The many faces of controversial striker Craig Bellamy

[Didsbury Dave]

This time last year the gaffer decided he didn't want Bellamy. Then we had a number of bids from PL clubs, most notably Spurs, which he would have considered.

City's stubbornness (We don't know who made that decision, so let's just euphemistically refer to that person as "Bob") not to sell to a Premier League rival then, has resulted in him going away for a year, coming back with his stock at it's lowest for a long time, so therefore will not get anywhere near the wage offers he would have last season.

So he's decided that he's gonna wait for what he is contractually owed by the club.

At the end of the day he got shafted, by being denied the move he would have liked (could have had one last pop at the CL). Why would he then do us a favour by agreeing to a lesser contract somewhere else?

I seemed to be a lone voice expressing dismay at this decision 12 months ago. It was obvious that at 31 he would not be an attractive assett to sell on. And if he wasn't good enough for Mancini, why should be be frightened of what he'd do at a "Rival"?

The only explaination I could think of was that we wanted some incoming revenue for FFP. Well that's bitten us in the arse, hasn't it, because as Soulboy says, there's no chance of a fee for him.

 

[BobKowalski]

This time last year the gaffer decided he didn't want Bellamy. Then we had a number of bids from PL clubs, most notably Spurs, which he would have considered.

City's stubbornness (We don't know who made that decision, so let's just euphemistically refer to that person as "Bob") not to sell to a Premier League rival then, has resulted in him going away for a year, coming back with his stock at it's lowest for a long time, so therefore will not get anywhere near the wage offers he would have last season.

So he's decided that he's gonna wait for what he is contractually owed by the club.

At the end of the day he got shafted, by being denied the move he would have liked (could have had one last pop at the CL). Why would he then do us a favour by agreeing to a lesser contract somewhere else?

No reason why Bellamy should. Bellamy does what is best for Bellamy. Just as Mancini and City do what is best for them. Putting Bellamy (with a grudge) into a team that we would be fighting for CL places would have been stupid. So we didn't and now we have to find a more long term solution.

The landscape has changed though. City (or 'Bob') would not worry now about selling Bellamy to Spurs but equally Bellamy has had a year out of PL football and his knees are a year closer to being totally buggered so the chances of a deal with anyone are greatly reduced.

However as with Ade this is not Mancini's problem. It is a City problem or to be exact a John Williams problem. Mancini has excluded the unwanted players from the 1st team training sessions and going on Tour just makes that easier.

Whilst Bellamy and Ade moaning and then in Ade's case going on strike - which for some reason I find funny - makes for good headlines and endless threads about how badly they were or weren't treated in the great scheme of things its pretty much irrelevant.

The players will be moved on. Its just a question of how quickly and how much of a financial hit City will have to take to make it happen.

 

[johnny crossan]

I seemed to be a lone voice expressing dismay at this decision 12 months ago....

You're the lone voice expressing dismay on so many things that we probably didn't notice.

 

[BobKowalski]

This time last year the gaffer decided he didn't want Bellamy. Then we had a number of bids from PL clubs, most notably Spurs, which he would have considered.

City's stubbornness (We don't know who made that decision, so let's just euphemistically refer to that person as "Bob") not to sell to a Premier League rival then, has resulted in him going away for a year, coming back with his stock at it's lowest for a long time, so therefore will not get anywhere near the wage offers he would have last season.

So he's decided that he's gonna wait for what he is contractually owed by the club.

At the end of the day he got shafted, by being denied the move he would have liked (could have had one last pop at the CL). Why would he then do us a favour by agreeing to a lesser contract somewhere else?

I seemed to be a lone voice expressing dismay at this decision 12 months ago. It was obvious that at 31 he would not be an attractive assett to sell on. And if he wasn't good enough for Mancini, why should be be frightened of what he'd do at a "Rival"?

The only explaination I could think of was that we wanted some incoming revenue for FFP. Well that's bitten us in the arse, hasn't it, because as Soulboy says, there's no chance of a fee for him.

