Damocles Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 It is obvious they don't deserve to up there with the pinnacle of English football. Lets be honest, they were a low mid table team before this guy came in. They were the scruff of the Premier League. We worked our way up there. They have to rely on all these millions. Its like the ugly guy walking about with the fit wife. The only reason she's with him is because of his wealth. If he was dirt cheap he'd be the tramp. Man City are and always will be that man. The season before the takeover we were in the UEFA Cup. The season before that we finished one point off of the UEFA Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 It is obvious they don't deserve to up there with the pinnacle of English football. Lets be honest, they were a low mid table team before this guy came in. They were the scruff of the Premier League. We worked our way up there. They have to rely on all these millions. Its like the ugly guy walking about with the fit wife. The only reason she's with him is because of his wealth. If he was dirt cheap he'd be the tramp. Man City are and always will be that man. The season before the takeover we were in the UEFA Cup. The season before that we finished one point off of the UEFA Cup.id say yous are still a shite club,just because id dont like yous,never did even before you're lotto win.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Does Milner really have a history of playing on for clubs after asking for a move? The first time he nearly signed for us there was no indication he'd asked for a move from Newcastle. And when he did finally move to us, it was after handing in a transfer request - so there was no playing on involved at all. His last game for Newcastle was vs Coventry a day after handing in transfer request. If i remember he was brilliant that night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Does Milner really have a history of playing on for clubs after asking for a move? The first time he nearly signed for us there was no indication he'd asked for a move from Newcastle. And when he did finally move to us, it was after handing in a transfer request - so there was no playing on involved at all. I'd say being about to sign on the dotted line was a clear indication he didn't actually want to be at Newcastle anymore, he wasn't signing for us because Newcastle told him to, he was signing for us because after his loan spell he wanted to be here Also he han't actually asked for a transfer here either, he has simply indicated that he does not wish to sign another contract Yes, but that's not the same as asking for a move, and that was what was suggested. Newcastle were letting him go as much as anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCU Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Newcastle set an asking price and we matched it, We've set an asking price and Man City won't match it because they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2010 Does Milner really have a history of playing on for clubs after asking for a move? The first time he nearly signed for us there was no indication he'd asked for a move from Newcastle. And when he did finally move to us, it was after handing in a transfer request - so there was no playing on involved at all. I'd say being about to sign on the dotted line was a clear indication he didn't actually want to be at Newcastle anymore, he wasn't signing for us because Newcastle told him to, he was signing for us because after his loan spell he wanted to be here Also he han't actually asked for a transfer here either, he has simply indicated that he does not wish to sign another contract Yes, but that's not the same as asking for a move, and that was what was suggested. Newcastle were letting him go as much as anything. except he hasn't asked for a move and Newcastle did want him, thats why he went back there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaninoz Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 It is obvious they don't deserve to up there with the pinnacle of English football. Lets be honest, they were a low mid table team before this guy came in. They were the scruff of the Premier League. We worked our way up there. They have to rely on all these millions. Its like the ugly guy walking about with the fit wife. The only reason she's with him is because of his wealth. If he was dirt cheap he'd be the tramp. Man City are and always will be that man. The season before the takeover we were in the UEFA Cup. The season before that we finished one point off of the UEFA Cup. Are you talking about the 1st takeover or the 2nd takeover?? Reality - you made me laugh, great description! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 He went back there because a transfer target of theirs fell through, as I remember it, not because they suddenly decided to keep him. Not that any of this makes a difference to my original point, but you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2010 He went back there because a transfer target of theirs fell through, as I remember it, not because they suddenly decided to keep him. Not that any of this makes a difference to my original point, but you know. It was reasonably well reported that he was "gutted" when it fell through and he then went on to have a good season. I don't see how asking for a transfer or not affects that, as its the playing and being pissed of that is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotcomsimon Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 He went back there because a transfer target of theirs fell through, as I remember it, not because they suddenly decided to keep him. Not that any of this makes a difference to my original point, but you know. Pretty sure it was Mark Viduka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew_villa Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 James Milner had very good reasona to want to leave Newcastle for Villa but he only has one reason to leave City for Villa, and that's money. There is a difference. I wouldn't mind if Milner left Villa for Chelsea or Man U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 James Milner had very good reasona to want to leave Newcastle for Villa but he only has one reason to leave City for Villa, and that's money. There is a difference. I wouldn't mind if Milner left Villa for Chelsea or Man U. You say that but you seriously think Man City wont be winning things in near future? Im sorry but lets not kid ourselves they should be challenging for the Prem title sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR.Smalljob Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 This saga is now more boring than the Barry saga, hope it ends very soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmitageBlue Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Yes this is now very boring. The most predictable transfer of the summer window. The fact that it has been announced that JM is going to Portugal is purely a tactic to force City into completing the deal. Zzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 He went back there because a transfer target of theirs fell through, as I remember it, not because they suddenly decided to keep him. Not that any of this makes a difference to my original point, but you know. It was reasonably well reported that he was "gutted" when it fell through and he then went on to have a good season. I don't see how asking for a transfer or not affects that, as its the playing and being pissed of that is important In terms of how Milner would play for us if he had to stay, I agree with you. But the original poster stated that Milner had a history of staying and playing well for clubs after asking for a move. And that is at best a misrepresentation of what has happened in Milner's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew_villa Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 James Milner had very good reasona to want to leave Newcastle for Villa but he only has one reason to leave City for Villa, and that's money. There is a difference. I wouldn't mind if Milner left Villa for Chelsea or Man U. You say that but you seriously think Man City wont be winning things in near future? Im sorry but lets not kid ourselves they should be challenging for the Prem title sooner rather than later. I'm sure they will be competing but going to Man City would be a bad move for him IMO. He won't get a lot of games and he won't progress as a footballer as he would do if he was at Villa. If City did start winning things, I reckon Milner would be a bit part player and it would be a hollow victory for him. I'm sure you'd rather want to win something being an influential part of it than win lots of things but barely working for it. For example some Man United players have won Premier League medals in the past when they have made ten 5 minute apperances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 give him £90k a week, captains armband and make him get a tattoo of AVFC On his face, Ash Young too while we're at it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 He won't get a lot of games and he won't progress as a footballer as he would do if he was at Villa. If City did start winning things, I reckon Milner would be a bit part player and it would be a hollow victory for him. I'm sure you'd rather want to win something being an influential part of it than win lots of things but barely working for it. For example some Man United players have won Premier League medals in the past when they have made ten 5 minute apperances. hes not moving to sit on the bench or be a bit part player though. the guy will fully believe hes going to be a star in the city team, ive got no doubt of that hes not going with the intention of being a bit part player, hes going to be going with the intention of being the most important player in their side whether that happens or not is anyones guess, but honestly i think anyone who thinks otherwise is acting the bollox out of spite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 give him £90k a week, captains armband and make him get a tattoo of AVFC On his face, Ash Young too while we're at it.... why dont we tattoo james milners face onto steve sidwells and see if city fall for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 give him £90k a week, captains armband and make him get a tattoo of AVFC On his face, Ash Young too while we're at it....[/quote why dont we tattoo james milners face onto steve sidwells and see if city fall for itand try sell them sand eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts