Theo Walcott? ..

I'm hearing Afellay to Bin Dippers (on loan from Barca). We appear to have a free run at TW then. He's not going to be a starter wherever he goes, unless its out of the top 6, but he would prefer 20 games a season and a pot than bench warming for nothing. So a bid for him given his contract impasse makes sense. £12.5m. Definitely an impact player and certainly a plan B option.
 
If I was to choose between Sinclair and Walcott, Walcott would be chosen every time.

Look at it this way.

- Champions League experience which Sinclair has not got.
- Can offer a good load of assists.
- One of the fastest players in Europe.


Wenger may be the manager to put his arms around his players but I believe with Mancini's hard discipline - Walcott could really flourish under him and he has the potential to become a regular for City, something I cannot see in Sinclair.
 
Sturridge might cost about the same, about £15million + 15% discount (sell-on clause)... though Chelsea would probably charge us extra taking that into account. Who would people prefer, Walcott or Danny boy?
 
FanchesterCity said:
Johnson wasn't warming the bench for nothing...

He was there because he was given opportunities and didn't take them fully.

Any player who comes to City gets opportunity... if they shine, they get picked regularly, if not, they get dropped.

If Rodwell shines, brilliant.
If Walcott / Sinclair shines, brilliant.

If not - they leave to try and shine at a lesser time.

Welcome to football.
Click to expand...

New arrivals need playing time to settle in, adjust and get used to a new club / environment. You can't expect them to play well from day one - look at Nasri for example - unless you buy Messi. How do they get chance to find their best form if they get dropped after 3 so-so games ? If we buy players they need to be given time by those who have bought them not left in the reserves and then sold off at 50% loss after 12 months.
 
People seem to be confused.

Folks are assuming that the lack of a signing = Marwood not doing his job.

Why can't folks get their minds around the possibility that the lack of signing is Marwood actually DOING his job, and cutting the talks when the budget is broken.

It's perfectly feasibly the owner has said "Brian - YOUR job is to be the rational negotiator. Roberto will identify the targets, and you'll both set out the constraints prior to entering negotiations (and run them by me). Your job is to pull the plug when those limits are broken, as Roberto is more emotional and likely to get drawn into paying more".

If I was running the club... I'd be saying that to Marwood. If we're just going to pay the asking price at any cost, there's no point in having Marwood or anybody else in that position - might as well just post a blank cheque to the clubs owning the players we want, and let them determine the price.
 
LoveCity said:
Sturridge might cost about the same, about £15million + 15% discount (sell-on clause)... though Chelsea would probably charge us extra taking that into account. Who would people prefer, Walcott or Danny boy?
Click to expand...
Walcott. We have goals and Sturridge wants to play up front rather than out wide. Would CFC sell Sturridge? That would leave them with 1 forward. I wouldn't want to help finance a CFC move for another top striker
 
Walcott is frustrating Bob, but he's become quite productive in the last two seasons. He fed van Persie a lot of goals.

2009/2010: 13 goals, 12 assists
2010/2011: 9 goals, 11 assists
 
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.