Kolo Toure in triple £100m shitty bid

sammsky1 · 26th July 2009, 03:05

From The Sunday Times: July 26, 2009
Duncan Castles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6727549.ece

Kolo Toure is first in triple City bid

MANCHESTER CITY have agreed personal terms with Arsenal defender Kolo Toure as the Premier League’s most affluent football club continue their assault on the English transfer market. City expect to sign Toure, Joleon Lescott and John Terry by the end of August for combined fees of around £100m.

Occasional Arsenal captain Toure has been seduced by City’s standard double-your-money offer and following a season in which he was not consistently Arsene Wenger’s first choice should be sold for around £15m. The Arab-financed club have offered Everton £20m plus England under-21 international Nedum Onuoha for Lescott, who has been attracted by the prospect of starting in his preferred central defensive position.

The assault on Terry, however, has proved the most complicated with Chelsea, acting on orders from owner Roman Abramovich, repeatedly stating he is not for sale at any price.

Indeed, Carlo Ancelotti, the Chelsea coach, made the strongest statement yet on Terry when he promised his captain would remain at Chelsea and ignore the City overtures. “For sure Terry will stay in Chelsea, we have never had a problem,” Ancelotti said. “We have to wait. You have to have trust in me.”

City continue to receive strong encouragement that Terry wants the £250,000 weekly wage on offer in Manchester and are preparing to push the transfer fee beyond £40m to secure him. They are also boosted by Terry’s sustained public silence on the matter, conscious that the player’s future will remain unresolved at least until he has stated his intention to continue his career at Stamford Bridge or to move north to Eastlands.

It is understood the 28-year-old has been disappointed with the club’s failure to make top-tier reinforcements and that Abramovich did not consult him over Carlo Ancelotti’s appointment as manager. He has also complained of Chelsea’s lassitude in contacting him after City’s initial summer offer, and over having to wait a week for a meeting with Abramovich after the second.

Though Terry appears to face a difficult decision over his future, Hughes and his coaching staff remain confident he will manage to extricate himself from Chelsea — even if he is forced into requesting a transfer.

DocRockter · 26th July 2009, 03:39

Didn't Lescott already said "no" to City?? And JT did the new shirt promos and is with Chelsea in the U.S right now so I'm having hard time believing this.. Also this would leave Chelsea and specially Everton without their main CB just weeks before the new season.

RonaldoVII · 26th July 2009, 03:44

Shame we sold Silvestre to Arsenal last summer for 200k. By City's inflation this summer, even though Sil's contract would have ran out, I'm sure we could have gotten 10m for him

£15m for Kolo Toure is a joke. He is a decent defender now, but since the last African Cup of Nations, his form has dropped like a rocket. I'd compare him to Dunne; used to be a very good defender but now has lost it. As much as I like City buying average players, I'd rather they weren't funding Arsenal's debt.

kietotheworld · 26th July 2009, 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocRockter

Didn't Lescott already said "no" to City??

No, Everton turned down their bid.

Quote:

And JT did the new shirt promos and is with Chelsea in the U.S right now so I'm having hard time believing this.. Also this would leave Chelsea and specially Everton without their main CB just weeks before the new season.

Although I don't think the Terry deal will go through, doing shirt promos is no indication that a player will stay. Ronaldo was featured in a number of our promotional materials, and Henry was featured prominently in advertising for Arsenal's new kit in 2007.

samabachan · 26th July 2009, 04:04

If Arsenal got £20m or whatever City are supposedly offering for Toure that would be the worst thing City could do. If Arsenal actually get enough money to buy a good physical midfielder and an experienced defender then City haven't a hope.

MUFC07 · 26th July 2009, 04:08

Money can't buy success, even chelsea has noticed that.

kietotheworld · 26th July 2009, 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUFC07

Money can't buy success, even chelsea has noticed that.

Depends on your definition of success, in the last 3 seasons they've won more trophies than any English team except United, and the player who could have won them the European Cup cup but fucked it up was the only man in the squad that night who they didn't buy.

