Damocles

I'd take that with a pinch of salt, our forum is full of WUMs. It's a bit of a shame over the reaction to Milner here. Thread starts with "he'll never go, is a top lad is our Jimmy, honest as the day is long" and ends with "shown he's a money grabbing word removed". Perhaps he moved to City because he believes that with the quality of the squad that we are building (plus the multi million pound training ground we've just completely refurbished), and the future plans we have, we've a better shot of success in the long term than Villa. A fan over on RAWK said something quite apt. "City haven't been a big club for thirty years, but football changes everyday. City's 'project' is far more interesting than ours and I wouldn't be surprised if the Silva signing turned his head" (talking about a possible bid from City for Torres). My point, is that there are legitimate footballing reasons why Milner could come to City rather than stay at Villa. I'm not saying that that is why he might join, as I don't know the man and wouldn't like to second guess him, but it is just as likely as for the money.

The plan was always for all three. Milner would either play wide right or as a box to boxer.

That's a good post, and I agree with nearly all of that. My point about the European Cup wasn't to disparage the achievements of those players 28 years ago, nor was I saying that it is nothing to be proud of. My point is that this idea that winning a trophy years ago means very little as far as the current standings of football are concerned. For proof of this, I'll offer Forest in the past, and Liverpool in the future (presuming they continue on their current downward slide). Liverpool are a huge club, who have won loads of trophies, and have loads of that elusive beast, history. Will they still be able to attract world class players if they are battling relegation? Surely, if history were important for a player, then players would choose Liverpool over City or Villa all day long, despite their league position? Of course, we have players who are mercenaries, as does everybody from Real Madrid to Torquay. We also have players who aren't mercenaries. I hardly believe that Carew grew up with pictures of Dalian Atkinson on his wall, and kissed his Steve Staunton poster every night before going to bed. Just as I don't believe that David Silva even knows who Paul Dickov or Shaun Goater are, despite his stupid, painfully obvious comments today. To be absolutely fair, I don't even think that the Bermudan Shaun Goater loved the club before he came here, but through a combination of the fans taking a shine to him, and his achievements on the pitch for us, he now has a special place in his heart for us, and is still actively involved in the club. Same with Paul McGrath and you guys; he probably didn't love the club before joining it, he certainly does by the time he left it. Let the crop of players grow and we'll see who turns out to be a mercenary and who doesn't. On to the reason for the post, Milner (and by extension, Barry). You can launch out as many platitudes about wealth that you like, yet my opinion still says the same. City are an attractive prospect to players; especially talent that is good but yet to win big things. Having the wealth (not spending it on wages) is the most important thing. The fact that we have the money means that we are somehow expected to keep progressing, which attracts the players needed to progress. Weird circle. We are currently a bunch of mercanaries because we have a squad of players who have been here quite a short time, and their affection for the club hasn't hit yet. To think that anybody could have a squad of 'fans' is foolish. That said, we still have a large contingent of youth players who have broken through and are still first teamers, though as the expectations raise, this seems to be dwindling which is a shame. To be fair though, I would rather win a trophy with 2 youth products than fight relegation with 11 youth products. I don't think it's particularly hard to 'sell' the club to ambitious players like Milner. He can stay at Villa and possibly break the CL in the next five years, or he can move to City and probably break the CL in the next five years. Villa can put any price upon him that they want, from £1k to £100m. If the desire to truly keep a player was there, they could ask for £250m or whatever. It's a strange circumstance this, we all blame the player for moving, yet we never blame the club for accepting the bid when they could have easily said no. So, how much is Milner really worth to Villa? Let's say we do pay £30m for him. We've just signed Silva for £25m. Villa is an attractive club, and the money will he available if he goes. In a swap deal, would you take the player you would buy for £30m, for Milner? EDIT: Oh, and actually I have quite a high opinion of Villa which is one of the reasons why I check this forum. I don't really know why to be honest, maybe because you guys were the exciting team when I was growing up. I think most of us have some sort of fondness for the club that made you love footy (apart from your own). Mate of mine is a HUGE United fan, yet somehow has a weird thing for Spurs as he used to love Gazza. Since Lerner has come in though, I admire them even more and do have pangs of jealousy when I see people like Young, Gabby, Collins, Milner and even the next generation like Delfouneso. Plus, my favourite player in the whole wide world, and my personal hero, Richard Dunne plays for you. A couple of season ago, the team that you built was the most entertaining in the league to watch, and it has been grown pretty organically over time, which is something I respect. Apart from that, the old Holte End was the most fantastic looking stand that I'd ever seen. So yeah, I hold Villa in a very high regard.

