Pellegrino set for the high jump

[silkyman]

I'd certainly agree that their transfer policy is short-sighted. And when they do make signings 'for the future', ie Jack Rodwell, they aren't given the chance to progress because City are so concerned with the present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rodwell spent a lot of time on the treatment table. Hard to give him a chance when he's injured so often.

 

[Pyeman]

Rodwell spent a lot of time on the treatment table. Hard to give him a chance when he's injured so often.

I read an interview with him [if I'm honest I can't remember where] just after his move to Sunderland, where he basically said the idea that he was injured throughout his time at City was bollocks. Apparently during his first year he had a lot of problems, but during the second season he was fit for the majority and didn't get a chance.

EDIT: Here we go...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sp...prone__tag_is_unfair_and_misguided/?ref=var_0

 

[Steady]

Bony was a like for like replacement for Negredo. Due to injuries, City had only just played about a month without a single recognised striker. He wasn't signed as 'flavour of the month' he offered something different and was needed at the time and will play his part in future.

A like-for-like replacement for a striker who they'd signed for a relatively large fee only a year-and-a-half prior. Do you not see how that's a clear flaw in City's transfer policy? There's little to no long-term thinking there, and obviously it's conjecture and can't be proven for a while, but I really can't see Bony lasting too long before the next 'big-money' striker comes along.

Now, that's one complaint from a list of 10 players about City's overall transfer policy, and you were extremely dismissive of the article (which I sincerely doubt you actually read properly). I imagine you have some other issues with it, so feel free to share.

 

[silkyman]

Cheers for your input mate. Care to share more?

Just doing that now.

 

[silkyman]

A like-for-like replacement for a striker who they'd signed for a relatively large fee only a year-and-a-half prior. Do you not see how that's a clear flaw in City's transfer policy? There's little to no long-term thinking there, and obviously it's conjecture and can't be proven for a while, but I really can't see Bony lasting too long before the next 'big-money' striker comes along.

Now, that's one complaint from a list of 10 players about City's overall transfer policy, and you were extremely dismissive of the article (which I sincerely doubt you actually read properly). I imagine you have some other issues with it, so feel free to share.

But you said that they didn't NEED Bony. The fact was that Negredo wanted to go back to Spain and ended up leaving late in the window, not leaving time to get a replacement. They NEEDED someone all season, let alone in January. Do you really think a side who (rightly or wrongly) play two up front doesn't need more than three recognised forwards.

 

[Steady]

But you said that they didn't NEED Bony. The fact was that Negredo wanted to go back to Spain and ended up leaving late in the window, not leaving time to get a replacement. They NEEDED someone all season, let alone in January. Do you really think a side who (rightly or wrongly) play two up front doesn't need more than three recognised forwards.

To clarify, I'm not criticising City for signing a striker, I'm criticising them for signing a striker for £25million for what I see as a stop-gap. That's what I suppose the Bony judgement comes down to, in that I simply can't see him being a lasting member of the starting line-up for the next three to five years.

But moving on from Bony as I don't think we'll agree on that one, what's your issue with the rest of my views? Who have City signed in the last five years who have been for the future? Do you not think that a squad whereby the majority are 29 or over is a cause for concern? I'm not having a go at City as I actually don't mind them, but I think their transfer policy is absolute gubbins.

 

[silkyman]

Eliaquim Mangala
Signed from Porto for an eye-watering £40m, the centre-back has struggled to acclimatise to English football, something demonstrated by Martin Demichelis' continued stint in the side. At 24, there's still time for him to realise his potential, but is there really any sign that will happen? Pellegrini maintains the 24-year-old "is a very good player with very bad luck"; fortune apparently favours the 34-year-old freebie who has made more appearances.
F365 rating: 3/10

At 24 he could have a decade left in him. You criticise the signing of a 28 year old as not being ‘forward thinking’ then write off a 24 year old after half a season’s worth of games due to being in and out of the side with injury. City have only lost three times with him in the side and while he’s not hit the ground running as you might have hoped, it is partially understandable with the lack of real pre-season and stop start campaign.

