P3te

Would sinclairs wages now have doubled due to becoming permanent player?

Depends how much, if anything, City were paying of his wages while he was at the club, and if we gave him a pay rise over what he earned there (unlikely?) or parity (maybe?) or a pay reduction (most likely?)

It's 100% a fake picture. 100%. People need to chill the **** out. It's a retouched shot of Sterling that likely took all of 10 minutes in Photoshop

Not only is the picture 100% NOT a fake who anybody with even the slightest knowledge of photo manipulation could tell you

It's fake you tart

He's off sadly. We'll just have to reinvest as best we can.

Put 100 quid on it with me?

Look at the man with the clipboard. Same clothes as the "Delph photo", but with blazer on in the above one. Same shirt, same collar.

Now we've got Fabian Delph wearing the same clothes, with the same fit, as Sterling, and that other guy wearing the same clothes, coincidentally on "different" days.

Occam's razor ffs people.

 

It's 100% a fake picture. 100%. People need to chill the **** out. It's a retouched shot of Sterling that likely took all of 10 minutes in Photoshop

 

 

Is it? It's on the BBC. Again. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33571351

 

Yes, it is

I'm surprised that people are being so quick to start the abuse after last time.

 

Not reacting to this until he's in the shirt at the Etihad.

It's 100% a fake picture. 100%. People need to chill the **** out. It's a retouched shot of Sterling that likely took all of 10 minutes in Photoshop

 

 

So where's the original?

I dunno, I haven't got time to go looking. What are the odds that Delph is wearing the exact same thing as Sterling (albeit with a few minor colouring/brightness adjustments) that fit the exact same way?

People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist. It's not real.

It's 100% a fake picture. 100%. People need to chill the **** out. It's a retouched shot of Sterling that likely took all of 10 minutes in Photoshop

If fake pic that MEN Reporter should be sacked

I've just proven its fake with 5 mins in photoshop

You haven't proven anything. You've changed the colour of his jeans and trainers. That doesn't mean it's fake.

Oh come off it

If fake pic that MEN Reporter should be sacked

I've just proven its fake with 5 mins in photoshop

I don't think thata is Delph in that picture. Delph is lighter skinned than the guy in the picture.

Its sterling photoshopped

Well you couldn't make it up could you.

Actually speechless with this club if this is true. That pic looks different from the tweet as the one in the tweet has no hair.

Because I didn't Photoshop the head

haven't been bothered to change the head, but with a few minutes simple shopping, the jeans and shoes now match, helped by the very low file quality similar to the image posted on twitter

 

quoted for page break

haven't been bothered to change the head, but with a few minutes simple shopping, the jeans and shoes now match, helped by the very low file quality similar to the image posted on twitter

Yep MEN are reporting it - this is a sad, sad state of affairs. What the ****.

Guarantee they're reporting it based on the photo though

Fake

Wrong trainers and Delph is wearing dark jeans.

Trainers are almost identical less the fact that you can't see the nike swoosh. Head and jeans would've been shopped. Jeans are the exact same fit and cut. What are the odds on Fabian wearing the same get up with darker jeans to a medical as sterling wore to his medical a few fays previous? Fake for me

Fake

i thought it had unofficially leaked that he sat in their waiting room for his medical and changed his mind

 

might be a case of simply overlooking the fact that the photo is a week old...

No exif data on the photo file to see the date taken, which was the first thing I did

Stevens and Herd, however insignificant, are also off the wage bill.

Probably another 3/4 of a million a year between them

 

 

 

I haven't seen the clause obviously, but I've got a reasonable idea how contracts work from business dealings, and it would fly in the face of any reasonable business mentality for a release clause that obligates a club to sell to allow partial payments. That's not meeting the clause amount.

I don't know what kind of business "dealings" you have been involved in but that's absolutely nothing like my experience. As an actual business owner.

Payment terms don't have to be "all up front or whenever you like". In fact they never are. The terms will be stated in the clause.

I've run a couple of businesses, so I'm in much the same position as you. You're failing to realise that this isn't a regular transaction, this is a transaction arising from contractual obligation. If there's negotiation there's not obligation. The two aren't compatible. You can't negotiate something you're obliged to accept. We MIGHT accept what Liverpool are offering in terms of payment plan, but there's no way we HAVE to. If they bid the full amount up front, we will HAVE to

If that's in the clause. The clause might say "a promise to pay £32.5m within X days of completion". See what I'm saying?

 

Absolutely, but do you think there's a high chance we've put that into the release clause of our most valuable asset? Also, if that WAS the case, then there would be no negotiation with Liverpool, as the reports are suggesting. We'd have been obligated to accept the bid

 

I haven't seen the clause obviously, but I've got a reasonable idea how contracts work from business dealings, and it would fly in the face of any reasonable business mentality for a release clause that obligates a club to sell to allow partial payments. That's not meeting the clause amount.

I don't know what kind of business "dealings" you have been involved in but that's absolutely nothing like my experience. As an actual business owner.

Payment terms don't have to be "all up front or whenever you like". In fact they never are. The terms will be stated in the clause.

 

I've run a couple of businesses, so I'm in much the same position as you. You're failing to realise that this isn't a regular transaction, this is a transaction arising from contractual obligation. If there's negotiation there's not obligation. The two aren't compatible. You can't negotiate something you're obliged to accept. We MIGHT accept what Liverpool are offering in terms of payment plan, but there's no way we HAVE to. If they bid the full amount up front, we will HAVE to

The photo is Robinho from a few years back apparently

Robinho had hair when he signed for City

 

 

Picture going around of him which allegedly depicts him walking into a building with people in suits. I have no idea how that would link to a transfer to City, but then again I have no idea what their training ground looks like. The guy has gone as far to say he'll be wearing 18 for them.

 

Is this it?

 

https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/622015658285473794

 

That's the one.

 

You know what, that DOES look like their main training ground building

However who's to say that's not a photo from last week when he was supposed to have met with them before deciding against a move?

 

Sergio Araujo to replace Benteke

Is this a player I've never heard of, or Augero spelt weird?

 

Google says he plays in Argentina

 

Massive culling of the wage budget at the moment:

 

85k - Bent

55k - Benteke

50k - Given

50k - Cleverley

35k - Vlaar

35k - Weimann

25k - Lowton

15k - Helenius

10k - Luna

10k - Sylla

===

370k per week.

 

60k - Richards

35k - Gueye

===

95k

 

Yep that is about right although your missing Bunn.

 

So around £14m a year reduction as it currently stands, should about cover Adebayor

 

10 players out who contributed very little, with the scope to bring 6 very, very good players in at the same cost on the wage bill. That's what I call wiggle room!

 

 

That's an extreme example, and one that I'm sure there would be a way for us to get around. I'm sure the payment terms need to be agreed upon by both clubs.

 

But I'd be very surprised if a buyout clause means we have to have every penny up front.

 

If a payment plan needs to be agreed by both clubs then it's not a release clause, it's an obligation to negotiate with no obligation to agree

 

 

That makes a lot of sense. If there can be negotiation of any kind with us, it seems to negate the idea of a release clause.

 

Exactly. A release clause is an obligation, if there's negotiation involved then there's no obligation

I haven't seen the clause obviously, but I've got a reasonable idea how contracts work from business dealings, and it would fly in the face of any reasonable business mentality for a release clause that obligates a club to sell to allow partial payments. That's not meeting the clause amount.