Phil6219
Member
True, however he will almost certainly be gone by January.
Sort of, they could not give Man City the assurances that they would make the payments on time and properly before the transfer window closed (it closes over there a month earlier than in the UK).
I think it is an interesting situation, Tevez's unhappiness at City (the first time round) was clearly an attempt by his "agent" to fabricate a move so that he (the agent) gets yet another nice juicy commission from the sale. While he had a point with regards to being away from his kids he went around things the wrong way. The club were more than willing to assist him in bringing his family over, not to mention giving him considerable time off to go back to Argentina - when we had important fixtures too.
The second he refused to play his value plummeted like a washing machine falling from a 10th floor window, (or like Enron share prices
). His agent will clearly not have been impressed as his commission has also took a dive, hence the sudden backtracking in what Tevez said in the immediate time following the Bayern incident.When he refused to play he lost the respect and love of the Manchester City fans, those fans who welcomed him to our club from our bitter rivals and those fans who even kept faith in him despite his "unhappiness". He should play no more part in the club, either on or off the pitch.
Fair point, I agree, to an extent.
I said the day City were acquired that it was excellent for the club yet bad for football. I said that because it finally gives City a chance at being on top again, to finally have success after all those years of nothing but the mockery from the red side of the town.
Look at the way the premiership is, personally I think it is awful and corrupt to (expletive) hence why I also support various lower league teams. However do not blame Manchester City, everyone seems to and yet City are not the club which started all of this (though it seems people have only become vocal about finances the second City had riches thrust upon them). Nobody moaned about Chelsea effectively buying those titles and cups.
Nor does anyone moan about Arsenals finances or Manchester United, both clubs initially earned their money but were both bought out by someone who could bring more cash. Well maybe not United as that Yank nearly bankrupted the club by buying it. Nobody complained about United signing a sponsorship deal with DHL for their "Training Shirts" and jackets, yet they did when Etihad signed a new deal with City (yes I know about the family ties). Nobody seemed to moan when Spurs had was it 3 different shirt sponsors, Premiership, Domestic Cup and Champions League?
If a club has money it can buy the best players in the world, how it gets the money weather it be through success on the pitch, a strong financial backer or some interesting sponsorship deals is irrelevant. So yes money has ruined the game at the top flight, and thanks to clubs picking the talent from the smaller clubs it has ruined lower leagues too.
It will be interesting to see how UEFA and their new financial fair play rules affect the likes of PSG and that Russian club thats owned by the Russian President.
Phil
Last edited:
hock:
