think he'll learn a lot from Toure and Silva as well.

I also think he would get good playing time here. Definitely not as much as at Everton, but given decent runs in cups, he should get enough time. From squawka, these were the mins played by our MFs last season:
Toure: 2917
Fernandinho: 2608
Garcia: 1539 (albeit some were as CB)
Rodwell: 116
Also, Milner played once or twice there.
And how can we forget Demicheles against Chelsea at home.

Toure at 31 needs to be managed well, that 2-3 week break that he got due to his injury did him well IMO as he got good rest (those runs at Crystal Palace!). Fernandinho looked knackered at the end of last season too. Of course, some of those minutes will be made up by Fernando, but given that we will probably play a 3 man midfield slightly more often, I can see Barkley getting time in the League as well.

 

[Bill]

He's not exactly wrong in saying that moving to us would be a bad move for him right now.

But Lescott and Milner were first choice until this season just gone. Rodwell was never fit.

Sinclair we can have no excuse for. Mancini ruined him.

mancini ruined him ? or he was not as good as we thought he was,did Chelsea ruin him? did west brom ruin him,maybe,just maybe,he thought he made it,didnt have to work as hard "now he was a top pro at a top club" and ruined himself

It's not Sinclair's fault he signed for us. He had the chance to prove himself in the top 4 and the Champions' League - who could say no to that forever? He was a promising winger doing quite well in the Premier League at a decent level. We signed him, and I think he could have done a job for us, but Mancini didn't trust him and allowed him to lose fitness.

Barkley will only join us when Yaya either leaves or retires, he's good to stay at Everton until then. He's a young lad working under a technically driven manager. Let's just hope the press stop comparing him to players of the past. It's happened with Lennon, Bentley, Parker, Welbeck, Wilshere, and all the other promising youngsters who've amounted to nothing. Allow him to progress quietly and he could be special.

Joining City isn't progressing quietly, it's jumping the gun. He'll be fine at Everton for another year or two, by which time he'll be worth about £35m and ready to take over from Yaya.

You are totally deluded bob. Barkley will not stay at Everton for another two years and if he did you can put about 60m away to buy him. Might get him now for around 35 but no chance later on. Besides there will be a bidding war. I'd get him right now whilst we can.loan him back if need be.

 

[sir baconface]

There is a difference between "agenda" and "bias". In simple terms an agenda is more deliberate and coordinated.

Most posters agree there is a pro-rag/dipper bias. A major factor seems to be the number of hacks and pundits growing up in an era when those two were the most successful clubs.

I still believe City get less favourable treatment because of the noticeable "establishment" bias rather than any concerted campaign against us.

Things shift. Last year saw one or two journos emboldened as the Moyes comedy unfurled and the Piss Can could no longer threaten fatwa. They dared to query some of the club's strategic decisions and omissions. Then they flipped into "Giggs is a god" and "Van Gaal is the messiah" mode. So far only a blip then but the long term trend is clear. In ten years time we will be part of the establishment and one of two of the current members will be moaning about an agenda against them.

 

[Bill]

There is a difference between "agenda" and "bias". In simple terms an agenda is more deliberate and coordinated.

Most posters agree there is a pro-rag/dipper bias. A major factor seems to be the number of hacks and pundits growing up in an era when those two were the most successful clubs.

I still believe City get less favourable treatment because of the noticeable "establishment" bias rather than any concerted campaign against us.

Things shift. Last year saw one or two journos emboldened as the Moyes comedy unfurled and the Piss Can could no longer threaten fatwa. They dared to query some of the club's strategic decisions and omissions. Then they flipped into "Giggs is a god" and "Van Gaal is the messiah" mode. So far only a blip then but the long term trend is clear. In ten years time we will be part of the establishment and one of two of the current members will be moaning about an agenda against them.

ffp is not bias. its a full blown agenda.

 

[cibaman]

He's not exactly wrong in saying that moving to us would be a bad move for him right now.

But Lescott and Milner were first choice until this season just gone. Rodwell was never fit.