MUFC07 · 26th July 2009, 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kietotheworld

Depends on your definition of success, in the last 3 seasons they've won more trophies than any English team except United, and the player who could have won them the European Cup cup but fucked it up was the only man in the squad that night who they didn't buy.

The last few seasons they havent tried win the league and CL with cash, they realised it was way too hard and Roman was losing some money, and their only mistake was sacking Mourinho. Plus tbf their spending had some sense.

City really think just by buying players with their argument that they are proven in the league is gonna suddenly make them break into the top 4 when let's face it Hughes is not a top 4 club manager, at least he hasn't shown that.

kietotheworld · 26th July 2009, 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUFC07

The last few seasons they havent tried win the league and CL with cash, they realised it was way too hard and Roman was losing some money, and their only mistake was sacking Mourinho. Plus tbf their spending had some sense.

City really think just by buying players with their argument that they are proven in the league is gonna suddenly make them break into the top 4 when let's face it Hughes is not a top 4 club manager, at least he hasn't shown that.

Er..what? They won the Premiership after spending huge amounts of money, and lost it when they stopped spending huge amounts of money, the fact Roman was losing money doesn't mean you can't buy the league, it just means it's costly to do so.

MUFC07 · 26th July 2009, 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kietotheworld

Er..what? They won the Premiership after spending huge amounts of money, and lost it when they stopped spending huge amounts of money, the fact Roman was losing money doesn't mean you can't buy the league, it just means it's costly to do so.

Yeah they won it after signing mourinho and they lost it when a better team such as ourselves showed them how it's done (that 06-07 season was magnificent). Then they brought Shevchenko (turning point IMO), sacked mourinho and that's where it finished. Even in the last mourinho's season they bought free agents and Malouda.

The point is after they saw they were not going to succeed just by spending the money they have changed, but are still have one of the biggest budgets available, even if Roman is losing he wouldn't have a problem buying a player for 35m if he was worth it, say Aguero.

City are just spending on anyone available, just for the sake of doing it, just as Sir Alex said earlier.

cesc's_mullet · 26th July 2009, 05:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by samabachan

If Arsenal got £20m or whatever City are supposedly offering for Toure that would be the worst thing City could do. If Arsenal actually get enough money to buy a good physical midfielder and an experienced defender then City haven't a hope.

I doubt we'd recieve £20m for Toure, I thought the bids were around £12, which is still a good amount of money.

Personally I'd much rather he stay as he was showing some very good form during the second half of the season. But idiots on Arsenal Forums want to be shot of him at that price, though there's just too many reasons against selling him. Wenger's not guaranteed to spend the money too.

Gallas will be leaving at the end of this season, and if we sold Toure we'd start the season with one proven quality defender - Gallas. Vermaelen may very well solve all our defensive problems, but then this issue will be raised once again at the end of the season when Gallas leaves, and that's assuming Vermaelen comes on and makes an immediate impact.

Pogue Mahone · 26th July 2009, 08:20

Cesc's is right.

Toure's still young for a centre-half and one dodgy season hasn't made him permanently shit. On his day he's one of the best defenders around. He just needs the right partner.

In this current climate he'd be a bargain for £15m.

Successful · 26th July 2009, 08:31

I don't believe they will get Terry. Chelsea are not exactly in deep shit concerning money. It would cost them more to replace Terry than they would recieve. Kolo Toure and Lescott... fine, it still won't make that much of a difference because you need the highest quality to win the league.

Sarni · 26th July 2009, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUFC07

Yeah they won it after signing mourinho and they lost it when a better team such as ourselves showed them how it's done (that 06-07 season was magnificent). Then they brought Shevchenko (turning point IMO), sacked mourinho and that's where it finished. Even in the last mourinho's season they bought free agents and Malouda.

The point is after they saw they were not going to succeed just by spending the money they have changed, but are still have one of the biggest budgets available, even if Roman is losing he wouldn't have a problem buying a player for 35m if he was worth it, say Aguero.

City are just spending on anyone available, just for the sake of doing it, just as Sir Alex said earlier.