Wilfried Bony
At the turn of the year, City were level on points with Chelsea at the top and nine clear of Man United in third. Pellegrini pinpointed the reason for their struggles as a lack of goals, with his side only having scored 44 in 20 games - a joint-league high. In came 2014's Premier League top scorer Bony, who has since bagged a whopping one goal in seven appearances. At £28m, you can see why Jovetic was a little naffed off ("he killed me") with being 'replaced'.
4/10

As said elsewhere, how you can rate a player after just seven games? Only scored one goal in seven, but didn’t start the first few (having just come back from the ACN). Now injured, so far he has scored one in two starts. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Rating out of 10.. Too early to call, surely?

Stevan Jovetic
Speaking of Jovetic, the £25.8m signing from Fiorentina has 11 goals in 39 games. He signed two seasons ago. £25.8m, two seasons, 39 games, 11 goals. Need I say more?
3/10

Came in as more of a squad player behind Aguero, Dzeko and Negredo. True, he’s not pulled up any trees so far, but played his part in a very successful campaign last season. No candidate for player of the year, sure, but your non-review was probably a little harsh.

Fernando
What does he actually do? 1.6 tackles, dribbles and interceptions per game, two goals and two assists are all horribly middling statistics. His pass success rate is one of the best at the club this season at 91.8%, but, considering he's made nearly half the passes of the likes of Yaya Toure, the question remains.
2/10

As with Jovetic, he’s not pulled up trees, but how does ‘middling stats plus being the most accurate passer at the club for the relatively ‘low’ price of £12m’ translate into 2/10 unless you’re just being needlessly negative?

Fernandinho
Now a shadow of the midfielder who played such a huge role in the title-winning campaign last season. His regression should not come as a surprise however, as he was already 28 when he was signed for £30m from European giants Shakhtar. Excellent, forward-thinking business.
5/10

Club buys in experience. Said player comes in and has a ‘huge role in the title winning campaign’. What rating would you have given him last summer? How abject would he have to have been to drop that to a five? He’s been below par this season. Or rather, not quite up to last year’s performances, but players often have up and down campaigns. 28 isn’t old these days and Lampard is still putting in midfield performances a decade or so later than that. (How much would United have dropped on Falcao had he not been a flop? Is that forward thinking par excellence?)

Alvaro Negredo
A sterling start to the 2013/14 season after signing for £16.8m from Sevilla brought 26 goals in his first 35 games heading into February. His final 17 appearances rendered no return, and he was shipped out to Valencia on loan with a permanent departure almost certain this summer, although they should recoup their outlay.
5/10

As they are likely to recoup the fee, and his first 2/3ds of last season were so spectacular (wouldn’t have won the League without his contribution) before he picked up an injury and never really found his feet again, is 5/10 not a little low? He had one season at the club, won the League, helped them to the League Cup final and bagged 26 goals. I think most fans would be more than happy with that from a forward. Get back what they paid for a player who wanted to leave the country and go home, and that’s not the end of the world.

Jesus Navas
Pellegrini's first signing was supposed to add width to this City side. With 14 assists in 59 games coupled with just four goals, you wonder just how much City could get for the 29-year-old if a 'transitional period' is forthcoming.
5/10

Not settled in England really, not lived up to expectations. Fair enough. I think a lot of City fans would go lower than a five.

Javi Garcia
Another midfielder whose contribution was fairly minimal and often derided, Garcia was signed for £15.8m and sold two years later for £2m less. Pellegrini can't be blamed as he was a Mancini signing, which makes you wonder just what is wrong with the decision-makers at the Etihad?
2/10

A ‘fairly minimal’ contribution, which was derided early in his time at the club, but after he settled he became a key player. That ‘minimal contribution’ spanned a mere 80 appearances in all competitions over two seasons, playing a large role in a second place finish in his first season, and winning the League and League Cup in his second, before being sold on for a little bit less than he was bought for. 2/10? Really?

Jack Rodwell
Do we have to? Once England's great hope, the £15m man started seven Premier League games before Sunderland felt it best advised to splash out £10m on him last summer, somewhat sparing City's blushes. Except not really.
1/10

Not a Pellegrini signing. Spent at least his first season in and out of availability injured and never established himself. Fee was over the odds due to the ‘homegrown’ levy that seems to make any English player cost more than they should. Didn’t pay off, but the fact he ended up at Sunderland suggests he was never really good enough anyway. If Rodwell is a 1/10, what is Zaha at United? Can you have minus numbers here? Is every transfer that doesn’t work out a ‘1’?

