Tony Gale - thick, jelous scumbag

[Royaloak]

What a Cnut. Interviewed on SSN about the transfer window. Thinks Robinho deal was bad business. Bought for £32m, sold for £22m, so according to him, 'taking a loss of £17-£18m is bad business. apart from being thick, which I suppose you can excuse from a very mediocre ex- footballer, he then goes on to have a go at the rest of City's signings. What made me laugh was that he was defending Spurs position in going for Van Der Vaart, a player who plays in a position where they are well covered, rather than sign a centre half. His rationale for this was that 'top defenders cost £17-£18m. He then goes on to criticize us for spending £17m on Kolarov. The twat then goes on to say that Stoke and Sunderland have made good signings and to cap it all, when asked if he thought Utd's lack of activity, particularly no action on signing a ball playing midfielder, was down to lack of money, he says 'they don't need a ball player, they have Scholes Carrick and, wait for it, Fletcher. He just couldn't bring himself to answer the question.

I know I shouldn't watch it etc, but you can't turn the tv on thsee days without some nobody having a dig. I wish we'd get on with it and become successful to rub these arse holes noses into the ground.

 

[kinkysleftfoot]

What a Cnut. Interviewed on SSN about the transfer window. Thinks Robinho deal was bad business. Bought for £32m, sold for £22m, so according to him, 'taking a loss of £17-£18m is bad business. apart from being thick, which I suppose you can excuse from a very mediocre ex- footballer, he then goes on to have a go at the rest of City's signings. What made me laugh was that he was defending Spurs position in going for Van Der Vaart, a player who plays in a position where they are well covered, rather than sign a centre half. His rationale for this was that 'top defenders cost £17-£18m. He then goes on to criticize us for spending £17m on Kolarov. The twat then goes on to say that Stoke and Sunderland have made good signings and to cap it all, when asked if he thought Utd's lack of activity, particularly no action on signing a ball playing midfielder, was down to lack of money, he says 'they don't need a ball player, they have Scholes Carrick and, wait for it, Fletcher. He just couldn't bring himself to answer the question.

I know I shouldn't watch it etc, but you can't turn the tv on thsee days without some nobody having a dig. I wish we'd get on with it and become successful to rub these arse holes noses into the ground.

he's right it was bad business..........even my thick blue tinted glasses can't hide that fact!!

 

[GOATERLEGEND]

What got me was when he said " I could have played with xavi and iniesta yaya is massively over priced " then says about Gyan to sunderland for £13 million " steve bruce doesnt get it wrong " cracks me up !!!

 

[RuncornBlue]

Anyone else who has a brain and listened to him will come to the same conclusion as you and ignore the dumb fuck. Fuck them, we should just ignore it and then give them a the V's when we've done our talking on the pitch.

 

[scowy68]

Just the latest in a long,long, que of ex footballers and pundits to put the boot into City.One things for certain,he would never have got anywhere near our current first team squad had he been around at the time of our new owners taking over.Perhaps he knows this, and just chooses to put the boot in like a lot of other has beens.

 

[Manc in London]

I used to listen to his weejkly tips. They were hilarious. During Mark Hughes' first season, he only had us down for a win once during the season. LOL

We could have signed Messi, Xavi and Iniesta but the media would make it look like whoever Spurs signed was better.

No-one has questioned the signing of Sandro. He's the Braiklian version of Gelson Fernandes. But doesn't have the great attitude that the ex-Blue has. I am confident that Sandro will be one of the biggest flops in the PL.

 

[johnny crossan]

We let him down badly last season - he praised us frequently and he tipped us to beat Spurs and get 4th -

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klKNHzRMOVE[/youtube]

after the stick he took I'm not surprised he's a little wary now - especially after Sunderland

 

[darrenwassall]

Tony who?

 

[Royaloak]

What a Cnut. Interviewed on SSN about the transfer window. Thinks Robinho deal was bad business. Bought for £32m, sold for £22m, so according to him, 'taking a loss of £17-£18m is bad business. apart from being thick, which I suppose you can excuse from a very mediocre ex- footballer, he then goes on to have a go at the rest of City's signings. What made me laugh was that he was defending Spurs position in going for Van Der Vaart, a player who plays in a position where they are well covered, rather than sign a centre half. His rationale for this was that 'top defenders cost £17-£18m. He then goes on to criticize us for spending £17m on Kolarov. The twat then goes on to say that Stoke and Sunderland have made good signings and to cap it all, when asked if he thought Utd's lack of activity, particularly no action on signing a ball playing midfielder, was down to lack of money, he says 'they don't need a ball player, they have Scholes Carrick and, wait for it, Fletcher. He just couldn't bring himself to answer the question.