They brought Shevchenko the Summer before we won it, it's not like it was a panic signing in order to challenge us. They are still one of the best teams in Europe too and got there by spending heavily. I can't see a reason why City couldn't get there with a handful of proper transfer and decent management.

pauldyson1uk · 26th July 2009, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUFC07

Money can't buy success, even chelsea has noticed that.

it can in the short term , look at Blackburn when they won the PL.
OK did not spend has much ,but still spent,

pauldyson1uk · 26th July 2009, 10:58

Just heard on SKY that City are going to offer Lescott £105,000 a week WTF.
He is no way that good , is he? I dont think so..
If City get Terry and the others they want ,there wage bill must far outstrip what they get back from ticket sales and everything else.
It puts massive pressure on Hughes to produce silverwear and if he does not he will be out of the door.
He has bought some big ego's and I think he will find it very very hard to control them all and give them what they all want.
Can Tevez really expect to get any more games that he did at us last season?
It is going to be a very intresting season.

SAred · 26th July 2009, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldyson1uk

Just heard on SKY that City are going to offer Lescott £105,000 a week WTF.
He is no way that good , is he? I dont think so..
If City get Terry and the others they want ,there wage bill must far outstrip what they get back from ticket sales and everything else.
It puts massive pressure on Hughes to produce silverwear and if he does not he will be out of the door.
He has bought some big ego's and I think he will find it very very hard to control them all and give them what they all want.
Can Tevez really expect to get any more games that he did at us last season?
It is going to be a very intresting season.

The players already in have far outstriped there income, but for City this is not a problem has all these players contracts will not be coming out of Citys income but from there rather wealthy owners. Come year end they will still show a profit has all the contracts for the new boys will not reflect from there profit and loss statements. In fact you will probular find that the owners will write it of against tax has an entainment expense.

Pogue Mahone · 26th July 2009, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

The players already in have far outstriped there income, but for City this is not a problem has all these players contracts will not be coming out of Citys income but from there rather wealthy owners. Come year end they will still show a profit has all the contracts for the new boys will not reflect from there profit and loss statements. In fact you will probular find that the owners will write it of against tax has an entainment expense.

Nah, just cause they're loaded doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about money - if anything, the opposite.

They'll do what Abramovich did. Run the club as a business, kick-started by a massive interest free loan. They're not gonna suddenly start paying salaries out of their own pockets.

pauldyson1uk · 26th July 2009, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

The players already in have far outstriped there income, but for City this is not a problem has all these players contracts will not be coming out of Citys income but from there rather wealthy owners. Come year end they will still show a profit has all the contracts for the new boys will not reflect from there profit and loss statements. In fact you will probular find that the owners will write it of against tax has an entainment expense.

MMMM I find that a bit hard to beleive , you can't run a football club like that ,its just not right , you can't play with peoples lives like that.
Even a club like City ,deserves to be more than the play thing of a very rich Arab.
I dont know how these things work ,but surly they must have to show the players thery have bought and sold in there profit and loss , will these player not be registared and contracted to Manchester City and not the owners.
If what you are saying is true ,then it is wrong,you cant run a business at a massive loss ,which in effect they would be.

samabachan · 26th July 2009, 12:06

If this is true and Toure really goes, I think Arsenal could do a hell of a lot worse than try to sign Brede Hangeland...

SAred · 26th July 2009, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Nah, just cause they're loaded doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about money - if anything, the opposite.

They'll do what Abramovich did. Run the club as a business, kick-started by a massive interest free loan. They're not gonna suddenly start paying salaries out of their own pockets.

I think if these guys were in it for the money there is a far better opitions than buying city to make a profit. This is a rich mans toy and they will stop at nothing in making this work regardless of the cost.

Im sure there shall be benefits for Abu Dhabi which has been in the shadow of Dubai for to long, theres plenty of ego at stake there. With city and the up coming GP, Abu Dhabi are making inroads into Dubai has an altenative holiday and business destination. City to me are used has a marketing tool but will not ever turn into a profit. Chelsea couldnt and they are a far bigger club.