Matija Nastasic
What went wrong for the Serbian star? Signed from Fiorentina for £12m, the then-21-year-old was named City's Young Player of the Season for 2012/13 before injury hit. After impressing for Schalke on loan, the German club saw fit to take him permanently off City's hands.
4/10

Again, not a MP signing (Why don’t you have the likes of Silva in there, MP didn’t sign them either) No one knows why he went although there were several rumours around. Another player who had a bit part in the League title last season and then left the club. If we knew why he was frozen out it would be easier to rate, but whatever it was, he doesn’t fit the ‘club only buys old players and never gives younger players a chance’ narrative, even if overall four or five out of 10 is about right.

 

[silkyman]

To clarify, I'm not criticising City for signing a striker, I'm criticising them for signing a striker for £25million for what I see as a stop-gap. That's what I suppose the Bony judgement comes down to, in that I simply can't see him being a lasting member of the starting line-up for the next three to five years.

But moving on from Bony as I don't think we'll agree on that one, what's your issue with the rest of my views? Who have City signed in the last five years who have been for the future? Do you not think that a squad whereby the majority are 29 or over is a cause for concern? I'm not having a go at City as I actually don't mind them, but I think their transfer policy is absolute gubbins.

How old do you have to be to be a signing for the future? Mangala is 24, but you've arbitrarily decided he's off, so presumably doesn't count. Jovetic was 24 as well. Rodwell was 21, Nastasic was a teenager. Bony is 26, but you've written him off as a 'stop-gap' so again, presumably doesn't count. Scott Sinclair was 23 but didn't work out.

Milner was 24, and has worked out OK, Aguero was 22/23.. He done ok for you? Silva was 24/25.

There's going to have to be a large overhaul in the next few years, no doubt about that, but unless you think they've been actively going out to sign sub-par players just so they can ship them out again, it's not the transfer policy that's really the issue.

 

[Steady]

One thing, look at the snippet at the top of the article. It's a rundown of the last 10 signings City made that were of £10m+, hence the lack of inclusion for the likes of Silva. Also, it's not a piece wholly knocking Pellegrini, more the club's transfer policy that is likely down far more to Begiristain and that other fella.

At 24 he could have a decade left in him. You criticise the signing of a 28 year old as not being ‘forward thinking’ then write off a 24 year old after half a season’s worth of games due to being in and out of the side with injury. City have only lost three times with him in the side and while he’s not hit the ground running as you might have hoped, it is partially understandable with the lack of real pre-season and stop start campaign.

The main thing with Mangala is the horribly over-inflated price and the fact that Demichelis, a much-maligned (wrongly so) 34-year-old has more starts and appearances that him this season. He's struggled, and I think a lot of that is down to Kompany's regression, but can many clubs afford a £30m+ signing to have to rely on the performances of another player to look any good. He's shown glimpses of potential, but with the lack of foresight we can only judge in the now

As said elsewhere, how you can rate a player after just seven games? Only scored one goal in seven, but didn’t start the first few (having just come back from the ACN). Now injured, so far he has scored one in two starts. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Rating out of 10.. Too early to call, surely?

I've already explained the Bony points, but the main thing you seem to be ignoring is that I'm rating the signings by the club, not the player.

Came in as more of a squad player behind Aguero, Dzeko and Negredo. True, he’s not pulled up any trees so far, but played his part in a very successful campaign last season. No candidate for player of the year, sure, but your non-review was probably a little harsh.

He played his part? He started six games last season, that's preposterous for the fee paid. Surely the fact that he's been available this year but Pellegrini saw fit to sign Bony instead of trusting him should tell you everything? It was a bad signing, simple as.

As with Jovetic, he’s not pulled up trees, but how does ‘middling stats plus being the most accurate passer at the club for the relatively ‘low’ price of £12m’ translate into 2/10 unless you’re just being needlessly negative?

What does he do that anyone else already at the club then or at the club now couldn't? He's a complete non-player and offers more or less nothing. I imagine this one will come more down to personal opinion than anything else.

Club buys in experience. Said player comes in and has a ‘huge role in the title winning campaign’. What rating would you have given him last summer? How abject would he have to have been to drop that to a five? He’s been below par this season. Or rather, not quite up to last year’s performances, but players often have up and down campaigns. 28 isn’t old these days and Lampard is still putting in midfield performances a decade or so later than that. (How much would United have dropped on Falcao had he not been a flop? Is that forward thinking par excellence?)

