Would you have Ronaldo at City?

[lloydie]

So are sarcastic comments.
And anyone city fan who doesn't want ronaldo because he used to play for united simply doesn't want what's best for the club. It's that simple.

What is best for the Club is a moot point but it is perfectly arguable that there are better strategies than signing Ronaldo and alienating a section of the fanbase. There are certainly better branding strategies than signing someone so closely associated with City's bitter rivals.
These aren't necessarily arguments that I would fully defend but they're valid arguments nonetheless.

As for the sarcasm, you spotted it, well done you.

*strokes chin*

I went to school with Sweyn, I choose my words carefully ;)

 

[moggymoz]

Is this a trick question ? Its a YES from me...

 

[Anonymous]

You really take that as having a pop? It's a good point, because how many fans of other top clubs wouldn't want one of the best players in the world? That's not having a pop in any way shape or form, so stick your oversensitivity up your arse. Fucking mard arse.

It's not a good point because there's a special relationship between City and the rags that will colour our opinions and no others which you seem incapable of grasping, wonder why.

As for the name calling, ...childish.

So are sarcastic comments.
And anyone city fan who doesn't want ronaldo because he used to play for united simply doesn't want what's best for the club. It's that simple.

No; they simply have a different opinion of what is best for the club to you.

 

[Pigeonho]

It's not a good point because there's a special relationship between City and the rags that will colour our opinions and no others which you seem incapable of grasping, wonder why.

As for the name calling, ...childish.

So are sarcastic comments.
And anyone city fan who doesn't want ronaldo because he used to play for united simply doesn't want what's best for the club. It's that simple.

No; they simply have a different opinion of what is best for the club to you.

Ronaldo = 30+ goals and a shit load if assists.
Ronaldo = more global recognition for the club and its owners.
Ronaldo = the club on another level, perhaps the top.

That is what's best for the club.

Where's the negatives with him? Because he once played for united? Please!

 

[BlueTG]

Without a doubt yes for footballing and marketing reasons.

 

[BlueMo']

No if the decision was mine to make.

 

[Anonymous]

So are sarcastic comments.
And anyone city fan who doesn't want ronaldo because he used to play for united simply doesn't want what's best for the club. It's that simple.

No; they simply have a different opinion of what is best for the club to you.

Ronaldo = 30+ goals and a shit load if assists.
Ronaldo = more global recognition for the club and its owners.
Ronaldo = the club on another level, perhaps the top.

That is what's best for the club.

Where's the negatives with him? Because he once played for united? Please!

You're very defensive this evening mate. I only pointed out others may have a different opinion of what's best for the club?

If you look at the the current situation:

Ronaldo has not yet signed a contract with Real.
Real want him to sign a contract.
Rags get linked with a move for him.
City get linked with a move for him with the snippet that we will pay whatever the rags pay and more.

My opinion based on those factors is that he doesn't want to come to us, he probably wants to stay at Real (particularly as he has stated he is happy there just recently), is keeping his options open by saying that he still has the rags in his heart and his agent is probably using all this to drive up the terms of any new contract.

I would also suggest the City part of the story is probably Real themselves posturing saying "you'll go where WE say at the price WE want, so don't try and hold Real to ransom and sign with us."

So, with all things we know considered - and probably coming up with the wrong conclusion - we are allegedly looking to sign a player on will no doubt be a sensationalised, mega bucks contract who does not want to play for us.

Personally, I can see plenty of negatives in that, the biggest one being he will sign with Real rather than come to City. Worst case scenario (if it is all true) is we waste all that time and effort which could potentially cost us a more realistic target?

Who knows? I certainly don't as it all merely speculation.

Certainly, I can see the benefit of having him and agree with what you said about shirt sales, goals and global profile. Could we potentially then be building in the risk that, actually, he is bigger than the club?

And as we always say, no one player is bigger than the club.

 

[Pigeonho]

No; they simply have a different opinion of what is best for the club to you.

Ronaldo = 30+ goals and a shit load if assists.
Ronaldo = more global recognition for the club and its owners.
Ronaldo = the club on another level, perhaps the top.

That is what's best for the club.

Where's the negatives with him? Because he once played for united? Please!

You're very defensive this evening mate. I only pointed out others may have a different opinion of what's best for the club?

If you look at the the current situation:

Ronaldo has not yet signed a contract with Real.
Real want him to sign a contract.
Rags get linked with a move for him.
City get linked with a move for him with the snippet that we will pay whatever the rags pay and more.

My opinion based on those factors is that he doesn't want to come to us, he probably wants to stay at Real (particularly as he has stated he is happy there just recently), is keeping his options open by saying that he still has the rags in his heart and his agent is probably using all this to drive up the terms of any new contract.

I would also suggest the City part of the story is probably Real themselves posturing saying "you'll go where WE say at the price WE want, so don't try and hold Real to ransom and sign with us."

So, with all things we know considered - and probably coming up with the wrong conclusion - we are allegedly looking to sign a player on will no doubt be a sensationalised, mega bucks contract who does not want to play for us.

Personally, I can see plenty of negatives in that, the biggest one being he will sign with Real rather than come to City. Worst case scenario (if it is all true) is we waste all that time and effort which could potentially cost us a more realistic target?

Who knows? I certainly don't as it all merely speculation.

Certainly, I can see the benefit of having him and agree with what you said about shirt sales, goals and global profile. Could we potentially then be building in the risk that, actually, he is bigger than the club?

And as we always say, no one player is bigger than the club.

See there you're getting into the finer details of an actual move, whereas the entire thread is about would or would you not have him here. I've listed my reasons for having him here, reasons which are all based on why I would want a footballer of that calibre here.
If the move had legs and ronaldo made noises that it wouldn't be what he wanted but it happened anyway, then that's a while different matter and something that isn't to do with this thread. In its most simplistic terms the question is would you want ronaldo? And giving a simplistic answer it is a yes from me, and I find it hard to see why anyone wouldn't want him based on their simple reason of him having played for united, as that is just denying themselves the opportunity of enjoying one of the top two players in the world simply because he played for united years ago.

 

[Tell The King]

are we signing Ronaldo?

 

[yatesy94]

Of course, it's a no-brainer he'd attract millions of new fans from across the globe and generate us a shit load of cash. However I feel with our current set up the ex Barca boys will be looking closely at newly upcoming talent who may develop into the next Messi or Ronaldo. If it was to materialise however I don't think I'd stop grinning for about a month the rag muppets would implode.