Tevez to return (Merged)

I think we can take it as read that our boys, and we've got a professional team now that I've very proud of, would not have a go in public. We haven't got any wankers like Barton, Wooney and Wio who'll go and tweet about fellow professionals and slag them off. They'll either say something positive or keep schtum, and that's absolutely the right attitude.
 
Damocles said:
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:
strongbowholic said:
Despite Joorabchian being Lescott's "advisor" as well?
Click to expand...
The plot thickens!
Click to expand...


It isn't true. Kia now advises only Tevez at City
Click to expand...
Isnt he on kia & mccarthys website as 1 of their clients?

Edit it is now the discussion on talksport about tevez and they have just mentioned lescotts tweet and was joking that kia is agent had a hand in it.....
 
Skashion said:
I think we can take it as read that our boys, and we've got a professional team now that I've very proud of, would not have a go in public. We haven't got any wankers like Barton, Wooney and Wio who'll go and tweet about fellow professionals and slag them off. They'll either say something positive or keep schtum, and that's absolutely the right attitude.
Click to expand...

Very true, but if the sentiment in the dressing room was anti-Tevez, then the players would not be posting positive stuff about his return would they? As you say, they'd keep schtum.
 
r.soleofsalford said:
martin samuel has it right in the mail.

i personally understand why he`s being allowed back.

as much as i would love to win the prem, i rather not if it meant sucking up to this ****. you see principle are i think are the difference between most city fans and the scum
Click to expand...


I'll post it here:

There is a consensus opinion that Manchester City could really do with a player like Carlos Tevez right now. And, of course, they could. A hard-running striker who scores goals to take some of the pressure off Sergio Aguero is precisely the type they need.

Unfortunately, a player they could also specifically do without is Carlos Tevez.

They require someone like him, not someone who is him. Self-centred, self-serving, disruptive, high maintenance. Why would any club with eyes on the prize want to invite that trouble through the door?

No sooner had manager Roberto Mancini even hinted at the prospect of reconciliation, Tevez was attempting to undermine him on South American television. Mancini treated him like a dog. The supporters burnt his shirt. The club did not want the truth to be known.

Rapid damage limitation was being attempted by his advisor, Kia Joorabchian, prior to Tevez's return to Manchester, but we have heard it all before.

'What Carlos was explaining in his interview was how he felt back then,' Joorabchian protested. No, he wasn't. What Carlos was doing was creating another unnecessary problem for City at a crucial time in the season.

We recognise the pattern. Carlos hands in a transfer request a month before the 2011 January transfer window; Carlos announces he wants out on the day the players return to pre-season training; Carlos plays up during City's biggest match in Europe in 41 years; Carlos decamps to Argentina midway through the club's first legitimate title challenge of the modern era. Now this.

Just at the point when there seemed to be a thaw in his relationship with Mancini, Carlos decides to heap more embarrassment on his manager and Manchester City. Why would anyone in their right mind draw him close again?

The reality is Tevez has pretty much nowhere else to go. He thought he would be at AC Milan now, but City would not waver in their insistence on a permanent transfer rather than a loan.

As for the desperate entreaty for his return, City have been writing to Tevez on a weekly basis since his November disappearance, setting out his training schedule and requesting his presence. It is his stance that has changed, not that of his club.

This may underestimate the desire of Manchester City followers to silence the red lot over the road, but there must be some - perhaps many - who would rather lose the title without Tevez than win it with him.

Not that he is likely to be the difference anyway. Tevez was good for City once, but their strongest and most consistent performances have come this season, without him. If he is missed it is as a relief striker, coming in to alleviate the demands on Aguero, who is, with David Silva, the driving force of this campaign.

Even Tevez recognises Aguero's arrival was a turning point. It empowered Mancini to tolerate selfish behaviour no longer. Tevez is a squad man now, at best. He would be useful to have around the place if focused, but his days of being at the heart of it for City are gone.

The next four games are relatively low key, home and away legs against Porto in the Europa League and two very winnable home matches against Blackburn and Bolton. It would be helpful to take the heat off Aguero until the middle of March, perhaps the visit to Swansea or the fixture against Chelsea scheduled for the 19th. That is where Tevez, fit and willing, could make a contribution: but not just on his terms.

'I would say sorry if I was wrong,' Tevez told Fox Sports Latin America. It is the 'if' that should worry Mancini. One tiny syllable, but with potential for a world of disruption.

Tevez apparently still needs convincing that disobeying the manager in public and deserting the club mid-season is wrong. Mancini has no time to persuade him of this. He has a title to win.