Why does it matter what rating I'd have given him last summer? I'm judging the signing as a whole, not on the basis of just over half his time spent there. He's been poor this season, but the main thing with Fernandinho is that the club spent £30m on a 28-year-old. Why you've brought United into this I have no idea (I know full well why really, but let's leave that there), but hell, I'll use them. If United had signed a 28-year-old midfielder for £30m and he had one brilliant season then a really bad one, would you be defending said signing? Or is this just the tribalistic football fan defending their club against any perceived criticism? His title-winning season was probably an 8/9 out of 10, this season has been a 4 at best, and the signing of a 28-year-old for £30m with no resale value drags that down further.

As they are likely to recoup the fee, and his first 2/3ds of last season were so spectacular (wouldn’t have won the League without his contribution) before he picked up an injury and never really found his feet again, is 5/10 not a little low? He had one season at the club, won the League, helped them to the League Cup final and bagged 26 goals. I think most fans would be more than happy with that from a forward. Get back what they paid for a player who wanted to leave the country and go home, and that’s not the end of the world.

As I said, he had a brilliant first half of the season and was near unstoppable, and probably doesn't get the credit he deserves for helping win the title. However, the fact you've had to replace him less than 18 months later is poor forward thinking once again. Also, and feel free to prove me wrong on this, is the Negredo to Valencia deal guaranteed? And are City definitely recouping their outlay, or is this just an unfounded rumour that has snowballed? I seem to remember the deal being based on Valencia qualifying for the CL; is that right?

A ‘fairly minimal’ contribution, which was derided early in his time at the club, but after he settled he became a key player. That ‘minimal contribution’ spanned a mere 80 appearances in all competitions over two seasons, playing a large role in a second place finish in his first season, and winning the League and League Cup in his second, before being sold on for a little bit less than he was bought for. 2/10? Really?

Fair enough on Garcia, it's perhaps a little harsh but I certainly remember him being derided heavily by City and neutral fans alike. I really can't remember him adding much to the side, never mind being a 'key player', but I'll have to take your word for that one.

Not a Pellegrini signing. Spent at least his first season in and out of availability injured and never established himself. Fee was over the odds due to the ‘homegrown’ levy that seems to make any English player cost more than they should. Didn’t pay off, but the fact he ended up at Sunderland suggests he was never really good enough anyway. If Rodwell is a 1/10, what is Zaha at United? Can you have minus numbers here? Is every transfer that doesn’t work out a ‘1’?

Doesn't matter if he's not a Pellegrini signing, he was a City signing.

And I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous defence of the lot so far. What would you give Rodwell? I should give him slack because it 'didn't work out'? That's the whole point, man! The fee was too much, he was injured but rarely given a chance when not, and was just a terrible signing overall. I ask again, what on earth should that signing be rated?!

And seriously, stop fucking bringing up United. I do not care who they signed, this thread is about City. Bringing other teams into it (no less your closest rival) just tells me you're throwing blind punches and defending your team for no reason.

Again, not a MP signing (Why don’t you have the likes of Silva in there, MP didn’t sign them either) No one knows why he went although there were several rumours around. Another player who had a bit part in the League title last season and then left the club. If we knew why he was frozen out it would be easier to rate, but whatever it was, he doesn’t fit the ‘club only buys old players and never gives younger players a chance’ narrative, even if overall four or five out of 10 is about right.

To reiterate the Pellegrini point, it's not an article about him as a whole, it's about City. It ranks the club's last 10 signings of £10m+ as an example of how their transfer policy has brought them to a position where the spine of their squad is nearing 30 and there appears to be no ready replacements at the club, hence daily links to the likes of Sterling, Henderson, Coutinho and Wilshere; all young players.

Anyway, the 'narrative' defence doesn't hold up, or else why would I have even included the likes of him, Rodwell or Bony? I'm not trying to put across a narrative, simply enough, just looking at where City's transfer policy has, in my humble opinion, gone horribly wrong.

 

[Steady]

How old do you have to be to be a signing for the future? Mangala is 24, but you've arbitrarily decided he's off, so presumably doesn't count. Jovetic was 24 as well. Rodwell was 21, Nastasic was a teenager. Bony is 26, but you've written him off as a 'stop-gap' so again, presumably doesn't count. Scott Sinclair was 23 but didn't work out.