No club in the world can run at a profit the way these guys are throwing the money around espeially a club the size of city.

SAred · 26th July 2009, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldyson1uk

MMMM I find that a bit hard to beleive , you can't run a football club like that ,its just not right , you can't play with peoples lives like that.
Even a club like City ,deserves to be more than the play thing of a very rich Arab.
I dont know how these things work ,but surly they must have to show the players thery have bought and sold in there profit and loss , will these player not be registared and contracted to Manchester City and not the owners.
If what you are saying is true ,then it is wrong,you cant run a business at a massive loss ,which in effect they would be.

Didnt the owner come out and say that these are gifts meaning the players and that they shall not be reflected against City therefore keeping them out of debt. United couldnt splash the cash City are and compared to them we really are massive. A rich mans toy come marketing tool.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14348466.html

Pogue Mahone · 26th July 2009, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

I think if these guys were in it for the money there is a far better opitions than buying city to make a profit. This is a rich mans toy and they will stop at nothing in making this work regardless of the cost.

Im sure there shall be benefits for Abu Dhabi which has been in the shadow of Dubai for to long, theres plenty of ego at stake there. With city and the up coming GP, Abu Dhabi are making inroads into Dubai has an altenative holiday and business destination. City to me are used has a marketing tool but will not ever turn into a profit. Chelsea couldnt and they are a far bigger club.

No club in the world can run at a profit the way these guys are throwing the money around espeially a club the size of city.

They may not intend to run it at a profit any time soon but they'll take reasonable steps to protect their investment, as would any business-man. Just because they're loaded doesn't mean they don't give a fuck what happens to their cash. City will be run as a business, albeit a loss leader for the next few years.

Sarni · 26th July 2009, 12:36

At some point they will try to move City to Emirates probably.

Pogue Mahone · 26th July 2009, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

Didnt the owner come out and say that these are gifts meaning the players and that they shall not be reflected against City therefore keeping them out of debt. United couldnt splash the cash City are and compared to them we really are massive. A rich mans toy come marketing tool.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14348466.html

The article you linked to doesn't say that.

Flying Fox · 26th July 2009, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

Didnt the owner come out and say that these are gifts meaning the players and that they shall not be reflected against City therefore keeping them out of debt. United couldnt splash the cash City are and compared to them we really are massive. A rich mans toy come marketing tool.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14348466.html

City signings are gifts?

They've been gifted an almighty headache.

Sultan · 26th July 2009, 12:43

Terry is negotiating a new contract with Chelsea. Ideal scenario this City interest for his future earnings - wherever he plays his football next season.

peterstorey · 26th July 2009, 12:45

It's still not clear what their game is. Buying Liverpoool and building a new stadium would have set them back the best part of £1Bn. Buying Man City and spending £250M or even £500M on players is still a cheaper option. You can draw a parallel with Godolphin the racing/bloodstock operation. Money was pumped initially to fund success which then became self-sustaining. In recent years though, the success has dried up somewhat so I guess they're back to bankrolling it. The horseracing thing may be more about prestige than earning money and so might City.

Sultan · 26th July 2009, 12:46

City are, will become just one big marketing/advertising agency to big up Abu Dhabi.

peterstorey · 26th July 2009, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Fox

City signings are gifts?

They've been gifted an almighty headache.

Beware of Kia and Arsene bearing gifts.

SAred · 26th July 2009, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

They may not intend to run it at a profit any time soon but they'll take reasonable steps to protect their investment, as would any business-man. Just because they're loaded doesn't mean they don't give a fuck what happens to their cash. City will be run as a business, albeit a loss leader for the next few years.

This club or any football club that is run the way these guys are running city will never make a profit. City to me will be used more has a marketing tool for there interests elsewere. Its a statement "Look at what we can do with a middle of the road Football team and turn it into something now what can we do with your company profile etc" City was never brought to be run has a sensiable business venture they will always run at a loss but the other core business were they really make there money shall benefit. Some companies spend 20 million pound a year on sticking a name on a red shirt others buy football teams.