I know I shouldn't watch it etc, but you can't turn the tv on thsee days without some nobody having a dig. I wish we'd get on with it and become successful to rub these arse holes noses into the ground.

he's right it was bad business..........even my thick blue tinted glasses can't hide that fact!!

Wrong - we had a player who didn't want to be here, wasn't playing and despite the big reputation, wasn't up to the physical demands of the Premier League. If he'd stayed, he'd have been worth nothing to us and in addition, we'd have been caught with salary and loyalty bonuses etc. Any asset is worth what the market is prepared to pay - it would have been bad business if we sold him for £22m, if in fact we could have sold him for £30m to another team. That was not the case - it seems that £22m was the best offer in the market - we wanted shut and didn't need him anymore, therefore - good business.

Fact is, the arse has fallen out of the transfer market (do you think the filth would get £32m for Berbaflop if they sold him) and £22m for a player who can't hack it in our league doesn't seem like a bad deal under the circumstances.

 

[Chippy_boy]

What a Cnut. Interviewed on SSN about the transfer window. Thinks Robinho deal was bad business. Bought for £32m, sold for £22m, so according to him, 'taking a loss of £17-£18m is bad business. apart from being thick, which I suppose you can excuse from a very mediocre ex- footballer, he then goes on to have a go at the rest of City's signings. What made me laugh was that he was defending Spurs position in going for Van Der Vaart, a player who plays in a position where they are well covered, rather than sign a centre half. His rationale for this was that 'top defenders cost £17-£18m. He then goes on to criticize us for spending £17m on Kolarov. The twat then goes on to say that Stoke and Sunderland have made good signings and to cap it all, when asked if he thought Utd's lack of activity, particularly no action on signing a ball playing midfielder, was down to lack of money, he says 'they don't need a ball player, they have Scholes Carrick and, wait for it, Fletcher. He just couldn't bring himself to answer the question.

I know I shouldn't watch it etc, but you can't turn the tv on thsee days without some nobody having a dig. I wish we'd get on with it and become successful to rub these arse holes noses into the ground.

he's right it was bad business..........even my thick blue tinted glasses can't hide that fact!!

I think the bad part was letting the twat leave. We should have told him, you are under contract, now knuckle down and get on with it or you are boot cleaning for the next 2 years.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The whole Robinho situation was a shocking piece of business.

It's ridiculous to dress it up any other way.

Luckily the £25m loss is small change to the Sheikh.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

How does a fookin vacuous void like that get work in the media ?!

 

[laserblue]

city have saved robinho's wages over the remaining 3 years of his contract too. this didn't stop ssn this morning saying that robinho cost city £32 million and only scored 16 goals making it £2 million per goal,

they overlooked the fact that robinho is essentially a left sided midfielder not a striker and that in any case his goals per game record with city compares very favourably with that at real madrid & isn't far off his record with santos. but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good put down?

 

[Manc in London]

Luckily the £25m loss is small change to the Sheikh.

How do you work that out?

 

[Royaloak]

The whole Robinho situation was a shocking piece of business.

It's ridiculous to dress it up any other way.

Luckily the £25m loss is small change to the Sheikh.

The purchase was bad, but the sale was good. They were made in different times under different circumstances. What were the club supposed to do, hold out until somebody paid £32m? it wouldn't have happened. Leave him in the reserves and pay him £160k a week? - now that would have been bad business.

Was he worth £32m when we signed him? - no and in that respect he was a bad buy, but it was done on day one of the revolution and was a 'statement'. What's more, Chelsea were prepared to pay only a little less than us at the time.

That was then, this is now and to sell him, under current circumstances for £22m doesn't seem like that bad a deal.

 

[scowy68]

Luckily the £25m loss is small change to the Sheikh.

How do you work that out?

Probably because he has a personal fortune of 15 billion and his family are reputed to be worth 570 billion,and his wifes family aren't short of a bob or two as well.

 

[GStar]

How do you work that out?

Probably because he has a personal fortune of 15 billion and his family are reputed to be worth 570 billion,and his wifes family aren't short of a bob or two as well.

I think he means how do you get a £25mil loss when you buy for £32.4mil and sell for £22mil?

 

[Why Always Ste]

I know I shouldn't watch it etc, but you can't turn the tv on thsee days without some nobody having a dig.

So why watch it? I haven't watched my Tv for a long time now, I use my Tv as my PC Monitor and thats about it.
SSN was banished a long time ago, Only time I'll watch SkySports is on a free stream - atleast then Murdoch isn't taking money from me directly.

 

[YourBirdCanSing]

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.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Luckily the £25m loss is small change to the Sheikh.

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?