Mancini didn't want Bellamy because of Bellamy's character not because of any consideration about his ability.

In terms of trying to bond the squad together Mancini obviously judged that this would be more difficult with Bellamy then without Bellamy. That said there was no point in giving Bellamy to a rival and having it bite you in the arse so subsidising him in the Championship was a logical move.

Doing it in order to get a fee 12 months on would have been low on the agenda. The agenda to the exclusion of pretty much everything was qualify for the CL. Win a trophy was second. As these objectives were met the exclusion of Bellamy and then Ade was justified. Now City have to see if there is any way of recouping fees on Bellamy, Ade and the rest. Whether they do or don't remains to be seen. In the meantime Mancini is happily preparing the squad for the forthcoming season and I doubt if much time is spent pondering the fate of Bellamy or Ade.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

This time last year the gaffer decided he didn't want Bellamy. Then we had a number of bids from PL clubs, most notably Spurs, which he would have considered.

City's stubbornness (We don't know who made that decision, so let's just euphemistically refer to that person as "Bob") not to sell to a Premier League rival then, has resulted in him going away for a year, coming back with his stock at it's lowest for a long time, so therefore will not get anywhere near the wage offers he would have last season.

So he's decided that he's gonna wait for what he is contractually owed by the club.

At the end of the day he got shafted, by being denied the move he would have liked (could have had one last pop at the CL). Why would he then do us a favour by agreeing to a lesser contract somewhere else?

I seemed to be a lone voice expressing dismay at this decision 12 months ago. It was obvious that at 31 he would not be an attractive assett to sell on. And if he wasn't good enough for Mancini, why should be be frightened of what he'd do at a "Rival"?

The only explaination I could think of was that we wanted some incoming revenue for FFP. Well that's bitten us in the arse, hasn't it, because as Soulboy says, there's no chance of a fee for him.

Mancini didn't want Bellamy because of Bellamy's character not because of any consideration about his ability.

In terms of trying to bond the squad together Mancini obviously judged that this would be more difficult with Bellamy then without Bellamy. That said there was no point in giving Bellamy to a rival and having it bite you in the arse so subsidising him in the Championship was a logical move.

Doing it in order to get a fee 12 months on would have been low on the agenda. The agenda to the exclusion of pretty much everything was qualify for the CL. Win a trophy was second. As these objectives were met the exclusion of Bellamy and then Ade was justified. Now City have to see if there is any way of recouping fees on Bellamy, Ade and the rest. Whether they do or don't remains to be seen. In the meantime Mancini is happily preparing the squad for the forthcoming season and I doubt if much time is spent pondering the fate of Bellamy or Ade.

Subsidising him in the championship was an expensive luxury. Bearing in mind we paid the vast majority of his wages and he is now 31, i'd say that cost us upwards of £5m. And is we don't sell him this summer that could easily be a further £5m. And it isn't great for the club to have him and other players who we've booted out telling all of our future purchases how we treat players we've moved on from.

We should have sold him last summer if Mancini couldn't work with him. It's doing the club no good having all these players around whose faces don't fit.

 

[taconinja]

Subsidising him in the championship was an expensive luxury. Bearing in mind we paid the vast majority of his wages and he is now 31, i'd say that cost us upwards of £5m. And is we don't sell him this summer that could easily be a further £5m. And it isn't great for the club to have him and other players who we've booted out telling all of our future purchases how we treat players we've moved on from.

We should have sold him last summer if Mancini couldn't work with him. It's doing the club no good having all these players around whose faces don't fit.

I think the issue with Bellamy (and Adebayor) is that they are extremely selective about where they're willing to go. This makes it difficult to get fair price on them. You can't simply let them go for nothing as that establishes a reputation that's hard to live down. Yes, this was more expensive, but the overall plan worked.

