Vieria staying on...

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

[brite blu sky]

We will already have enough depth

not a particularly good point for your arguemant Carl.. one of the problems we still have is lack of forward mid players who can be trusted. Hopefully we will signe the new Vieira.. and then THE Vieira can coach the new one... sorted!

IMO Vierira cant be trusted to fullfill that role...he didnt convince anyone with his displays..only glimpses which arnt enough......Let's see where we are at the end of this transfer window.

there is no way we can rely on Vieira next season, but last season he was the most trustworthy of what we had.. which says it all. There was no-one else who was able to take that role and even half perform. We need at least one class forward mid, then a back up almost as good if not equal. then 2 more just in case.. rotation.. learning their trade etc. Ireland and Johnno are possible for the 2 more in this case, but both of them have stuff to learn and both of them have been unreliable.
Vieira could still fill in if things go awol, plus i could imagine him leading out a very youthful team in the CC and the kids being over the moon playing alongside Vieira. I can see quite a few reasons for keeping him around.. not least the experience factor. At this stage of the transfer window it seems wise to make sure we still have one person who knows how to play the FM role.. just in case we cant land the players we really need.. which i hope ffs we do.
Bear in mind if Ireland were playing well we wouldn't be in this situation.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

I am still going to trust the manager.I can't for the life of me think what he has seen of him on the pitch that is worth keeping but assume he thinks he can contribute in other ways.
Actually if he does play him he does save the legs of another player for whatever minutes he plays and that's probably good enough.I just fear that if he plays in any key games where the opposition have anyone with legs he will struggle.

[Mase]

We will already have enough depth

not a particularly good point for your arguemant Carl.. one of the problems we still have is lack of forward mid players who can be trusted. Hopefully we will signe the new Vieira.. and then THE Vieira can coach the new one... sorted!

IMO Vierira cant be trusted to fullfill that role...he didnt convince anyone with his displays..only glimpses which arnt enough......Let's see where we are at the end of this transfer window.

You mean to tell me that when he fell over his own feet and booted the Stoke player in the balls and was then banned for several matches, that didn't convince you??
He's a true professional is our Paddy, eh?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

We will already have enough depth

not a particularly good point for your arguemant Carl.. one of the problems we still have is lack of forward mid players who can be trusted. Hopefully we will signe the new Vieira.. and then THE Vieira can coach the new one... sorted!

IMO Vierira cant be trusted to fullfill that role...he didnt convince anyone with his displays..only glimpses which arnt enough......Let's see where we are at the end of this transfer window.

You mean to tell me that when he fell over his own feet and booted the Stoke player in the balls and was then banned for several matches, that didn't convince you??
He's a true professional is our Paddy, eh?

That was bit nasty, granted.

De Jong, Vieira and Zabaleta..... I think those boys will make sure that we don't have to worry about Fair Play League. Barry's four handballs per game as well.

[Guy Debord]

Good news this, Patrick will be great next season

[Original Dub]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

I don't know why all the Sylvinho comparisons are coming out there chief. Sylvinho was a BACK UP player, like Santa Cruz. Never intended to be a starter in important games.

Vieira on the other hand was who Mancini wanted the most. He was the first player he went for. After his signing, Mancini said "I hope he plays every game until the end of the season". There is a HUGE difference between a player held in that regard and a player who was bought for back-up - regardless of how much our money men were willing to spend on said back-up.

The fact he cost nothing except silly wages and Santa Cruz came with a silly price tag means fuck all to me. What matters to me is why they were bought and how their place in the side affects how my team performs.

Relying heavily on Vieira to be fit and playing every game was a silly move by Mancini. A fool could see he was past it when he left the premier league 5 years ago.

A mong can see signing him twice (or extending his deal) makes no sense. "Its for off the field" I've heard from some quarters.... well I think I'd rather someone that inspires ON THE FIELD and the fact that we're the richest club in the world should help us a tad in going for targets that will do just that.

[carl_feedthegoat]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

I don't know why all the Sylvinho comparisons are coming out there chief. Sylvinho was a BACK UP player, like Santa Cruz. Never intended to be a starter in important games.

Vieira on the other hand was who Mancini wanted the most. He was the first player he went for. After his signing, Mancini said "I hope he plays every game until the end of the season". There is a HUGE difference between a player held in that regard and a player who was bought for back-up - regardless of how much our money men were willing to spend on said back-up.

The fact he cost nothing except silly wages and Santa Cruz came with a silly price tag means fuck all to me. What matters to me is why they were bought and how their place in the side affects how my team performs.

Relying heavily on Vieira to be fit and playing every game was a silly move by Mancini. A fool could see he was past it when he left the premier league 5 years ago.

A mong can see signing him twice (or extending his deal) makes no sense. "Its for off the field" I've heard from some quarters.... well I think I'd rather someone that inspires ON THE FIELD and the fact that we're the richest club in the world should help us a tad in going for targets that will do just that.

Nothing else to add mate.
Spot on.