Oh, whilst I've been ranting over here, we seemed to have concluded negotiations for David Silva, so this will probably have an impact on what we will do about Milner. EDIT: With Valencia I mean, not with the player. With Toure and Silva bids sorted, I imagine that our next priority is to put together a package for Milner so expect a new bid over the next few days. The Sun is already saying that a £25m deal with Milner on £80k a week is done, though I'd take that with a pinch of salt right now.

Another person who feels perfectly entitled to give an opinion on somebody's character because they've read a post they've written on the internet. You are correct when you say that most City fans aren't like me. If you think I'm bad, you should try and visit us on Bluemoon. I didn't say that, I said that Lerner is the best thing that has happened to you, because he isn't a dick like Ellis. Re-read my post. Right, so what you are saying, is that winning a European Cup in living memory means that you're a top club? Just as Forest must be twice as big as you then? I can dismiss it as something Villa won "28 years ago", because..well...err...Villa won it 28 years ago. I know it's a pain in the arse, but unfortunately, facts are more important than emotional, sycophantic and utterly pointless rants on a forum about your grandad. You fail to address absolutely any point, and your main argument seems to be "you're a bad man because you thought that something that happened nearly three decades ago is irrelevant to the current standing of the team". Didn't you dismiss me in the first paragraph of your rant? Besides, don't try and talk to City fans all about loyalty mate, especially the ones who have been to all the divisions that we have been. From Rotherham, to Santander, to the Faroe Islands and everywhere in between. I've watched my club stand in the shadow of the biggest club in the world, in their most successful ever period, during our worst ever period of time, watching from a stand that didn't even have a roof on it. I loved and supported my club when we were in Division Two and nearly bankrupt. I will still love and support my club when we are rich and chasing the Champions League. It doesn't stop because we were taken over by Sheikh Mansour (who if people bothered to read anything up on, would stop with their bullshit stereotypical views of 'rich Arabs'), just as it didn't stop when we were ran by Peter Swales. The one thing that City has always been is a big family. This is an often overused saying, but the facts of it bare out with reality. We invest a shedload in our local area, we support fans in trouble, hell, the yearly meetup/pissup for forum that I'm an admin on was held at City for free and included a gig from Manford. We have always looked after each other and we continue to to this day. Don't think that because many dickheads who haven't a clue about football spout their nonsense about my club, that we have turned into what they say. We are still the same people who were pulling in 30 thousand fans in Division Two. I constantly hear the 'classless lottery winners' tag, and y'know what? We did win the lottery, but **** it. I've watched my club go from near bankruptcy to near bankruptcy, and consistently snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We as a club were wrecked by Swales in the 80s and never really recovered until now. I have spent my whole life following a team whose biggest day out in recent years was a draw against Gillingham. So perhaps, at times, we do come across as inpatient or disrespectful or whatever but I don't think I particularly care that much. We've been laughed at for years and always handled it with our trademark gallows humour, why can't we have our 15 minutes of success before we revert back to type and inevitably find some way to **** up having trillionaire owners? I'm just hoping that we win the Champions League before some bastard invents a good solar powered car or something. Knowing our luck, someone will run over Tevez in one the day before the derby.

I didn't make myself clear here. The joke was that you'd won the Euopean Cup last season, but after reading it back, it didn't actually sound like that. Must try harder. Right, so if you're a top club because you won the CL 28 years ago, does that make Forest a bigger club than you? As I say, define your terms of a top club, linking to Wikipedia isn't an argument. And I'm happy with our position in comparison to United. They're one of the worlds biggest clubs, and we are nowhere near (and won't be for a long time) the size of them. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to be honest, I've grown up in Manchester my whole life and know enough about them and their fans to be comfortable to not be one of them.

What **** tripe. Which idiot pamphlet did you read that in? Winning the highest honours possible is the best thing that's ever happened to our club. If you ever earn such honours to go with your stupid stars, you'll understand. You won the European Cup? Anyway, I guess I need someone to explain the definition of 'top club' then, care to help out?

I'm pretty sure that Ronaldo's 26 goals in 29 games made him a better and more important player than Van Der Vaart's 6 goals in 26 games. Presumably we don't like the first three because they turned you down? When exactly did we bid for Ronaldo and Benzema? You have a point on Ronaldo though being important to Real Madrid last season.