Sinclair we can have no excuse for. Mancini ruined him.

if you really believe this then we should knock down the much vaunted academy and sell off all the kids as no-one will ever make it at City from the ranks by your reckoning

I think that's a little different. The likes of Lopes, Huws and Rekik clearly aren't ready yet from what we've seen of them in the first team, that's why we're sending them out on loan. I imagine that Zuculini will be the one who we sell for a decent fee in a couple of years' time. Our academy will start to bear fruit consistently before we hit 2020, though.

But anyway, my point: coming from the academy, and the fact that none of them are English, means they'll have time to quietly develop away from the media spotlight. City will also have the sentimental attachment. Huws has had an exceptional season for Birmingham, but who outside of Birmingham and us know that? Nobody. That's because nobody in the English press cares about whether Huws is the man to lead Wales to a World Cup finals or whether Rekik will replace Martins Indi in the Holland side, but everybody has their eye on Barkley.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone had their eye on a young Scott Parker at Charlton Athletic, or a young Shaun Wright-Phillips at Manchester City. I don't blame either player for the moves they made because their talent far outshone the clubs they played for, but Barkley fits right in at Everton because they're both on the cusp of something special. If Barkley allows himself to believe that he'll become the next Frank Lampard or Stephen Gerrard, just like Parker did (just watch out for the comparisons) he'll be another England drone from the production line of failures.

Keeping Barkley at Everton keeps him grounded. Martinez is a smart guy who'll be well aware that Barkley has that something which could take him to stardom. It's the same reason most Spanish players don't leave Spain until they're older than 23 - they learn the important bits until they're old enough to leave and apply their trade elsewhere. Sending Barkley to City, Chelsea, Barcelona, United, whoever, adds pressure he doesn't need. Barkley is far from the finished article but it won't take him long to get there. There's no point signing him this summer for an over-inflated fee when he's not ready to take over from Yaya. He'd be a small fish in a very big pond at a club who, if they see Barkley is dragging the team down, can replace him at the click of a finger.

SWP benefited at City because our tactics were designed to get the ball to him in good positions. When he went to Chelsea he had to adapt to their style of play and struggled because he was no longer the main man.. That's the problem with being the big fish in a small pond. When they eventually move on its much harder for them to adapt. If Barkley starts at Everton they will base their system around him. That will be good for him in some respects but will make it more difficult when he eventually moves on.

I don't agree with the agenda theory but do think its unfair that we get stick over Rodwell when its so obvious that his biggest problem has been lack of fitness.

 

[sir baconface]

There is a difference between "agenda" and "bias". In simple terms an agenda is more deliberate and coordinated.

Most posters agree there is a pro-rag/dipper bias. A major factor seems to be the number of hacks and pundits growing up in an era when those two were the most successful clubs.

I still believe City get less favourable treatment because of the noticeable "establishment" bias rather than any concerted campaign against us.

Things shift. Last year saw one or two journos emboldened as the Moyes comedy unfurled and the Piss Can could no longer threaten fatwa. They dared to query some of the club's strategic decisions and omissions. Then they flipped into "Giggs is a god" and "Van Gaal is the messiah" mode. So far only a blip then but the long term trend is clear. In ten years time we will be part of the establishment and one of two of the current members will be moaning about an agenda against them.

ffp is not bias. its a full blown agenda.

I was referring to the so-called media agenda. Re FFP, we are in agreement. Up against a cartel of vested interests there and there is most definitely collusion.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's not exactly wrong in saying that moving to us would be a bad move for him right now.

There is no way on god's earth that such an article would be written at this stage in connection with a mooted move to united.

Bang on the button. I eagerly await his article on Wilfred Zaha.

In the interests of fairness it should be stated that others have pointed to articles about Zaha which have questioned his continued connection with united. The point, however, is that not one single journalist would have questioned the move beforehand, in spite of it turning out to be such a disaster for the player.

That is the true difference. It's the perception in the minds of the press, based on their own prejudices and petty preconceptions. It would never occur to a mainstream journalist to question a young English player moving to united because they've all bought into the narrative about 'the united way'.

Zaha will not be used as a stick to beat united with if they pursue Barkley, like Rodwell has with us.