Tony Gale - thick, jelous scumbag

[Failsworth_Blue]

How do you work that out?

Wages were £7.5m per year.

He stayed two years.

Cost us £15m in wages and we lost £10m on the transfer fee.

£25m loss.

Not rocket science is it?

Since when did people start taking into consideration the wages paid to the players over the time they've been there when talking about a loss especially when you consider for one year he made a positive contribution to the club on the pitch?

 

[hertsblue]

Tony Gale on Sky

presenter: next up Tony Gale
camera zooms to Gale who tries a wisecrack and giggles

Break

After break Gale is up
1st a pathetic attempt to flirt with female presenter, then giggles
Then 5 mins of trying to be funny and giggling.

Copy and paste for all other appearences

 

[Pigeonho]

It was bad business. There's no other way to describe it. And as for the other players the pundits have a pop at us for, they have a pop because we DO pay over the odds for most of them, and the reason for that is because 2 years ago we paid £32.5m for a footballer to 'announce our presence on the world of football'. As soon as we did that, we were going to get overcharged for everyone. Ironically we got undercharged for one of our best players, AJ, who looks to be able to do the business in a way Robinho could only dream about. Back to the point in hand though, £32.5m for Robinho, in terms of what he gave us, is bad business and can't really be seen as anything but.

 

[GStar]

How do you work that out?

Wages were £7.5m per year.

He stayed two years.

Cost us £15m in wages and we lost £10m on the transfer fee.

£25m loss.

Not rocket science is it?

If he didn't play for two years then maybe that'd be valid. But you don't count wages as a loss.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Wages were £7.5m per year.

He stayed two years.

Cost us £15m in wages and we lost £10m on the transfer fee.

£25m loss.

Not rocket science is it?

If he didn't play for two years then maybe that'd be valid. But you don't count wages as a loss.

Well OK, he made a patchy contribution for a season then no contribution for a season.

So he cost us £25m for one patchy season - and a lot of headaches and bad PR.

Awful business by anyone's standards.

 

[m27]

On a 5 live last year, David Bernstein called the attempt to get Kaka: "The wrong player at the wrong time ... probably too early for a player of that stature, and too much attention would have been focussed on whether he succeeded or failed."

Same with Robinho, really.

In all the confusion of the takeover, I wonder how much of it was down to Al-Fahim, who was telling the press that day we were going to sign every superstar available.

Robinho was maybe the most skillful player to ever wear a City shirt (Kinky included), but the wrong player at that time, and under the wrong manager - for him, anyway. (Not saying Hughes was a bad manager, just not the kind Robinho needed.)

Did we need a 'marquee' signing at that time? a 'statement of intent?'

Not sure.

But it didn't work out for either party, so let's be thankful for the touches of brilliance that we saw, and accept that the Sheikh is probably less bothered about the £11m we lost than most of the pundits.

I don't think he would ever be the 'right' player for us to be honest.

You never know though, the Sheikh might actually not regret his signing as it did make the World stand up and take notice very very quickly.

Personally, although certain moments will live long in the memory (the chip against Arsenal, the last minute finish at Ewood and his overall displays against Portsmouth, Stoke and Hull) on balance, the whole deal was a bit of nightmare.

Nevermind. Let's move on.

 

[GStar]

Well OK, he made a patchy contribution for a season then no contribution for a season.

So he cost us £25m for one patchy season - and a lot of headaches and bad PR.

Awful business by anyone's standards.

I'm going to be arkward and say he had one good season (2nd highest goalscorer behind Ronaldo) and one season where he never even really got a chance. I reckon its as much Mancini not wanting him as it is Robinho not wanting to be here. If we wanted to gag him in the media, i;m sure we'd have found a way to.

He wasn't perfectly suited to the PL, but he was adapting... much like Silva will have to.

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

It was bad business. There's no other way to describe it. And as for the other players the pundits have a pop at us for, they have a pop because we DO pay over the odds for most of them, and the reason for that is because 2 years ago we paid £32.5m for a footballer to 'announce our presence on the world of football'. As soon as we did that, we were going to get overcharged for everyone. Ironically we got undercharged for one of our best players, AJ, who looks to be able to do the business in a way Robinho could only dream about. Back to the point in hand though, £32.5m for Robinho, in terms of what he gave us, is bad business and can't really be seen as anything but.

One of the things people had a pop at with regards to Robinho was his away form and rightly so but has AJ really been that good for us away from home since he's signed? Don't get me wrong i like AJ, i think he's a good player but he's got a long way to go and he's still at times found wanting in terms of his influence away from home in the same way Robinho was. Either way Robbie doesn't want to play for us and AJ does so i'm glad we've got AJ

We don't get over charged because of what we paid for Robinho, we get over charged now because people know that we're loaded, just like Chelsea did a few years back but the players they seemingly paid to much for at the time have mostly turned out to be excellent players and i'm hoping for the same from our new signings

 

[@BluePhil8]

Ibrahimovic cost €69million and Milan have the option to buy him for €22million, that alone is a loss of €47million, in the space of one year. However, apparently now we are adding on wages to transfer fees! (Don't ask why, it's just so City look bad to the mongrels who read the sun) So add another €9million to that. So in total in the space of one year Barcelona made a loss off €56million! LOL or they paid something like €4million a goal!

Yet no one breaths so much as a negative word about them!

 

[Pigeonho]

It was bad business. There's no other way to describe it. And as for the other players the pundits have a pop at us for, they have a pop because we DO pay over the odds for most of them, and the reason for that is because 2 years ago we paid £32.5m for a footballer to 'announce our presence on the world of football'. As soon as we did that, we were going to get overcharged for everyone. Ironically we got undercharged for one of our best players, AJ, who looks to be able to do the business in a way Robinho could only dream about. Back to the point in hand though, £32.5m for Robinho, in terms of what he gave us, is bad business and can't really be seen as anything but.

One of the things people had a pop at with regards to Robinho was his away form and rightly so but has AJ really been that good for us away from home since he's signed? Don't get me wrong i like AJ, i think he's a good player but he's got a long way to go and he's still at times found wanting in terms of his influence away from home in the same way Robinho was. Either way Robbie doesn't want to play for us and AJ does so i'm glad we've got AJ

We don't get over charged because of what we paid for Robinho, we get over charged now because people know that we're loaded, just like Chelsea did a few years back but the players they seemingly paid to much for at the time have mostly turned out to be excellent players and i'm hoping for the same from our new signings

Oh yeah that goes without saying mate, but it didn't 'help' matters, (if you get my meaning), that on the day we became loaded we went 'coooeee, look at meeeee', and splashed £32.5m on a tantrum prone player. People knew we were not just rich after that, but filthy rich.