Who has ever heard of this chap before he took over city I for one didnt like millions of others. If he wanted to run this business sensiable he would not be making Wayne Bridge the best paid left back in the premier league.

Flying Fox · 26th July 2009, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterstorey

Beware of Kia and Arsene bearing gifts.

And they say beware of greeks baring gifts

Flying Fox · 26th July 2009, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

City are, will become just one big marketing/advertising agency to big up Abu Dhabi.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see an influx of UAE players head to CoMS in the long term. Shinawatra was doing it before he left with Thai players.

SAred · 26th July 2009, 13:05

Going back to on the pitch if City get these players in there weak link shall be Sparky and with old Guus Hiddik contract with the Russian team coming to a end after the world cup who to say he wont take the job nice retirement plan.

All this plays into Uniteds hands keeps Sir Alex interested for a bit longer a new challenge. He has knocked Liverpool of there perch , saw of the money challenge with Blackburn and Chelsea and got the better of the mind games with Wenger.So how do you keep the greatest of them all interested give him another challenge and in steps city. We should be thanking city for keeping Sir Alex away from retirement and keeping them the small club they are.

Sultan · 26th July 2009, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Fox

I wouldn't be surprised if we see an influx of UAE players head to CoMS in the long term. Shinawatra was doing it before he left with Thai players.

It could possibly become a training environment for future UAE hopefuls. I doubt we'll see someone breaking into the team anytime soon.

samabachan · 26th July 2009, 13:14

If it's only £12m for Toure City will be told to fuck right off by the way. Who could be signed who is better for that price? Hangeland maybe but unlikely.

Sarni · 26th July 2009, 13:18

£12m is nothing in this market.

Decotron · 26th July 2009, 13:23

Toure for 12 million would be the best signing of the 3 and a bargain at the price. Something tells me Terry wont be the same player at another club. Lescotts good but I dont think hes near top class, he stands out at in very organised unit at everton but City will be far from a settled team.

Makki · 26th July 2009, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUFC07

The last few seasons they havent tried win the league and CL with cash, they realised it was way too hard and Roman was losing some money, and their only mistake was sacking Mourinho. Plus tbf their spending had some sense.

City really think just by buying players with their argument that they are proven in the league is gonna suddenly make them break into the top 4 when let's face it Hughes is not a top 4 club manager, at least he hasn't shown that.

Thing is that City are not just strengthening their own squad, they're weakening the squads of the clubs who they will compete with for fourth spot.

They've taken Adebayor from Arsenal and are looking to take Toure, which will weaken them quite a lot if they can't find replacements.
They've taken Santa Cruz from Blackburn, they're looking to take Lescott from Everton and Terry from Chelsea, meaning they'll be considerably weaker than they were when we start the next season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAred

This club or any football club that is run the way these guys are running city will never make a profit. City to me will be used more has a marketing tool for there interests elsewere. Its a statement "Look at what we can do with a middle of the road Football team and turn it into something now what can we do with your company profile etc" City was never brought to be run has a sensiable business venture they will always run at a loss but the other core business were they really make there money shall benefit. Some companies spend 20 million pound a year on sticking a name on a red shirt others buy football teams.

Who has ever heard of this chap before he took over city I for one didnt like millions of others. If he wanted to run this business sensiable he would not be making Wayne Bridge the best paid left back in the premier league.

Agree with this. There's no fucking chance that City can be going plus with a stadium taking 35k (?) and at least ten players with wages of at least £80.000, because the prize money for winning the league, Champions League and the domestic cups won't cover that.

Sultan · 26th July 2009, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makki

Thing is that City are not just strengthening their own squad, they're weakening the squads of the clubs who they will compete with for fourth spot.

They've taken Adebayor from Arsenal and are looking to take Toure, which will weaken them quite a lot if they can't find replacements.
They've taken Santa Cruz from Blackburn, they're looking to take Lescott from Everton and Terry from Chelsea, meaning they'll be considerably weaker than they were when we start the next season.