Ironically, it was more beneficial to City's cause when Tevez was playing golf in Buenos Aires. Nobody had to make provisions for his training sessions or deal with his petty dramas then. There was a daily conversation about his circumstances, but it involved executives, not Mancini or his coaching staff. Tevez was an admin problem, a legal problem, a contractual issue. With his return, that alters.

Despite his flash of temper in Munich that night, Mancini is not a vindictive man. He appreciates Tevez could make some contribution to the season, and all managers are pragmatists.

There is also a legal reason to have Tevez involved, with the threat of article 15 of Fifa's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: 'An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club have been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.'

The fewest number of matches Manchester City could play this season is 52 (38 Premier League, six Champions League, five Carling Cup, two Europa League, one FA Cup), the most they could complete is 59, if they reach the final of the Europa League. Tevez has so far played five games.

Even though FIFA's rules are not black and white - 'due consideration shall be given to the player's circumstances in the appraisal of such cases; the existence of a sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by-case basis' - lawyers of a cautious nature might argue the club require one more appearance from Tevez for their case to be water tight.

Yet, is he worth it? City could equally claim that Mancini was attempting to use Tevez against Bayern Munich but the player made this impossible, his unauthorised return to Argentina then making him unavailable for games in which he would have featured. Both statements have firm legal strength.

Tevez played some part in five matches between August 21 and September 21 this season. City could undoubtedly make a powerful case that his absence thereafter was largely self-inflicted. After this latest debacle, how much trust can there be between club and player anyway? How many times do City have to show willingness to forgive, only for Tevez to reject their advances with a sneer?

'The club and Carlos have been talking about things in a positive way, and he has said that he is ready to apologise if he has done something wrong,' Joorabchian insisted. And there is that 'if' again.

A bundle of pain lies within. City do not need it, just as they do not need the confrontation, or the distraction Tevez has become.

After this latest insult, the message from City should be clear. Carlos: if off.




"If off" - that's not bad.
 
halfcenturyup said:
r.soleofsalford said:
martin samuel has it right in the mail.

i personally understand why he`s being allowed back.

as much as i would love to win the prem, i rather not if it meant sucking up to this ****. you see principle are i think are the difference between most city fans and the scum
Click to expand...


I'll post it here:

There is a consensus opinion that Manchester City could really do with a player like Carlos Tevez right now. And, of course, they could. A hard-running striker who scores goals to take some of the pressure off Sergio Aguero is precisely the type they need.

Unfortunately, a player they could also specifically do without is Carlos Tevez.

They require someone like him, not someone who is him. Self-centred, self-serving, disruptive, high maintenance. Why would any club with eyes on the prize want to invite that trouble through the door?

No sooner had manager Roberto Mancini even hinted at the prospect of reconciliation, Tevez was attempting to undermine him on South American television. Mancini treated him like a dog. The supporters burnt his shirt. The club did not want the truth to be known.

Rapid damage limitation was being attempted by his advisor, Kia Joorabchian, prior to Tevez's return to Manchester, but we have heard it all before.

'What Carlos was explaining in his interview was how he felt back then,' Joorabchian protested. No, he wasn't. What Carlos was doing was creating another unnecessary problem for City at a crucial time in the season.

We recognise the pattern. Carlos hands in a transfer request a month before the 2011 January transfer window; Carlos announces he wants out on the day the players return to pre-season training; Carlos plays up during City's biggest match in Europe in 41 years; Carlos decamps to Argentina midway through the club's first legitimate title challenge of the modern era. Now this.

Just at the point when there seemed to be a thaw in his relationship with Mancini, Carlos decides to heap more embarrassment on his manager and Manchester City. Why would anyone in their right mind draw him close again?

The reality is Tevez has pretty much nowhere else to go. He thought he would be at AC Milan now, but City would not waver in their insistence on a permanent transfer rather than a loan.

As for the desperate entreaty for his return, City have been writing to Tevez on a weekly basis since his November disappearance, setting out his training schedule and requesting his presence. It is his stance that has changed, not that of his club.

This may underestimate the desire of Manchester City followers to silence the red lot over the road, but there must be some - perhaps many - who would rather lose the title without Tevez than win it with him.

Not that he is likely to be the difference anyway. Tevez was good for City once, but their strongest and most consistent performances have come this season, without him. If he is missed it is as a relief striker, coming in to alleviate the demands on Aguero, who is, with David Silva, the driving force of this campaign.

Even Tevez recognises Aguero's arrival was a turning point. It empowered Mancini to tolerate selfish behaviour no longer. Tevez is a squad man now, at best. He would be useful to have around the place if focused, but his days of being at the heart of it for City are gone.