I wouldn't bank on it if I were you. A collection of big-money players is one thing, but it's quite another to develop a gelled team that fits together well, is adapted to the Prem, has the right balance, has team spirit and fights hard. You have a point with that. Too many City fans seem to think that playing Football Manager gives them an informed opinion on how to manage a team. Real Madrid have shown that you can buy everybody you like and still fail. Despite all of the Kaka's, Ronaldo's and Benzema's, their best players last season were Van Der Vaart and Higuain. There is an argument that the most high profile players in the world are (mostly) the best players in the world, but a squad full of them is a recipe for disaster. I was pretty happy with our transfers last season as the type of players who came in were pretty much all Premiership veterans. With the signings of Toure (nailed on) and Silva (perhaps) this year, it seems that we are now trying to get the next level of player. I'm not entirely sure where Milner fits in to this jigsaw. I think that he is easily top four quality, but unless we're about to sell SWP (which is a possibility as we've refused his new contract demands of £120,000 a week), I don't see where he will play. Adam Johnson will definitely not be dropped, Bellamy maybe as his legs are going, which means AJ could go on the left and Milner on the right. Don't see him playing for us in the centre in front of Barry, De Jong, Toure and possibly Silva. I still think that the deal will involve Stephen Ireland in some way, shape, or form as he looks like he needs a new club to freshen his career up and as Milner is in your centre, it makes sense. As do I, unfortunately. I don't think the WC has done anything to dissuade the Milner transfer from anybody at City. After all, we don't just randomly sit around and go "errr...yeah I want him". We have a large scouting network, and Mancini has said that he had a list of players in January that we would go for at the end of the season, which I presume includes Milner.

Met him a lot have you? Know him well? Cooke happens to be very good at his job, which is running the day to day operations of City. As a bloke, he's a bit of a fuckup at times and his passion runs away with him, but it comes from a good place, so I can't really complain. I've met him a few times; he isn't the best CEO in the world, but he isn't exactly the Portsmouth boys. He upsets people because he doesn't respect the football hierarchy, and isn't shy of being honest in public. You're a top club? How exactly do you become a top club then? Finish fifth for a few seasons, dump yourself out of Europe then sell your captain? Oh wait, it must be all that stuff you won 20 years ago that makes you a top club, because league positions are automatically decided beforehand once the teams sit in a room together and decide who has the better history. Lerner is the best thing that ever happened to you simply because he isn't Doug Ellis, and all of this talk of 'ambition' is entirely misplaced and it seems that loads of people on this forum get caught up in it. EVERY club is 'ambitious', from Real Madrid to Torquay, the only difference between those two clubs is the reality of their ambitions. Your whole "we'll take the piss out of you" argument is just daft. I hardly think selling your prized asset to us for a tiny percentage of our transfer budget is taking the piss. You guys can deal with us at £30m, or deal with another team at £20m, presuming that Milner does want to leave (and there is no guarantees of that). What do you think is better for your club as a whole? We already finished above you last season and with the signings of Yaya and Silva imminent, as well as the team being a year older, I would imagine that we'll kick on again this year. You can sit here talking about your history and your top clubs all day long, I don't desire City to ever be one of these so called 'top clubs' after meeting the fans of them. I'll happy to be "ikkle Citeh", with "no history" in the eyes of every other fan if it meant that we were successful. I'm pretty sure that most of you people would be the same.

Harsh, and in my opinion, inaccurate. I'm not exactly sure what the Shiekh has done to offend you so much, but I can't think of a single nasty thing that he has done. Unless you count buying a football club as somehow offensive. I'm sure that Lerner, the Glazers, Abramovich, Hicks/Gillete, the Russian who is invested in Arsenal, the guys behind the Sunderland investment, etc, will all be under the same close scrunity that you have given Shiekh Mansour. Obviously, bringing money from outside the game and overspending on transfers during a huge recession is evil or something. Anyway, I'd quite like the Milner deal to be sorted one way or another as soon as possible. I don't really see him putting in a transfer request, purely because I don't see why he would. Villa have named their price (if the rumours are to be believed) as £30m, it's now up to City to decide whether he's worth that to them. Milner putting in a transfer request will have no bearing on anything, apart from personally losing him some money in the form of loyalty bonuses.

