BP1960 Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) For another, as of today City don't have to sell anybody they don't want to. They can't keep hold of a player if he wants to go though. e.g. Ronaldo at Man Utd. Edited September 1, 2008 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 They can't keep hold of a player if he wants to go though. e.g. Ronaldo at Man Utd. Here's an idea for future deals, how about rather than just a sell on clause just take 10% of his annual salary and a 10% sell on if and when he moves, in the case of Richards that would do nicely . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 WE are talking about Man City here, it’s all going to go wrong, they will never win anything and they will never be a top European team. Micah is not going to play for them his whole career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 They can't keep hold of a player if he wants to go though. e.g. Ronaldo at Man Utd. What-has Ronaldo gone? The thing is that Richards is less likely to want to go anywhere if City start to bring in players capable of getting them in the Champions League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) WE are talking about Man City here, it’s all going to go wrong, they will never win anything and they will never be a top European team. Micah is not going to play for them his whole career. You're falling back on cliches. In any case, from now on, the old City are history. As said to somebody else, have you looked at who these new owners are? These are people who 'don't do failure,' not some kind of Chris Moore written large. For reasons already mentioned it can only harm clubs like ours, and not only because of the unlikelihood of Richards going anywhere. Edited September 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 If City are willing to throw away £30 million on Berbatov, I am sure Alan Hardy can talk them into settling for a trifling £2 million as settlement for Richards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 You're falling back on cliches. In any case, from now on, the old City are history. As said to somebody else, have you looked at who these new owners are? These are people who 'don't do failure,' not some kind of Chris Moore written large. For reasons already mentioned it can only harm clubs like ours, and not only because of the unlikelihood of Richards going anywhere. I’m quietly confident that hilarity will continue to emanate from the doors of the Big Top... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 You're falling back on cliches. In any case, from now on, the old City are history. As said to somebody else, have you looked at who these new owners are? These are people who 'don't do failure,' not some kind of Chris Moore written large. For reasons already mentioned it can only harm clubs like ours, and not only because of the unlikelihood of Richards going anywhere. "These new owners" is interesting. I ahve dug a little deeper.It is far more akin to chris Moore, it's the Abu Dhabi not the Abu Dhabi Investment Group. The owner, who has built is business from scratch in two years, and has already done £2billion worth of deals. The owner, Sulaiman Al-Fahim is often compared to Donald Trump. Rich yes, but ABIA is worth £650 billion, so I think some people are mixxing the two up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 it's the Abu Dhabi not the Abu Dhabi Investment Group. Eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Eh? Sorry, typo, what I was trying to say was that the deal is being fronted by Abu Dhabi United Investment & Development Group and Dr Sulaiman Al Fahim. who is descibed in a Daily Telgraph article as Dr Sulaiman Al Fahim Described as a "one man publicity machine", Al Fahim has even followed the example of Trump, as well as the former Tottenham Hotspur chairman Sir Alan Sugar, into hosting his own reality television programme. I think reading some reports, some City (and Media) people think that it might be the much richer ADIG. They are not poor, by any means, but not quite as rich as some had hoped. As he is a one man business leader, I think your analogy with Chris Moore was pretty spot in, and the situation there might just be a repeat of what happened to us. ADUIG or the TTA, for allt he wealth, I'd take the TTA any day of the week on their record so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Naturally cautious as I am, I think one or two may be jumping the gun here. ADUG have, thus far, only signed a memorandum of understanding with Shinawatra, basically nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement. When the "gentlemen" involved are a corrupt ex-dictator and a "one man publicity machine", forgive me if I remain sceptical until the money changes hands and Berbatov, Gomez, Villa and co are turning out in City shirts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) Naturally cautious as I am, I think one or two may be jumping the gun here. ADUG have, thus far, only signed a memorandum of understanding with Shinawatra, basically nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement. When the "gentlemen" involved are a corrupt ex-dictator and a "one man publicity machine", forgive me if I remain sceptical until the money changes hands and Berbatov, Gomez, Villa and co are turning out in City