Agree with this. There's no fucking chance that City can be going plus with a stadium taking 35k (?) and at least ten players with wages of at least £80.000, because the prize money for winning the league, Champions League and the domestic cups won't cover that.

They've taken Tevez from us. I can't quite decide if that's going to be detrimental or a benefit.

26th July 2009, 03:05	#1 (permalink)
sammsky1 First Team Regular Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Behind my  Posts: 10,189	Kolo Toure in triple £100m shitty bid From The Sunday Times: July 26, 2009 Duncan Castles http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6727549.ece Kolo Toure is first in triple City bid MANCHESTER CITY have agreed personal terms with Arsenal defender Kolo Toure as the Premier League’s most affluent football club continue their assault on the English transfer market. City expect to sign Toure, Joleon Lescott and John Terry by the end of August for combined fees of around £100m. Occasional Arsenal captain Toure has been seduced by City’s standard double-your-money offer and following a season in which he was not consistently Arsene Wenger’s first choice should be sold for around £15m. The Arab-financed club have offered Everton £20m plus England under-21 international Nedum Onuoha for Lescott, who has been attracted by the prospect of starting in his preferred central defensive position. The assault on Terry, however, has proved the most complicated with Chelsea, acting on orders from owner Roman Abramovich, repeatedly stating he is not for sale at any price. Indeed, Carlo Ancelotti, the Chelsea coach, made the strongest statement yet on Terry when he promised his captain would remain at Chelsea and ignore the City overtures. “For sure Terry will stay in Chelsea, we have never had a problem,” Ancelotti said. “We have to wait. You have to have trust in me.” City continue to receive strong encouragement that Terry wants the £250,000 weekly wage on offer in Manchester and are preparing to push the transfer fee beyond £40m to secure him. They are also boosted by Terry’s sustained public silence on the matter, conscious that the player’s future will remain unresolved at least until he has stated his intention to continue his career at Stamford Bridge or to move north to Eastlands. It is understood the 28-year-old has been disappointed with the club’s failure to make top-tier reinforcements and that Abramovich did not consult him over Carlo Ancelotti’s appointment as manager. He has also complained of Chelsea’s lassitude in contacting him after City’s initial summer offer, and over having to wait a week for a meeting with Abramovich after the second. Though Terry appears to face a difficult decision over his future, Hughes and his coaching staff remain confident he will manage to extricate himself from Chelsea — even if he is forced into requesting a transfer.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Kolo Toure in triple £100m shitty bid

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

26th July 2009, 03:39	#2 (permalink)
DocRockter Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Finland Posts: 2,067	Didn't Lescott already said "no" to City?? And JT did the new shirt promos and is with Chelsea in the U.S right now so I'm having hard time believing this.. Also this would leave Chelsea and specially Everton without their main CB just weeks before the new season.

26th July 2009, 03:44	#3 (permalink)
RonaldoVII First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: E236:24:101 PSN:FrozenInHell BetfairPromo: UTFAKVVTJ Posts: 11,526	Shame we sold Silvestre to Arsenal last summer for 200k. By City's inflation this summer, even though Sil's contract would have ran out, I'm sure we could have gotten 10m for him £15m for Kolo Toure is a joke. He is a decent defender now, but since the last African Cup of Nations, his form has dropped like a rocket. I'd compare him to Dunne; used to be a very good defender but now has lost it. As much as I like City buying average players, I'd rather they weren't funding Arsenal's debt.

26th July 2009, 04:04	#5 (permalink)
samabachan First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Football is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom Posts: 9,298	If Arsenal got £20m or whatever City are supposedly offering for Toure that would be the worst thing City could do. If Arsenal actually get enough money to buy a good physical midfielder and an experienced defender then City haven't a hope.

26th July 2009, 04:08	#6 (permalink)
MUFC07 First Team Sub Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Mexico City. "I'm looking for abstract ways of expressing reality, abstract forms that will enlighten my own mistery" Eric Cantona Posts: 7,139	Money can't buy success, even chelsea has noticed that.

