Zatman Posted November 7 Posted November 7 6 minutes ago, villa4europe said: you misunderstood me you think that £100m record transfer England international moving to rival man utd 3 years after signing and failing at champions man city wouldn't be a massive news story? and that's before you factor in it would be in January and with utd and england having a new manager that's bitterness talking, it would be a **** huge story Key word is failing Raheem Sterling who is a bigger name anddid more at City moved to Chelsea and then Arsenal and has barely been a media storm
Stevo985 Posted November 7 VT Supporter Posted November 7 Just now, Zatman said: Key word is failing Raheem Sterling who is a bigger name anddid more at City moved to Chelsea and then Arsenal and has barely been a media storm Sterling's move to Chelsea was huge news
sidcow Posted November 7 VT Supporter Posted November 7 7 hours ago, villa4europe said: there would be enough fanfare about him leaving city for utd to get a few of utd's official partners interested Have they got an official lollipop partner yet?
rodders0223 Posted November 7 Posted November 7 6 hours ago, DJ_Villain said: I was once… but can’t seem to find anything nice to say about him… Hes a cheat, a duplicitous hypocrite and a liar… I think he's a lovely lad. Definitely take him home to meet my parents.
Popular Post foreveryoung Posted November 7 Popular Post Posted November 7 Some serious hate on here for a guy who arguably played the biggest part in getting promoted back to the Prem. He was never bought by city to play a big part. He was bought for around the world marketing, something the owners want as much as possible. 5
Tom13 Posted November 7 Posted November 7 3 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Some serious hate on here for a guy who arguably played the biggest part in getting promoted back to the Prem. He was never bought by city to play a big part. He was bought for around the world marketing, something the owners want as much as possible. He was signed to play a big part, 100% 1
Zatman Posted November 8 Posted November 8 3 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Some serious hate on here for a guy who arguably played the biggest part in getting promoted back to the Prem. He was never bought by city to play a big part. He was bought for around the world marketing, something the owners want as much as possible. Are you saying City broke the English transfer record just for a bit part player. Seriously actually seriously WTF 3
villa4europe Posted November 8 Posted November 8 The thing with city is with the squad they have and the way pep rotates them, when they won the lot in 22/23 you look at the PL games, Grealish started 20 odd of them so he's a bit part player...but then so did foden, so did Mahrez, Alvarez then started something like 10, you've got Silva in there too They're not like other teams, thats why they win They bought him to be a cog in that machine because he's a brilliant footballer The price they paid for him is because of the off the field stuff though If he wasn't a poster boy they wouldn't have bought him
foreveryoung Posted November 8 Posted November 8 7 hours ago, Zatman said: Are you saying City broke the English transfer record just for a bit part player. Seriously actually seriously WTF This was when money wasn't a thing to city. I'm not sure why you think £100m would bother them, when they pay themselves much more than 100m for marketing sponsors.
Tom13 Posted November 8 Posted November 8 (edited) 5 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: This was when money wasn't a thing to city. I'm not sure why you think £100m would bother them, when they pay themselves much more than 100m for marketing sponsors. You could even argue that he has been a big player for them, has played plenty of minutes. Pep and Txiki were obsessed with his playing style, absolutely no chance they signed him for marketing purposes. Do you not remember how good he was at that time? Edited November 8 by Tom13 2
villa4europe Posted November 8 Posted November 8 14 minutes ago, Tom13 said: You could even argue that he has been a big player for them, has played plenty of minutes. Pep and Txiki were obsessed with his playing style, absolutely no chance they signed him for marketing purposes. Do you not remember how good he was at that time? part of the transfer reasoning overall though obviously his ability as a footballer + his marketing + it prevented anyone else from having him + depending on what world you live in it kept aston villa in their place preventing us overthrowing man city If you take the marketing away maybe they do still buy him but i don't see the £100m price tag being justified personally 1
Tom13 Posted November 8 Posted November 8 3 minutes ago, villa4europe said: part of the transfer reasoning overall though obviously his ability as a footballer + his marketing + it prevented anyone else from having him + depending on what world you live in it kept aston villa in their place preventing us overthrowing man city If you take the marketing away maybe they do still buy him but i don't see the £100m price tag being justified personally I mean we were never in a position to overthrow Man City. He went for £100m because of his ability - how desperate City were to get him and his insanely high value to us. 1
Zatman Posted November 8 Posted November 8 37 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: This was when money wasn't a thing to city. I'm not sure why you think £100m would bother them, when they pay themselves much more than 100m for marketing sponsors. Because they never bought a player for that fee before or since. He cost 20 million more than the 2nd record transfer 1
Popular Post icouldtelltheworld Posted November 8 Popular Post Posted November 8 Both things can be true: they signed him because of his ability on the pitch, he was worth £100m because of his marketing appeal off it 5
TreeVillan Posted November 8 Posted November 8 16 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Some serious hate on here for a guy who arguably played the biggest part in getting promoted back to the Prem. He was never bought by city to play a big part. He was bought for around the world marketing, something the owners want as much as possible. If Jack ever happens to see this message then it will make his whole day, actually scratch that, it will make his whole year.
villa89 Posted November 8 Posted November 8 3 hours ago, icouldtelltheworld said: Both things can be true: they signed him because of his ability on the pitch, he was worth £100m because of his marketing appeal off it Plus the English tax. If you are buying from another PL team you will pay a huge premium.
DJ_Villain Posted November 8 Posted November 8 15 hours ago, Zatman said: Are you saying City broke the English transfer record just for a bit part player. Seriously actually seriously WTF No, they broke the transfer record because we were forced into putting a ludicrously high release clause in there (because Mr Aston Villa was so desperate to leave)… and City being City weren’t going to just sit by and have little old Aston Villa tell them: “No, you can’t have him” It was a financial flex… that’s all… the same with buying Liv golf, and all the boxing gigs, and the Qatar World Cup, and PSG… and Newcastle… Its Middle Eastern oil money being thrown around for the sake of it just to show the rest of the world: ”we can afford to do whatever we want and you can’t stop us” 2
Stevo985 Posted November 8 VT Supporter Posted November 8 9 hours ago, icouldtelltheworld said: Both things can be true: they signed him because of his ability on the pitch, he was worth £100m because of his marketing appeal off it He was worth 100m on the pitch. I know people like to pretend Grealish wasn’t actually that good, but he was. He was worth £100m City have just ruined him 4
icouldtelltheworld Posted November 8 Posted November 8 8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: He was worth 100m on the pitch. I know people like to pretend Grealish wasn’t actually that good, but he was. He was worth £100m City have just ruined him I agree, he'd had spells of being the best player in the PL in his last year with us. But his marketing appeal was definitely a factor for City, as they still don't have the global appeal of the other established top clubs
Recommended Posts