shirts... This is just the kind of thing that's been doing the rounds of the media in recent week's predicting City's imminent demise, however. For one thing, while dubious by the standards of Western Europe, Shinawatra is not particularly corrupt by those of the culture from which he comes and of most of the world. He was, furthermore, not a dictator but, for good or ill, the highly popular elected president of Thailand until deposed by a military dictatorship. The front man for the new owners, meanwhile, is just that-the front man, not the main financial backer of the bid, who are the Abu Dhabi royal family, worth a reported £25 billion. These people are not fools, whatever else they might be. Edited September 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetramfixer Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 another way to look at it... fella comes in with loadsa dosh! see's potential? wants 'his' man to run things!! hughes? hardly euro cup winning material is he? new fella comes in! doesn't like this young upstart that likes to get his own way... " doesn't fit into his plans " sold to highest bidder! ka-ching!! me! ....money we've never had! ...more akin to paying a £1 to win the lottery... i'd take the gamble!! see what time brings.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 These people are certainly not fools, but I shall wait for the proof of the pudding. The impact on any deal involving Richards is, as yet, hypothetical at best. And unlike many Latics fans (it seems) I'm sure TTA have resisted the temptation to have already mentally spent this apparent £5m windfall he's going to bring us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) Sorry, typo, what I was trying to say was that the deal is being fronted by Abu Dhabi United Investment & Development Group and Dr Sulaiman Al Fahim. who is descibed in a Daily Telgraph article as Dr Sulaiman Al Fahim Described as a "one man publicity machine", Al Fahim has even followed the example of Trump, as well as the former Tottenham Hotspur chairman Sir Alan Sugar, into hosting his own reality television programme. I think reading some reports, some City (and Media) people think that it might be the much richer ADIG. They are not poor, by any means, but not quite as rich as some had hoped. As he is a one man business leader, I think your analogy with Chris Moore was pretty spot in, and the situation there might just be a repeat of what happened to us. ADUIG or the TTA, for allt he wealth, I'd take the TTA any day of the week on their record so far. Manchester Online and most other sites I've looked at are reporting that it is, as you say, the Abu Dhabi United Company for Development and Investment behind the takeover. Al Fahim is not, however, 'a one man business leader,' as he isn't the main backer of the bid, and the reported £25 billion it's being said the group is worth is more than enough for them to fulfil their stated aims (which is not to say they definitely will.) As for comparisons with these people and TTA, any pretence that we can compare ourselves with City in any way disappeared today, along with a section of our potential fan base. I agree, though, that prudent but ambitious owners are more suited to a club like ours. In the Premier League no such owners can ever make a club anything other than also rans. Edited September 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) These people are certainly not fools, but I shall wait for the proof of the pudding. The impact on any deal involving Richards is, as yet, hypothetical at best. And unlike many Latics fans (it seems) I'm sure TTA have resisted the temptation to have already mentally spent this apparent £5m windfall he's going to bring us. It's the way that many fans seem to take it a a given that the Micah money is at some point going to come our way that worries me. I was talking to a bloke at the last home match who seemed to think that, in the absence of a revival of the housing market, the money for Richards will pay for the redevelopment of BP. Edited September 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Manchester Online and most other sites I've looked at are reporting that it is, as you say, the Abu Dhabi United Company for Development and Investment behind the takeover. Al Fahim is not, however, 'a one man business leader,' as he isn't the main backer of the bid, and the reported £25 billion it's being said the group is worth is more than enough for them to fulfil their stated aims (which is not to say they definitely will.) As for comparisons with these people and TTA, any pretence that we can compare ourselves with City in any way disappeared today, along with a section of our potential fan base. I agree, though, that prudent but ambitious owners are more suited to a club like ours. In the Premier League no such owners can ever make a club anything other than also rans. I see the link with the Royal family know that wasnt on a couple of websites I saw. It will be interesting to see what happens, and I still get the feeling of a one man plaything. But yes, no comparison with City intended,jsut a preference for who's shoes I'd rather be in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 and I still get the feeling of a one man plaything. Now that's a vivid description Singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 