Milner was 24, and has worked out OK, Aguero was 22/23.. He done ok for you? Silva was 24/25.

There's going to have to be a large overhaul in the next few years, no doubt about that, but unless you think they've been actively going out to sign sub-par players just so they can ship them out again, it's not the transfer policy that's really the issue.

Then what's the issue?

 

[silkyman]

Then what's the issue?

That some players haven't performed to the required level this season, there's been some bad luck with injuries and some players haven't been as good as their transfer fees indicate they should be. It's nothing to do with City's signings policy that Kompany has had such an error prone season, or that Aguero got injured when he was in the form of his life and hasn't been able to recreate it so far since coming back. Or that Dzeko has lost the knack of scoring goals when it matters. The games City have lost/drawn since Christmas have almost exclusively been by the odd goal or seen a host of chances wasted which a fully on form Aguero would normally have put away or Dzeko would have come off the bench to grab. There are also question marks over the tactics in some games, and no one can really understand why the tempo seems to have vanished, but perhaps that's a side effect from the defence being less rock solid because of the captain having a few too many brainfarts so everyone is a little more withdrawn.

The transfer 'policy' has always seemed to me to try and bring in the best players possible. Sometimes they are 24 and sometimes they might be 29.

 

[silkyman]

One thing, look at the snippet at the top of the article. It's a rundown of the last 10 signings City made that were of £10m+, hence the lack of inclusion for the likes of Silva. Also, it's not a piece wholly knocking Pellegrini, more the club's transfer policy that is likely down far more to Begiristain and that other fella.

The main thing with Mangala is the horribly over-inflated price and the fact that Demichelis, a much-maligned (wrongly so) 34-year-old has more starts and appearances that him this season. He's struggled, and I think a lot of that is down to Kompany's regression, but can many clubs afford a £30m+ signing to have to rely on the performances of another player to look any good. He's shown glimpses of potential, but with the lack of foresight we can only judge in the now

You can only judge for now, but that basically means that any player ever starts out as a 1/10 until they have proved themselves. He might yet turn out to be the best defender in the division for the next five years. You can't really write someone off as comprehensively as you have (3/10 now and probably on his bike in the summer, apparently) after less than a full season into a five year contract.

I've already explained the Bony points, but the main thing you seem to be ignoring is that I'm rating the signings by the club, not the player.

But this is entirely your opinion based on, well, nothing other than opinion. What evidence do you have that he was a stop gap who will be shipped out in 12 months? Perhaps he'll completely lose all of his goalscoring ability he had at Swansea and need to be replaced. Shit happens. But he might pick up where he left off and become City's Drogba. On the face of it now, City signed the top scorer in the division over the previous calendar year, despite reported interest from Chelsea and Liverpool. Brought him in through the distraction of the African Cup, eased him into European Football and he scored on his second start for the club before getting injured (shit happens). How does that translate into a 4/10 as a signing for the club? they went for a player they wanted, got him and established him into the side before a slight injury setback.

He played his part? He started six games last season, that's preposterous for the fee paid. Surely the fact that he's been available this year but Pellegrini saw fit to sign Bony instead of trusting him should tell you everything? It was a bad signing, simple as.

He played A part. There's been plenty of strikers with worse records. Bony wasn't signed instead of trusting him. He was signed because he wanted four strikers and lost Negredo too late to do anything about it. If City hadn't had the FFP squad reduction in place, both would have been involved in the CL for those last two games. 3/10? Probably only a bit low, but low nonetheless. Four or five perhaps.

What does he do that anyone else already at the club then or at the club now couldn't? He's a complete non-player and offers more or less nothing. I imagine this one will come more down to personal opinion than anything else.

You say 'for the money spent' in the last one, but as a relatively cheap player who has had average performances which includes as you say, the best passing accuracy at the club, how is that a 2/10? Seeing as he replaced Garcia who you also rated as a bag of wank, surely it's at least a 5/10 if he's as bang average as you suggest.

Why does it matter what rating I'd have given him last summer? I'm judging the signing as a whole, not on the basis of just over half his time spent there. He's been poor this season, but the main thing with Fernandinho is that the club spent £30m on a 28-year-old. Why you've brought United into this I have no idea (I know full well why really, but let's leave that there), but hell, I'll use them. If United had signed a 28-year-old midfielder for £30m and he had one brilliant season then a really bad one, would you be defending said signing? Or is this just the tribalistic football fan defending their club against any perceived criticism? His title-winning season was probably an 8/9 out of 10, this season has been a 4 at best, and the signing of a 28-year-old for £30m with no resale value drags that down further.