26th July 2009, 08:20	#12 (permalink)
Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons from a deckchair" Posts: 56,773	Cesc's is right. Toure's still young for a centre-half and one dodgy season hasn't made him permanently shit. On his day he's one of the best defenders around. He just needs the right partner. In this current climate he'd be a bargain for £15m.

26th July 2009, 08:31	#13 (permalink)
Successful Straight Guy Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: On top of the league Posts: 4,161	I don't believe they will get Terry. Chelsea are not exactly in deep shit concerning money. It would cost them more to replace Terry than they would recieve. Kolo Toure and Lescott... fine, it still won't make that much of a difference because you need the highest quality to win the league.

26th July 2009, 10:58	#16 (permalink)
pauldyson1uk First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 12,954	Just heard on SKY that City are going to offer Lescott £105,000 a week WTF. He is no way that good , is he? I dont think so.. If City get Terry and the others they want ,there wage bill must far outstrip what they get back from ticket sales and everything else. It puts massive pressure on Hughes to produce silverwear and if he does not he will be out of the door. He has bought some big ego's and I think he will find it very very hard to control them all and give them what they all want. Can Tevez really expect to get any more games that he did at us last season? It is going to be a very intresting season.

26th July 2009, 12:06	#20 (permalink)
samabachan First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Football is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom Posts: 9,298	If this is true and Toure really goes, I think Arsenal could do a hell of a lot worse than try to sign Brede Hangeland...

26th July 2009, 12:36	#24 (permalink)
Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan. Thinks hes intelligent though. Nutter Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Krakow Posts: 20,485	At some point they will try to move City to Emirates probably.

26th July 2009, 12:43	#27 (permalink)
Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing Posts: 30,693	Terry is negotiating a new contract with Chelsea. Ideal scenario this City interest for his future earnings - wherever he plays his football next season.

26th July 2009, 12:45	#28 (permalink)
peterstorey Bitter Arse hole Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Happy those, who can remain at Highbury! Posts: 24,705	It's still not clear what their game is. Buying Liverpoool and building a new stadium would have set them back the best part of £1Bn. Buying Man City and spending £250M or even £500M on players is still a cheaper option. You can draw a parallel with Godolphin the racing/bloodstock operation. Money was pumped initially to fund success which then became self-sustaining. In recent years though, the success has dried up somewhat so I guess they're back to bankrolling it. The horseracing thing may be more about prestige than earning money and so might City.

26th July 2009, 12:46	#29 (permalink)
Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing Posts: 30,693	City are, will become just one big marketing/advertising agency to big up Abu Dhabi.

26th July 2009, 13:05	#34 (permalink)
SAred Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Lee Martin Scores , Sir Alex legacy begins Posts: 1,580	Going back to on the pitch if City get these players in there weak link shall be Sparky and with old Guus Hiddik contract with the Russian team coming to a end after the world cup who to say he wont take the job nice retirement plan. All this plays into Uniteds hands keeps Sir Alex interested for a bit longer a new challenge. He has knocked Liverpool of there perch , saw of the money challenge with Blackburn and Chelsea and got the better of the mind games with Wenger.So how do you keep the greatest of them all interested give him another challenge and in steps city. We should be thanking city for keeping Sir Alex away from retirement and keeping them the small club they are.

26th July 2009, 13:14	#36 (permalink)
samabachan First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Football is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom Posts: 9,298	If it's only £12m for Toure City will be told to fuck right off by the way. Who could be signed who is better for that price? Hangeland maybe but unlikely.

26th July 2009, 13:18	#37 (permalink)
Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan. Thinks hes intelligent though. Nutter Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Krakow Posts: 20,485	£12m is nothing in this market.

26th July 2009, 13:23	#38 (permalink)
Decotron First Team Regular Join Date: May 2007 Location: I am not a man......................I am Cantona Posts: 19,481	Toure for 12 million would be the best signing of the 3 and a bargain at the price. Something tells me Terry wont be the same player at another club. Lescotts good but I dont think hes near top class, he stands out at in very organised unit at everton but City will be far from a settled team.