BP1960 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No no no no no; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/micah-richards-key-citys-new-4804051#.UdKKECWv8p8.twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Would a new contract defunk our sell on clause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Would a new contract defunk our sell on clause? It would extend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No no no no no; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/micah-richards-key-citys-new-4804051#.UdKKECWv8p8.twitter Nothing story as usual from the MEN, no direct quotes - probably the speculation has been generated to secure him another five years of sitting in his fat arse making :censored: all progress for club and country. What a lazy unambitious turd Richards is and symptomatic of the modern - 'Footballer, that actually isn't a footballer….' Too easy to reap the rewards without actually wanting be pro-active and make things happen for himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Why is anyone ever concerned about Citeh selling him? We would not see a single penny of any sell on clause for team building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Why is anyone ever concerned about Citeh selling him? We would not see a single penny of any sell on clause for team building. No, maybe not, but if it helped pay off the (Gazal & Blitz) loans, it would make us a more saleable and investable asset! New managers always offer platitudes to players, who knows what Pellegrini really thinks of Richards. Hopefully he'll soon work out he's overrated and flog him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Nothing story as usual from the MEN, no direct quotes - probably the speculation has been generated to secure him another five years of sitting in his fat arse making :censored: all progress for club and country. What a lazy unambitious turd Richards is and symptomatic of the modern - 'Footballer, that actually isn't a footballer….' Too easy to reap the rewards without actually wanting be pro-active and make things happen for himself. Ssssshhhh, keep it quiet till he signs for some else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFC10 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Why is anyone ever concerned about Citeh selling him? We would not see a single penny of any sell on clause for team building. Exactly. Lets let this Micah Richards obsession go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 BORING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Why is anyone ever concerned about Citeh selling him? We would not see a single penny of any sell on clause for team building. I'd rather have money coming into the club than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No no no no no; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/micah-richards-key-citys-new-4804051#.UdKKECWv8p8.twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Nothing story as usual from the MEN, no direct quotes - probably the speculation has been generated to secure him another five years of sitting in his fat arse making :censored: all progress for club and country. What a lazy unambitious turd Richards is and symptomatic of the modern - 'Footballer, that actually isn't a footballer….' Too easy to reap the rewards without actually wanting be pro-active and make things happen for himself. how do you know he doesnt like it at City and want to fight for a place in the team? Did he not play a lot of games and very well in their Championship winning season? In fact having looked he has played plenty of games for city prior to being injured a lot last season. Edited July 2, 2013 by Oh Heck C-Beck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Has appeared in just about half their league games over the last four seasons, either injured or mostly out of favour. 77/156 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Him missing those games is mainly down to injury. Calling him a lazy, unambitious turd is, imo, complete bollocks. Also, despite Zabaleta's good form last season, in which he was only playing because Micah was injured, the majority of City fans will still pick him over Zaba when he's fit again. Edited July 2, 2013 by sjk2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No City fans I know call him a lazy unambitious turd, its complete nonsense, as is the manipulation of the statistics. City play lots of games in lots of competitions and he has had plenty of game time every season bar last season. Including playing 29 out of 38 league games in a title winning side. Why would players with a good chance of playing regularly want to leave a club like City with all the money they have they are always going to be challenging for honours and will get paid a lot for the privilege of doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No, maybe not, but if it helped pay off the (Gazal & Blitz) loans, it would make us a more saleable and investable asset! New managers always offer platitudes to players, who knows what Pellegrini really thinks of Richards. Hopefully he'll soon work out he's overrated and flog him! The balance sheet loans of Blitz/Gazal have nothing to do with the value of Latics. The value will only ever be based on profit/loss and assets. The club doesn't make a profit and the only assets are the football league share and the micah clause. A £3,000 second hand car is only ever worth £3,000, even if there is a £10,000 loan on it. The sale of richards would actually reduce the value of the club by removing a potential asset / contingent asset. Having said this, there's no evidence that blitz/gazal would call for any cash against loans, and morally there's little justification to do so - the sale was before their time and the losses are due to the gambles they took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The balance sheet loans of Blitz/Gazal have nothing to do with the value of Latics. The value will only ever be based on profit/loss and assets. The club doesn't make a profit and the only assets are the football league share and the micah clause. A £3,000 second hand car is only ever worth £3,000, even if there is a £10,000 loan on it. The sale of richards would actually reduce the value of the club by removing a potential asset / contingent asset. You can't sell a £3,000 car unless you can pay off the finance on it. The £6m debt to Blitz is a massive part of the value (or otherwise) of the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 You can't sell a £3,000 car unless you can pay off the finance on it. The £6m debt to Blitz is a massive part of the value (or otherwise) of the business. You can. You just end up owing the shortfall. In fact selling it for £3k is the best thing you can do, unless you can derive net income from the asset to repay the debt. Latics do not make net income. The value of OAFC is £0 give or take maybe £100k. The "loans" just put it in negative equity. The loan providers would have first call on any receipts from sale, but the idea that anyone would ask for the true value plus the value of outstanding finance is a complete non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Not dead in the water yet; http://arsenalnews.co/arsenal-continue-to-maintain-interest-in-micah-richards/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Not dead in the water yet; http://arsenalnews.co/arsenal-continue-to-maintain-interest-in-micah-richards/ Would be a good addition to arsenal. Come on arsene, push the boat out. £18m should be enough to pursuade citeh to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Not dead in the water yet; http://arsenalnews.co/arsenal-continue-to-maintain-interest-in-micah-richards/ City need to keep him to fill homegrown quotas, Arsenal have Jenkinson who is at least as good, but other than that, yep could be a goer. 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.