The next four games are relatively low key, home and away legs against Porto in the Europa League and two very winnable home matches against Blackburn and Bolton. It would be helpful to take the heat off Aguero until the middle of March, perhaps the visit to Swansea or the fixture against Chelsea scheduled for the 19th. That is where Tevez, fit and willing, could make a contribution: but not just on his terms.

'I would say sorry if I was wrong,' Tevez told Fox Sports Latin America. It is the 'if' that should worry Mancini. One tiny syllable, but with potential for a world of disruption.

Tevez apparently still needs convincing that disobeying the manager in public and deserting the club mid-season is wrong. Mancini has no time to persuade him of this. He has a title to win.

Ironically, it was more beneficial to City's cause when Tevez was playing golf in Buenos Aires. Nobody had to make provisions for his training sessions or deal with his petty dramas then. There was a daily conversation about his circumstances, but it involved executives, not Mancini or his coaching staff. Tevez was an admin problem, a legal problem, a contractual issue. With his return, that alters.

Despite his flash of temper in Munich that night, Mancini is not a vindictive man. He appreciates Tevez could make some contribution to the season, and all managers are pragmatists.

There is also a legal reason to have Tevez involved, with the threat of article 15 of Fifa's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: 'An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club have been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.'

The fewest number of matches Manchester City could play this season is 52 (38 Premier League, six Champions League, five Carling Cup, two Europa League, one FA Cup), the most they could complete is 59, if they reach the final of the Europa League. Tevez has so far played five games.

Even though FIFA's rules are not black and white - 'due consideration shall be given to the player's circumstances in the appraisal of such cases; the existence of a sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by-case basis' - lawyers of a cautious nature might argue the club require one more appearance from Tevez for their case to be water tight.

Yet, is he worth it? City could equally claim that Mancini was attempting to use Tevez against Bayern Munich but the player made this impossible, his unauthorised return to Argentina then making him unavailable for games in which he would have featured. Both statements have firm legal strength.

Tevez played some part in five matches between August 21 and September 21 this season. City could undoubtedly make a powerful case that his absence thereafter was largely self-inflicted. After this latest debacle, how much trust can there be between club and player anyway? How many times do City have to show willingness to forgive, only for Tevez to reject their advances with a sneer?

'The club and Carlos have been talking about things in a positive way, and he has said that he is ready to apologise if he has done something wrong,' Joorabchian insisted. And there is that 'if' again.

A bundle of pain lies within. City do not need it, just as they do not need the confrontation, or the distraction Tevez has become.

After this latest insult, the message from City should be clear. Carlos: if off.




"If off" - that's not bad.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post - well done! Summed it up perfectly. I will never clap, applaud or cheer Tevez ever again. Never. He is a disgrace to the club, the shirt and the fans.
We do NOT need him (we are top FFS!) and we do NOT want him.
 
TGR said:
halfcenturyup said:
r.soleofsalford said:
martin samuel has it right in the mail.

i personally understand why he`s being allowed back.

as much as i would love to win the prem, i rather not if it meant sucking up to this ****. you see principle are i think are the difference between most city fans and the scum
Click to expand...


I'll post it here:

There is a consensus opinion that Manchester City could really do with a player like Carlos Tevez right now. And, of course, they could. A hard-running striker who scores goals to take some of the pressure off Sergio Aguero is precisely the type they need.

Unfortunately, a player they could also specifically do without is Carlos Tevez.

They require someone like him, not someone who is him. Self-centred, self-serving, disruptive, high maintenance. Why would any club with eyes on the prize want to invite that trouble through the door?

No sooner had manager Roberto Mancini even hinted at the prospect of reconciliation, Tevez was attempting to undermine him on South American television. Mancini treated him like a dog. The supporters burnt his shirt. The club did not want the truth to be known.

Rapid damage limitation was being attempted by his advisor, Kia Joorabchian, prior to Tevez's return to Manchester, but we have heard it all before.

'What Carlos was explaining in his interview was how he felt back then,' Joorabchian protested. No, he wasn't. What Carlos was doing was creating another unnecessary problem for City at a crucial time in the season.

We recognise the pattern. Carlos hands in a transfer request a month before the 2011 January transfer window; Carlos announces he wants out on the day the players return to pre-season training; Carlos plays up during City's biggest match in Europe in 41 years; Carlos decamps to Argentina midway through the club's first legitimate title challenge of the modern era. Now this.

Just at the point when there seemed to be a thaw in his relationship with Mancini, Carlos decides to heap more embarrassment on his manager and Manchester City. Why would anyone in their right mind draw him close again?