This is just the kind of thing that's been doing the rounds of the media in recent week's predicting City's imminent demise, however. For one thing, while dubious by the standards of Western Europe, Shinawatra is not particularly corrupt by those of the culture from which he comes and of most of the world. He was, furthermore, not a dictator but, for good or ill, the highly popular elected president of Thailand until deposed by a military dictatorship. The front man for the new owners, meanwhile, is just that-the front man, not the main financial backer of the bid, who are the Abu Dhabi royal family, worth a reported £25 billion. These people are not fools, whatever else they might be. You're falling back on cliches. In any case, from now on, the old City are history. As said to somebody else, have you looked at who these new owners are? These are people who 'don't do failure,' not some kind of Chris Moore written large. For reasons already mentioned it can only harm clubs like ours, and not only because of the unlikelihood of Richards going anywhere. If we want a couple of million for the Richards clause I propose we send Corporal Jones down to the council house to crack on with his impressive arse kissing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 If we want a couple of million for the Richards clause I propose we send Corporal Jones down to the council house to crack on with his impressive arse kissing. Don't be childish. All I'm doing is explaining why no such deal between this club and City is going to take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Don't be childish. All I'm doing is explaining why no such deal between this club and City is going to take place. Or outlining your pessimistic gut feeling? Whilst I agree a deal to buy out the clause is unlikely there is no way Richards is set to be a one club man...... You havent considered the positive scenario of Richards wanting out, City not wanting to sell and his price increasing as a result. Would you rather play for City or accept a slightly less astronomical wage to play for the club you support (or even Utd/Chelsea)? Do you know Richards will never want to play abroad? Are you going a bit over the top with you views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) Or outlining your pessimistic gut feeling? Whilst I agree a deal to buy out the clause is unlikely there is no way Richards is set to be a one club man...... You havent considered the positive scenario of Richards wanting out, City not wanting to sell and his price increasing as a result. Would you rather play for City or accept a slightly less astronomical wage to play for the club you support (or even Utd/Chelsea)? Do you know Richards will never want to play abroad? Are you going a bit over the top with you views? As I say, all I've done is explain why the unfolding situation at City means that they are less likely to sell him than ever, particularly if they keep Hughes, who says Richards is a key part of his plans. Neither you nor I can say for certain what will happen, although you can hazard a guess based on what's going on. It just concerns me that people think we are certain to get the Micah millions at some point. Edited September 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 As I say, all I've done is explain why the unfolding situation at City means that they are less likely to sell him than ever, particularly if they keep Hughes, who says Richards is a key part of his plans. Neither you nor I can say for certain what will happen, although you can hazard a guess based on what's going on. It just concerns me that people think we are certain to get the Micah millions at some point. I think many of us see that it could be less chance, hence sign the clause hope. As it's Latics, you know he'll get a career threatening injury or form will got to pot and he'll be worth 55p, or the credit crucnh will cause such a fall in attendances and loss of Sky money that all values will dramatically. I think the last oen the likelier sceanrio personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 With todays news of an Arab takeover of Manchester City, perhaps it's the right time to renegotiate the Micah Richards sell on clause. I can't see Richards going anywhere in the next few years so perhaps a compromise settlement can be reached, maybe £2 million, what do you think ? I think City hold all the aces now. We are in a weak position because they no longer need the money and probably won't be interested in negotiation. Why should they just handover £1m, £2m or £3m for nothing? We are better off hanging on as he will probably agree to an extension to his contract, and in the next few years may fancy playing abroad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmr Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 The situation isn't that bad. When the 6 + 5 rule comes in English players transfer values will go through the roof because of the demand. Someone like Chelsea, Man Utd or any other club a rich idiot could mount a massive bid when this rule comes in. However he's only likely to move to a "top" club of course. The guy is still only 20 years old, the only danger is him leaving on a bosman and i doubt city would let that happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.