[btajim]

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

815 minutes of Premier League Football is roughly only 9 Matches yet Vieira signed for City in January. We had to wait for his contributions because he was injured and then he injured himself again. It's not good. There's little truth in suggestions that his involvement in Matches led to conceding so few Goals because Kompany did so well at centre half and I'm struggling to see why you're using Sylvinho's stats when he played at Left Back and has also been released. Compare Vieira to somebody who he needs to emulate next season and I'd listen if he came across favourably.

Vieira didn't do enough to warrant another year if his sole contribution to Manchester City is as a Player. I just hope he did the business in training, is a good person to have in the Squad and will be a dominant presence in Midfield next season. He has my support in a City shirt - but I'm not optimistic.

[Vhero]

Also, irony in the fact that you and Vhero are patting each others backs isn't completely lost on me.

The fact we actually both agree on something like this just proves how true it really is you cannot smear any amount of bullshit on it to swing it. He is taking one of our 25 places for this season and its a fucking joke.

[BobKowalski]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

I don't know why all the Sylvinho comparisons are coming out there chief. Sylvinho was a BACK UP player, like Santa Cruz. Never intended to be a starter in important games.

Vieira on the other hand was who Mancini wanted the most. He was the first player he went for. After his signing, Mancini said "I hope he plays every game until the end of the season". There is a HUGE difference between a player held in that regard and a player who was bought for back-up - regardless of how much our money men were willing to spend on said back-up.

The fact he cost nothing except silly wages and Santa Cruz came with a silly price tag means fuck all to me. What matters to me is why they were bought and how their place in the side affects how my team performs.

Relying heavily on Vieira to be fit and playing every game was a silly move by Mancini. A fool could see he was past it when he left the premier league 5 years ago.

A mong can see signing him twice (or extending his deal) makes no sense. "Its for off the field" I've heard from some quarters.... well I think I'd rather someone that inspires ON THE FIELD and the fact that we're the richest club in the world should help us a tad in going for targets that will do just that.

Paddy wasn't on silly wages. He was on a basic topped up with a 'play for pay' deal. You have no idea if Paddy was the player 'who Mancini wanted most'. I suspect there were a host of players that Mancini would have preferred to get including the chap who got denied a WP and ended up at Inter. I suspect that AJ was more up Mancini's street given he played AJ in virtually every game. I also suspect that having shelled out a small fortune prior to Mancini's arrival his basic brief was make what we have work because at the moment it ain't so spending silly money was out of the question and there is a 6 month review/break in your contract anyway so spending big when you may not be here in the summer is definitely not going to happen.

Paddy is simply someone Mancini trusts and could get and wouldn't cost anything and was for 6 months and wasn't even on big money so fuck it why not? Now that Mancini has been confirmed for the forseeable future Paddy is just someone who Mancini prefers to have around and bring some leadership to the table for next season. Paddy is a back up player with tons of experience and knows how Mancini likes to work and can reflect that. He also can give some of the players a lesson in the right mentality witness his frank admission that he felt he had let himself, the manager and the club down. No whining or crying on Soccer AM just an honest self assessment. Personally I think we could do with more of this attitude because I don't think Mancini has a great deal of patience or love for the more fragile types which is probably why half the players don't like him :)

[The Man In Blue]

good post bobski.

[btajim]

Paddy wasn't on silly wages. He was on a basic topped up with a 'play for pay' deal. You have no idea if Paddy was the player 'who Mancini wanted most'. I suspect there were a host of players that Mancini would have preferred to get including the chap who got denied a WP and ended up at Inter. I suspect that AJ was more up Mancini's street given he played AJ in virtually every game. I also suspect that having shelled out a small fortune prior to Mancini's arrival his basic brief was make what we have work because at the moment it ain't so spending silly money was out of the question and there is a 6 month review/break in your contract anyway so spending big when you may not be here in the summer is definitely not going to happen.

Paddy is simply someone Mancini trusts and could get and wouldn't cost anything and was for 6 months and wasn't even on big money so fuck it why not? Now that Mancini has been confirmed for the forseeable future Paddy is just someone who Mancini prefers to have around and bring some leadership to the table for next season. Paddy is a back up player with tons of experience and knows how Mancini likes to work and can reflect that. He also can give some of the players a lesson in the right mentality witness his frank admission that he felt he had let himself, the manager and the club down. No whining or crying on Soccer AM just an honest self assessment. Personally I think we could do with more of this attitude because I don't think Mancini has a great deal of patience or love for the more fragile types which is probably why half the players don't like him :)

You're telling other people that they can only guess about who Mancini wanted first yet you are also guessing that there were a number of other Players who he'd have preferred?

For all the hope and optimism for the future you've yet to defend his patchy form in the second half of last season. There's very little else you can go on apart from what contribution he's made on the pitch. And why is he bringing "leadership" to the side? He's been at City for 6 months and Ned has been at City throughout his Career.

How about coming to City to earn his place in the French side? What a bad plan that was.