 

[bluefandk]

Subsidising him in the championship was an expensive luxury. Bearing in mind we paid the vast majority of his wages and he is now 31, i'd say that cost us upwards of £5m. And is we don't sell him this summer that could easily be a further £5m. And it isn't great for the club to have him and other players who we've booted out telling all of our future purchases how we treat players we've moved on from.

We should have sold him last summer if Mancini couldn't work with him. It's doing the club no good having all these players around whose faces don't fit.

I think the issue with Bellamy (and Adebayor) is that they are extremely selective about where they're willing to go. This makes it difficult to get fair price on them. You can't simply let them go for nothing as that establishes a reputation that's hard to live down. Yes, this was more expensive, but the overall plan worked.

An additional point is that their salaries does not count in regards to the ffp, so we realy dont need to sell them, on the cheap.

 

[persvenality cult]

It's obviously a very tricky situation. Someone on r5 last night likened it to Chelsea; Crespo, Shevchenko (and at least one other big name) hardly kicked a ball in anger for the club before being loaned out (largely at Chelsea's expense) until their contracts ran out. Perhaps City need to be open to pragmatic solutions, but that's why it's so stupid for Bellamy and Ade to speak out; they're making it 'a point of principle', otherwise known as matter of personal and organisational pride, the club and manager feeling they have to protect their image and avoid being publicly dictated to by gobshites.

 

[BobKowalski]

I seemed to be a lone voice expressing dismay at this decision 12 months ago. It was obvious that at 31 he would not be an attractive assett to sell on. And if he wasn't good enough for Mancini, why should be be frightened of what he'd do at a "Rival"?

The only explaination I could think of was that we wanted some incoming revenue for FFP. Well that's bitten us in the arse, hasn't it, because as Soulboy says, there's no chance of a fee for him.

Mancini didn't want Bellamy because of Bellamy's character not because of any consideration about his ability.

In terms of trying to bond the squad together Mancini obviously judged that this would be more difficult with Bellamy then without Bellamy. That said there was no point in giving Bellamy to a rival and having it bite you in the arse so subsidising him in the Championship was a logical move.

Doing it in order to get a fee 12 months on would have been low on the agenda. The agenda to the exclusion of pretty much everything was qualify for the CL. Win a trophy was second. As these objectives were met the exclusion of Bellamy and then Ade was justified. Now City have to see if there is any way of recouping fees on Bellamy, Ade and the rest. Whether they do or don't remains to be seen. In the meantime Mancini is happily preparing the squad for the forthcoming season and I doubt if much time is spent pondering the fate of Bellamy or Ade.

Subsidising him in the championship was an expensive luxury. Bearing in mind we paid the vast majority of his wages and he is now 31, i'd say that cost us upwards of £5m. And is we don't sell him this summer that could easily be a further £5m. And it isn't great for the club to have him and other players who we've booted out telling all of our future purchases how we treat players we've moved on from.

We should have sold him last summer if Mancini couldn't work with him. It's doing the club no good having all these players around whose faces don't fit.

It is irrelevant what it cost to subsidise Bellamy in the Championship. The holy grail was CL qualification and the revenue stream and increased profile it brings which also allows you to bring in bigger sponsorship deals etc

Against all this Bellamy and £5m (or whatever) is of minor concern. City just kicked the problem 12 months down the line whilst concentrating on the goals that really mattered. Now we have achieved these goals we then brought in someone to specifically handle the issues of unwanted players collected en route. Bringing someone in further ring fences the isolation of the unwanted players as they are separated from the main body whilst the issues are sorted.

The unwanted players will be moved on. City may have to take a hit but they will be moved.

Big picture and all that. Bellamy is just a player who played for a season and a bit and is now surplus to requirements. The end.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The unwanted players will be moved on. City may have to take a hit but they will be moved.

Big picture and all that. Bellamy is just a player who played for a season and a bit and is now surplus to requirements. The end.

I agree that that is the bottom line. Some of these might get to deadline day but it's in everyone's interests they are moved on.