The reality is Tevez has pretty much nowhere else to go. He thought he would be at AC Milan now, but City would not waver in their insistence on a permanent transfer rather than a loan.

As for the desperate entreaty for his return, City have been writing to Tevez on a weekly basis since his November disappearance, setting out his training schedule and requesting his presence. It is his stance that has changed, not that of his club.

This may underestimate the desire of Manchester City followers to silence the red lot over the road, but there must be some - perhaps many - who would rather lose the title without Tevez than win it with him.

Not that he is likely to be the difference anyway. Tevez was good for City once, but their strongest and most consistent performances have come this season, without him. If he is missed it is as a relief striker, coming in to alleviate the demands on Aguero, who is, with David Silva, the driving force of this campaign.

Even Tevez recognises Aguero's arrival was a turning point. It empowered Mancini to tolerate selfish behaviour no longer. Tevez is a squad man now, at best. He would be useful to have around the place if focused, but his days of being at the heart of it for City are gone.

The next four games are relatively low key, home and away legs against Porto in the Europa League and two very winnable home matches against Blackburn and Bolton. It would be helpful to take the heat off Aguero until the middle of March, perhaps the visit to Swansea or the fixture against Chelsea scheduled for the 19th. That is where Tevez, fit and willing, could make a contribution: but not just on his terms.

'I would say sorry if I was wrong,' Tevez told Fox Sports Latin America. It is the 'if' that should worry Mancini. One tiny syllable, but with potential for a world of disruption.

Tevez apparently still needs convincing that disobeying the manager in public and deserting the club mid-season is wrong. Mancini has no time to persuade him of this. He has a title to win.

Ironically, it was more beneficial to City's cause when Tevez was playing golf in Buenos Aires. Nobody had to make provisions for his training sessions or deal with his petty dramas then. There was a daily conversation about his circumstances, but it involved executives, not Mancini or his coaching staff. Tevez was an admin problem, a legal problem, a contractual issue. With his return, that alters.

Despite his flash of temper in Munich that night, Mancini is not a vindictive man. He appreciates Tevez could make some contribution to the season, and all managers are pragmatists.

There is also a legal reason to have Tevez involved, with the threat of article 15 of Fifa's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: 'An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club have been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.'

The fewest number of matches Manchester City could play this season is 52 (38 Premier League, six Champions League, five Carling Cup, two Europa League, one FA Cup), the most they could complete is 59, if they reach the final of the Europa League. Tevez has so far played five games.

Even though FIFA's rules are not black and white - 'due consideration shall be given to the player's circumstances in the appraisal of such cases; the existence of a sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by-case basis' - lawyers of a cautious nature might argue the club require one more appearance from Tevez for their case to be water tight.

Yet, is he worth it? City could equally claim that Mancini was attempting to use Tevez against Bayern Munich but the player made this impossible, his unauthorised return to Argentina then making him unavailable for games in which he would have featured. Both statements have firm legal strength.

Tevez played some part in five matches between August 21 and September 21 this season. City could undoubtedly make a powerful case that his absence thereafter was largely self-inflicted. After this latest debacle, how much trust can there be between club and player anyway? How many times do City have to show willingness to forgive, only for Tevez to reject their advances with a sneer?

'The club and Carlos have been talking about things in a positive way, and he has said that he is ready to apologise if he has done something wrong,' Joorabchian insisted. And there is that 'if' again.

A bundle of pain lies within. City do not need it, just as they do not need the confrontation, or the distraction Tevez has become.

After this latest insult, the message from City should be clear. Carlos: if off.




"If off" - that's not bad.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post - well done! Summed it up perfectly. I will never clap, applaud or cheer Tevez ever again. Never. He is a disgrace to the club, the shirt and the fans.
We do NOT need him (we are top FFS!) and we do NOT want him.
Click to expand...


Yes very good article here, well done for posting this...............
 
halfcenturyup said:
r.soleofsalford said:
martin samuel has it right in the mail.

i personally understand why he`s being allowed back.

as much as i would love to win the prem, i rather not if it meant sucking up to this ****. you see principle are i think are the difference between most city fans and the scum
Click to expand...


I'll post it here:

There is a consensus opinion that Manchester City could really do with a player like Carlos Tevez right now. And, of course, they could. A hard-running striker who scores goals to take some of the pressure off Sergio Aguero is precisely the type they need.

Unfortunately, a player they could also specifically do without is Carlos Tevez.

They require someone like him, not someone who is him. Self-centred, self-serving, disruptive, high maintenance. Why would any club with eyes on the prize want to invite that trouble through the door?