I mentioned United simply because Falcao would also have been an expensive signing of a player in his late 20s. Shevchenko was 30 when Chelsea splashed £30m on him. Real Madrid bought a 28 year old Figo for £50m. There's nothing wrong with buying experience. RVP won the league for United. Resale value isn't the be all and end all. He played a large part in winning a double. Even with a below par performance this season, he's worth more than a five.

As I said, he had a brilliant first half of the season and was near unstoppable, and probably doesn't get the credit he deserves for helping win the title. However, the fact you've had to replace him less than 18 months later is poor forward thinking once again. Also, and feel free to prove me wrong on this, is the Negredo to Valencia deal guaranteed? And are City definitely recouping their outlay, or is this just an unfounded rumour that has snowballed? I seem to remember the deal being based on Valencia qualifying for the CL; is that right?

How is it poor forward thinking? Are you expecting anyone to KNOW that he was going to have a knee injury and lose it? According to reports, City will be making a £7m profit on him. League winning goals and a very healthy profit.. That's clearly a 5/10 signing, there.

Fair enough on Garcia, it's perhaps a little harsh but I certainly remember him being derided heavily by City and neutral fans alike. I really can't remember him adding much to the side, never mind being a 'key player', but I'll have to take your word for that one.

He might not have been Toure or Aguero 'key' but anyone who plays 80 games in two seasons under two managers has to be seen as important to the side. This is where you contradict yourself. Fernandinho is a bad signing because of the lack of resale value. Garcia was sold for not much shy of what he was bought for. Please tell me how a player who has played that often in a side finishing second and first with a League Cup can be classed as one of the worst signings in football history?

Doesn't matter if he's not a Pellegrini signing, he was a City signing.

And I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous defence of the lot so far. What would you give Rodwell? I should give him slack because it 'didn't work out'? That's the whole point, man! The fee was too much, he was injured but rarely given a chance when not, and was just a terrible signing overall. I ask again, what on earth should that signing be rated?! And seriously, stop fucking bringing up United. I do not care who they signed, this thread is about City. Bringing other teams into it (no less your closest rival) just tells me you're throwing blind punches and defending your team for no reason.

1/10. Up there with the absolute worst signings in the history of the game. We're talking Ali Dia, Denilson, Bebe, Tores, Carrol. As for mentioning United.. Zaha is a very good analogy. Highly regarded England player who moved to a top four club and just failed. Yes, I probably know more about United's flops than other clubs. That's rivalry for you. Sue me. Were the club supposed to second guess that he was going to be a flop? That he would spend a lot of his first season injured? If every club who signed a dud could get 66% of the transfer fee back, they'd be happy. Again, as per your idea of forward thinking comes in. He was signed because he was a young, promising English player. He didn't turn out to be good enough when it came to it, but how is that down to the transfer policy at the club?


To reiterate the Pellegrini point, it's not an article about him as a whole, it's about City. It ranks the club's last 10 signings of £10m+ as an example of how their transfer policy has brought them to a position where the spine of their squad is nearing 30 and there appears to be no ready replacements at the club, hence daily links to the likes of Sterling, Henderson, Coutinho and Wilshere; all young players.

It wouldn't matter at all who was at City at the moment. They would be linked with the likes of Sterling, Henderson, Coutinho and Wilshere. The richest clubs are constantly linked with the promising youngsters. (And if City did sign those players, whoulsn't it be exactly what you think they should be doing?)

Anyway, the 'narrative' defence doesn't hold up, or else why would I have even included the likes of him, Rodwell or Bony? I'm not trying to put across a narrative, simply enough, just looking at where City's transfer policy has, in my humble opinion, gone horribly wrong.

In hindsight, on some of them, perhaps..

 

[Nilsson]

(How much would United have dropped on Falcao had he not been a flop? Is that forward thinking par excellence?)
If Rodwell is a 1/10, what is Zaha at United? Can you have minus numbers here? Is every transfer that doesn’t work out a ‘1’?

 

[silkyman]

?