Perhaps you need a history lesson. To be honest, I don't really see the point of the argument, as the people who are idiotic enough to post something like that about a 130 year old club probably don't have any sort of inclination to read. It's also funny hearing that some people on here feel that the media is anti-Villa. I'm pretty sure that every single forum thinks that, including City ones. Anyway, for that poster for mentioned £15m + Hart + Ireland; you're living in a dreamland. You have to consider the worth of any player as the percentage of your transfer budget that you will spend on them. For example, if you have a £30m budget, is Milner worth 100% of it? Probably not. However, if you have a £300m budget (and I'm pretty sure ours is around half of that), is Milner worth 10% of your budget? Probably. This is akin to Spurs paying £4m for Milner, or you guys paying £2m for him. Whilst some may find it vulgar, it is no different from how football has been working since around 1995. Was Andy Cole 'worth' £15m? No, as budget wise at the time, that was a huge percentage of their annual spending, so they settled on £7m. It's all relative. Due to this, Milner is quite obviously a player that we desire, but if we're arguing over £5m, we can't be that keen. We are certainly not keen enough to go out and swap the best young English goalkeeper, who is pivotal to our team. Ireland you may have more of a point over, purely because he wants to leave. The City vs Villa argument came up during the Barry saga, so I won't repeat all of it again. What I will do though, is ask all of you an honest question. With the dropping in standard of Liverpool, the renaissance of Spurs, and the huge funding given to City, would you personally back Villa to make that Champions League spot in front of City/Spurs/Liverpool/Arsenal? More importantly, would you bet your career on it?

Considering you guys are taking your lead from the stories coming out of the Mirror, here's another one to consider: Milner Transfer Request Story Personally, I believe that you should stop reading the papers for any sort of an insight into the transfer deals of two major businesses but hey, whatever.

Back in my day, we used bold to highlight things!

Ireland has something to prove to be honest. He was excellent last season, and has shown true talent at times in the past, but there's a question mark over his consistency. Ireland would probably be a downward step from Milner, especially as Milner is so versatile. I seem to remember him even playing centre back against Chelsea before. Mind you, MON's spending has been pretty good this season, so if we bid £25-30m + Ireland, he might feel that it's a good deal for the club, as Ireland would suit your style better than ours and you might see the better side of him

You're aware that United made an illegal approach to Yorke, after Gregory told Ferguson on numerous occasions before Yorke's tantrums that he wasn't for sale? So do our owners, they just have a different business plan from yours. It's the same as Amazon and their Get Big Fast strategy for all you business enthusiasts out there. Gets bored? You seem to have a rather stereotypical view of our owner. Our man is a world leading businessman, including investments into things like Ferrari, the Abu Dhabi GP, Abu Dhabi Cup (horse racing), yachting, etc, etc. He doesn't 'get bored' on a whim. Apart from this though, the Sheikh has prepaid the wages of all of these big players by loaning the club the money. Then he converted this into shares, so that City are completely debt free. And we've sued him for it, as they are utter lies. We don't sue someone unless we know we're going to win, it makes us look stupid. Sorry, last off topic post, I promise. Anyway, I don't know why I'd not believe that a player won't come, it has happened before you know? Terry, Eto'o, Kaka, Buffon, Ronaldinho, hell I even remember Mido rejecting us a while back, or Muzzy Izzet before him. It happens, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't bid on someone just because we might get rejected. You don't know until you find out.

Indeed, sorry about that. So, in the opinion of you guys, what price would you say is fair? Ireland is probably going (though I don't particularly want him to) as Mancini believes that his head isn't in it, so he could be included in any final deal.

They didn't. I have no idea where you got that impression from. Hughes was sacked at 8pm on the day of the Sunderland game. Everybody before then knew he was going, including himself, he took over that match because he walked away with about £3m in compensation which he would have lost if he breached his contract.

It's the other way around. You see edited, out of context comments on SSN, City's site shows you pretty much the whole press conference, start to finish.

Check City's site and you can see that press conference in full. A journalist asked if he was interested in signing Lescott and he answered something along the lines of "well, it's not really up to me, but if Lescott became available then we'd be interested as I think he's a good player". He was asked this AFTER we already had a bid rejected from Everton. It's hardly tapping people up is it? Also, I can probably point to 50 examples of other managers doing exactly this. What about ol' Harry over at Spurs and his penchant for shouting about how players are 'triffic players who I'd love to work with' despite them playing for other clubs? As I say, this is a common thing in any press conference.