No sooner had manager Roberto Mancini even hinted at the prospect of reconciliation, Tevez was attempting to undermine him on South American television. Mancini treated him like a dog. The supporters burnt his shirt. The club did not want the truth to be known.

Rapid damage limitation was being attempted by his advisor, Kia Joorabchian, prior to Tevez's return to Manchester, but we have heard it all before.

'What Carlos was explaining in his interview was how he felt back then,' Joorabchian protested. No, he wasn't. What Carlos was doing was creating another unnecessary problem for City at a crucial time in the season.

We recognise the pattern. Carlos hands in a transfer request a month before the 2011 January transfer window; Carlos announces he wants out on the day the players return to pre-season training; Carlos plays up during City's biggest match in Europe in 41 years; Carlos decamps to Argentina midway through the club's first legitimate title challenge of the modern era. Now this.

Just at the point when there seemed to be a thaw in his relationship with Mancini, Carlos decides to heap more embarrassment on his manager and Manchester City. Why would anyone in their right mind draw him close again?

The reality is Tevez has pretty much nowhere else to go. He thought he would be at AC Milan now, but City would not waver in their insistence on a permanent transfer rather than a loan.

As for the desperate entreaty for his return, City have been writing to Tevez on a weekly basis since his November disappearance, setting out his training schedule and requesting his presence. It is his stance that has changed, not that of his club.

This may underestimate the desire of Manchester City followers to silence the red lot over the road, but there must be some - perhaps many - who would rather lose the title without Tevez than win it with him.

Not that he is likely to be the difference anyway. Tevez was good for City once, but their strongest and most consistent performances have come this season, without him. If he is missed it is as a relief striker, coming in to alleviate the demands on Aguero, who is, with David Silva, the driving force of this campaign.

Even Tevez recognises Aguero's arrival was a turning point. It empowered Mancini to tolerate selfish behaviour no longer. Tevez is a squad man now, at best. He would be useful to have around the place if focused, but his days of being at the heart of it for City are gone.

The next four games are relatively low key, home and away legs against Porto in the Europa League and two very winnable home matches against Blackburn and Bolton. It would be helpful to take the heat off Aguero until the middle of March, perhaps the visit to Swansea or the fixture against Chelsea scheduled for the 19th. That is where Tevez, fit and willing, could make a contribution: but not just on his terms.

'I would say sorry if I was wrong,' Tevez told Fox Sports Latin America. It is the 'if' that should worry Mancini. One tiny syllable, but with potential for a world of disruption.

Tevez apparently still needs convincing that disobeying the manager in public and deserting the club mid-season is wrong. Mancini has no time to persuade him of this. He has a title to win.

Ironically, it was more beneficial to City's cause when Tevez was playing golf in Buenos Aires. Nobody had to make provisions for his training sessions or deal with his petty dramas then. There was a daily conversation about his circumstances, but it involved executives, not Mancini or his coaching staff. Tevez was an admin problem, a legal problem, a contractual issue. With his return, that alters.

Despite his flash of temper in Munich that night, Mancini is not a vindictive man. He appreciates Tevez could make some contribution to the season, and all managers are pragmatists.

There is also a legal reason to have Tevez involved, with the threat of article 15 of Fifa's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: 'An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club have been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.'

The fewest number of matches Manchester City could play this season is 52 (38 Premier League, six Champions League, five Carling Cup, two Europa League, one FA Cup), the most they could complete is 59, if they reach the final of the Europa League. Tevez has so far played five games.

Even though FIFA's rules are not black and white - 'due consideration shall be given to the player's circumstances in the appraisal of such cases; the existence of a sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by-case basis' - lawyers of a cautious nature might argue the club require one more appearance from Tevez for their case to be water tight.

Yet, is he worth it? City could equally claim that Mancini was attempting to use Tevez against Bayern Munich but the player made this impossible, his unauthorised return to Argentina then making him unavailable for games in which he would have featured. Both statements have firm legal strength.

Tevez played some part in five matches between August 21 and September 21 this season. City could undoubtedly make a powerful case that his absence thereafter was largely self-inflicted. After this latest debacle, how much trust can there be between club and player anyway? How many times do City have to show willingness to forgive, only for Tevez to reject their advances with a sneer?

'The club and Carlos have been talking about things in a positive way, and he has said that he is ready to apologise if he has done something wrong,' Joorabchian insisted. And there is that 'if' again.

A bundle of pain lies within. City do not need it, just as they do not need the confrontation, or the distraction Tevez has become.

After this latest insult, the message from City should be clear. Carlos: if off.




"If off" - that's not bad.
Click to expand...


cheers mate
 
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.