 

[mistermagic]

But you said that they didn't NEED Bony. The fact was that Negredo wanted to go back to Spain and ended up leaving late in the window, not leaving time to get a replacement. They NEEDED someone all season, let alone in January. Do you really think a side who (rightly or wrongly) play two up front doesn't need more than three recognised forwards.

I'm with silks on this one Steady. If Man City have a long-term plan of playing with 2 strikers (some genius might have the idea to go 352, it's been quite popular lately) then Bony isn't a wasted signing.

What does he do that anyone else already at the club then or at the club now couldn't? He's a complete non-player and offers more or less nothing. I imagine this one will come more down to personal opinion than anything else.

Couldn't disagree on that one (Jovetic). He's the club's only second striker. Of course Pellegrini doesn't use this system so tough shit. I'm quite sure he'll be among the first players to leave the club this summer.

 

[Smally]

Also with Rodwell, it should also be taken into account that when City signed him from Everton he wasn't all that good. I remember being amazed we managed to get £12m for him and was happy to let him go.

Some of the ratings seem a bit harsh, especially the Bony one, it's too early to tell with him whether he will be a success, but prior to signing for City he ticked the right boxes to sign a centre forward. I think he will go on to be a good signing for them, but wouldn't have given a rating on that one. I generally agree with what's been said though

 

[Steady]

First off, let's take a step back and actually look at this. Do you not think you're placing a little too much emphasis on the ratings? Your're giving far too much credence to an arbitrary rating out of 10. Arguing that a certain player "is nowhere near a 1/10, he's definitely at least a 3" just unwittingly backs up my point that City's recent 'big' transfers have been poor. Forget about the ratings and let's actually look at the signings.

When I'm looking at the last 10 signings City have made for £10m or more, I can't not include Mangala or Bony. It's perhaps a little harsh, but my judgement on Bony is based on personal opinion (which is the exact same for the rest of them), and I simply can't see him being a permanent fixture in the side for years to come. We'll have to come back to this in the future, but for now let's forget that one.

Let's look at the remaining eight. Who of Jovetic, Fernando, Fernandinho, Negredo, Navas, Garcia, Nastasic and Rodwell have been successful transfers? As a collective, they've probably had two-and-a-half good seasons (one for Fernandinho, one for Nastasic, half for Negredo). The rest of it has either been run of the mill (sums up Fernando, Garcia and probably Navas' stays) or complete failures (sums up Jovetic and Rodwell). How can you then look at City's recent transfers and think "yeah, that's alright actually"? It's not nearly good enough for a side looking to compete at the top each season. There's no stability.

You have by far the oldest squad in the Premier League, and also the oldest in Europe I believe. Does that not worry you? Stop being so defensive for a second and realise I'm just stating facts there. Does it not worry you that, of your regular starters, only Hart and Aguero are not closing in on 30? Who's replacing the likes of Toure? You look at Liverpool and Steven Gerrard, and you see that there's a long-term plan in there to replace him. The likes of Jordan Henderson have come to the fore immeasurably, and others have been given the chance to step up and show they can replace him. With City and Toure, what's the plan?

The point is that a lot comes out of your club concerning complaints over FFP restrictions. Whether or not the complaints are understandable, looking at the way you spend your money you should be delighted you have that limit.

Simply enough, your last ten signings for relatively big money have been either a poor return on investment in a) performances, b) resale value, or c) both. Look at the last ten big signings made by Chelsea, by Arsenal, by United, by Liverpool, hell, by most clubs around the top of the table and you'll see they have at the very least one and generally two success stories out of there. For City, you're clutching on to a 28-year-old's excellent season after being signed for £30m with no chance of recouping anywhere near that money.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Surely now he will finally get given the boot?

 

[JimJams]

The golden one?

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

The golden one?

I was thinking of the brown one

 

[Nath]

Alejandro Sabella was 40/1 earlier to become City manager. Now second favourite at 11/4.

 

[JimJams]

Probably just a weight of money thing.
I'd have thought the only attraction for them with Sabella though is that he's out of work so there's the possibility of getting on just a years contract and then getting Pep in. But if that's the case they might as well stick with the corpse for another year.
Personally think Ancelotti should be the target. Prem winner and Champions League managerial quality. Just what they want.

 

[silkyman]

Manager odds are always shifting like that because they are not that well backed. One spurious rumour sees a handful chuck a bit of money on, the odds drop, a little more speculation and the bookies panic and save their own arses as a precaution.