I'll make the point again, our owner came in to the club and inherited Hughes as manager. Despite the fact that he was never the type of manager that he wanted, and that he had never achieved any sort of success, the owner stuck with him for around 2 years and funded him to high heaven. Hughes was due to spend less money than the £200m but asked for what he called an 'accelerated spending plan', in which he would get several window's budget in one, and he could then achieve the top four finish; his original target was top six. He basically shot himself in the foot, he said "if you buy these players, I'll put you in the top four". We finished tenth the seaosn before, but the owner backed Hughes. Half way through the season, amid in-fighting within the dressing room and various embarrassments to the club, it was becoming clear to everybody that Hughes wasn't able to do this. Due to this, they sacked him. They then appointed Mancini, on a 6 months + 3 years contract. This is the man that they wanted from the start, he had actually been part of the takeover in some advisory role to Khaldoon. He and Khaldoon are big friends anyway, due to his time in Inter when they arranged to build a youth academy in Abu Dhabi. In addition to this, the Sheikh and Moratti (the Inter owner) are business associates and Mancini came recommended from him. So no, I don't believe that backing Hughes for 2 years despite his failings and the fact that we had a proven, very successful manager in the wings is unstable. If we were unstable, we would have sacked Mancini this summer for not delivering a top 4 finish. Instead, we gave him a new contract.

They have done so, because they have had the funds to buy such players, because they were successful, because they received huge investment and smashed every transfer record. I guess time heals all wounds, no serious Villa fan who remembers how they handled the Yorke transfer can ever refer to them as a classy club. They've had one great youth side come through the ranks in the last 50 years, but you cannot deny them the right to be proud of that one, which achieved lots. Even Eric Harrison, the long time coach of the United Youth team, wrote in his book that that Youth team was an absolute freak of nature that happens once every generation and he was proud to have been able to work with them all. I would guess that this generation is Barcelona, the last possibly been West Ham. Really? Perhaps you should look back at our own record breaking spending, pre-takeover. We've broke the transfer record four times in memory. We've had one of the largest non-top four attendances in the country for a long time. We've won leagues, cups and European trophies in the past. Also, isn't your owner a billionaire? Yes, I don't see a single transfer where we have done anything wrong. I'd be open to hear any accusations that you can level, as long as you keep the tabloid crap out of it.

Without going into too many specifics, City have spent the last 3 days completely closing their ranks in terms of a leak, including feeding false stories around as a red herring to see who is leaking. We believe a Gerrard rumour that emerged at the weekend to be one of these, as well as a meeting with Valencia tomorrow. Basically, we do have leaks, like any other club, but City have been moving over the last few days to shut them all down. I don't think that this was purposely leaked, purely because it gives us no advantage. I'm sure that Milner would hear from his own manager if they had rejected a bid from him, so we get nothing for announcing it ourselves. Besides, there's loads of different ways this could have been leaked. Lawyers, the clubs, agents, friends of the above, office workers, etc, etc. 2 years and £200 million pound, to a guy who wasn't employed by our current owner and had no pedigree of success. We gained a tenth placed finish and were in 7th when he was sacked, several points off of fourth. I think that coming in and backing a guy to that extent isn't what the media like to portray but what actually happened. The decision was actually taken after the Spurs game, and we then went on to beat Arsenal and Chelsea so the situation looked better than was feared. However, more bad results came in and it was decided that Hughes was tactically incompetent (which to be fair, they had a point on). Mancini points wise did about the same as Hughes, but spent nothing and worked with somebody else's team, whilst having about 3 centre midfielders on the books (De Jong, Barry, Ireland). Mancini has just signed a new three year deal, he'll be around for a while yet.

Nah, I actually read VT quite regularly and rarely comment on the anti-City stuff that gets thrown around, but that remark about United being 'full of class' unlike City made me post. It was one of those moments when you thought "Wait, is this guy serious?"

We made a huge jump last season in terms of success. We went from 10th to 5th and only missed out on fourth in the last week of the season. We went to the Semis of the Carling Cup, and were beaten by a last minute goal. We scored more goals, gained more points and played better football than we have done since the 70's. City are a work in progress, sure. Nobody can expect to put a team together and win everything, but I think we did pretty well for a team that has been together for a few months and changed manager mid season. We aren't there yet, but everybody from the Chairman to the fans believes that it will happen for us soon, and are determined to do their best to make it happen. Mancini has identified a player that he feels will vastly improve the team and will fit into his plans, therefore City have made a bid to the club to get him. We haven't tapped him up, we haven't done anything stupid, we've just bid for a player. Don't forget that we were the club that MON was praising in the way that we went about the Barry transfer last season, and nobody really knew anything until it went on your OS. Moyes' problem was that Hughes didn't ring him to ask if Lescott was available, which I find a little daft, as surely the Chairman should be contacting each other about it, which is exactly what happened.