 

[silkyman]

First off, let's take a step back and actually look at this. Do you not think you're placing a little too much emphasis on the ratings? Your're giving far too much credence to an arbitrary rating out of 10. Arguing that a certain player "is nowhere near a 1/10, he's definitely at least a 3" just unwittingly backs up my point that City's recent 'big' transfers have been poor. Forget about the ratings and let's actually look at the signings.

When I'm looking at the last 10 signings City have made for £10m or more, I can't not include Mangala or Bony. It's perhaps a little harsh, but my judgement on Bony is based on personal opinion (which is the exact same for the rest of them), and I simply can't see him being a permanent fixture in the side for years to come. We'll have to come back to this in the future, but for now let's forget that one.

Let's look at the remaining eight. Who of Jovetic, Fernando, Fernandinho, Negredo, Navas, Garcia, Nastasic and Rodwell have been successful transfers? As a collective, they've probably had two-and-a-half good seasons (one for Fernandinho, one for Nastasic, half for Negredo). The rest of it has either been run of the mill (sums up Fernando, Garcia and probably Navas' stays) or complete failures (sums up Jovetic and Rodwell). How can you then look at City's recent transfers and think "yeah, that's alright actually"? It's not nearly good enough for a side looking to compete at the top each season. There's no stability.

You have by far the oldest squad in the Premier League, and also the oldest in Europe I believe. Does that not worry you? Stop being so defensive for a second and realise I'm just stating facts there. Does it not worry you that, of your regular starters, only Hart and Aguero are not closing in on 30? Who's replacing the likes of Toure? You look at Liverpool and Steven Gerrard, and you see that there's a long-term plan in there to replace him. The likes of Jordan Henderson have come to the fore immeasurably, and others have been given the chance to step up and show they can replace him. With City and Toure, what's the plan?

The point is that a lot comes out of your club concerning complaints over FFP restrictions. Whether or not the complaints are understandable, looking at the way you spend your money you should be delighted you have that limit.

Simply enough, your last ten signings for relatively big money have been either a poor return on investment in a) performances, b) resale value, or c) both. Look at the last ten big signings made by Chelsea, by Arsenal, by United, by Liverpool, hell, by most clubs around the top of the table and you'll see they have at the very least one and generally two success stories out of there. For City, you're clutching on to a 28-year-old's excellent season after being signed for £30m with no chance of recouping anywhere near that money.

This is why I'm using the ratings as its all just opinion. Garcia, you have listed as one of the worst transfers in history despite him being a regular in two successful seasons and getting back almost their entire fee for him. Roswell lost a third of his value but wasn't quite released on a free with City having to find his wages for the next four years (aka A Danny Mills). Is resale value important or is actual achievement at the club important? Negredo's goals helped win the league and league cup before he got injured and decided he wanted to go back to Spain for a profit.. How is that a bad signing, apart from he short lived nature of it?nIs transfer policy supposed to predict things like injuries and 'homesickness'?

And it's simply too early to write off the likes of Mangala and Bony.

Have City been a beacon of transfer excellence in the last two seasons? No. Has it been the utter clusterfuck you want to claim? No.

 

[JJH]

I've just won tickets to see what may be Pellegrini's last game in charge

£54 each, and I got them for nothing - ace!

May not even go to it although

 

[Stevencc]

I've just won tickets to see what may be Pellegrini's last game in charge

£54 each, and I got them for nothing - ace!

May not even go to it although

Spoken like a true City fan already!

 

[TheWednesday]

I'd be surprised if he's still there in August, there's too many rumours going around and there's no smoke without fire. He's failed massively this season, won absolutely nothing and his side have been tactically inept and uninterested at times. The squad needs change, too many old players who aren't quite at this level anymore. Will the board give him the chance to rebuild the squad based on success in his first season? I doubt it.

 

[Stevencc]

His job only really seems to be in danger if a star manager like Guardiola suddenly becomes available this summer, if not then he'll just stay on for another season before being replaced I think.

 

[merseyboyred]

Ancelotti will get a season.

 

[Pyeman]

Ancelotti will get a season.

But do you think he'll want to take a job knowing that he'll only be around for a year?

And what happens if he's incredibly successful? Could City justify removing a manager who wins the league in his first season?

I'm not sure bringing him in for a year is worth it if they're serious about going after Guardiola next summer.