[Original Dub]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

I don't know why all the Sylvinho comparisons are coming out there chief. Sylvinho was a BACK UP player, like Santa Cruz. Never intended to be a starter in important games.

Vieira on the other hand was who Mancini wanted the most. He was the first player he went for. After his signing, Mancini said "I hope he plays every game until the end of the season". There is a HUGE difference between a player held in that regard and a player who was bought for back-up - regardless of how much our money men were willing to spend on said back-up.

The fact he cost nothing except silly wages and Santa Cruz came with a silly price tag means fuck all to me. What matters to me is why they were bought and how their place in the side affects how my team performs.

Relying heavily on Vieira to be fit and playing every game was a silly move by Mancini. A fool could see he was past it when he left the premier league 5 years ago.

A mong can see signing him twice (or extending his deal) makes no sense. "Its for off the field" I've heard from some quarters.... well I think I'd rather someone that inspires ON THE FIELD and the fact that we're the richest club in the world should help us a tad in going for targets that will do just that.

Paddy wasn't on silly wages. He was on a basic topped up with a 'play for pay' deal. You have no idea if Paddy was the player 'who Mancini wanted most'. I suspect there were a host of players that Mancini would have preferred to get including the chap who got denied a WP and ended up at Inter. I suspect that AJ was more up Mancini's street given he played AJ in virtually every game. I also suspect that having shelled out a small fortune prior to Mancini's arrival his basic brief was make what we have work because at the moment it ain't so spending silly money was out of the question and there is a 6 month review/break in your contract anyway so spending big when you may not be here in the summer is definitely not going to happen.

Paddy is simply someone Mancini trusts and could get and wouldn't cost anything and was for 6 months and wasn't even on big money so fuck it why not? Now that Mancini has been confirmed for the forseeable future Paddy is just someone who Mancini prefers to have around and bring some leadership to the table for next season. Paddy is a back up player with tons of experience and knows how Mancini likes to work and can reflect that. He also can give some of the players a lesson in the right mentality witness his frank admission that he felt he had let himself, the manager and the club down. No whining or crying on Soccer AM just an honest self assessment. Personally I think we could do with more of this attitude because I don't think Mancini has a great deal of patience or love for the more fragile types which is probably why half the players don't like him :)

WRONG!

And that's where my problem is. Forgive me for failing to take any of your post on board when this was the major point I was making, yet you overlooked it with absolute distinction.

[BobKowalski]

Paddy wasn't on silly wages. He was on a basic topped up with a 'play for pay' deal. You have no idea if Paddy was the player 'who Mancini wanted most'. I suspect there were a host of players that Mancini would have preferred to get including the chap who got denied a WP and ended up at Inter. I suspect that AJ was more up Mancini's street given he played AJ in virtually every game. I also suspect that having shelled out a small fortune prior to Mancini's arrival his basic brief was make what we have work because at the moment it ain't so spending silly money was out of the question and there is a 6 month review/break in your contract anyway so spending big when you may not be here in the summer is definitely not going to happen.

Paddy is simply someone Mancini trusts and could get and wouldn't cost anything and was for 6 months and wasn't even on big money so fuck it why not? Now that Mancini has been confirmed for the forseeable future Paddy is just someone who Mancini prefers to have around and bring some leadership to the table for next season. Paddy is a back up player with tons of experience and knows how Mancini likes to work and can reflect that. He also can give some of the players a lesson in the right mentality witness his frank admission that he felt he had let himself, the manager and the club down. No whining or crying on Soccer AM just an honest self assessment. Personally I think we could do with more of this attitude because I don't think Mancini has a great deal of patience or love for the more fragile types which is probably why half the players don't like him :)

You're telling other people that they can only guess about who Mancini wanted first yet you are also guessing that there were a number of other Players who he'd have preferred?

For all the hope and optimism for the future you've yet to defend his patchy form in the second half of last season. There's very little else you can go on apart from what contribution he's made on the pitch. And why is he bringing "leadership" to the side? He's been at City for 6 months and Ned has been at City throughout his Career.

How about coming to City to earn his place in the French side? What a bad plan that was.

Absolutely I am guessing that there were other players that Mancini would have preferred to get. A player without ropey knees for starters. Lionel Messi for another. Sometimes there is a gulf between what you would ideally want and want you can actually get. Mancini wanted bodies in the midfield hence the bid for the Magri chap (or whoever it was) which went south much to Mancini's bafflement who would have bought youth and vigour and Paddy who would bring nous and the ability to kick players in the gonads (still makes me laugh). Throw in AJ who brought talent and a superb temperament and it wouldn't have been a bad mix. The wp issue nixed part of that and the rest as they say is history.

I don't care enough about Paddy one way or the other to defend his form. Paddy judged himself and found it wanting so fair enough. If the club had decided to dispense with his services it wouldn't have bothered me and keeping him on doesn't bother me either. The only thing that astonishes me about the Paddy situation is why the hell everyone is up in arms over this. Hell we employed Sylvinho last year just to hold Robbie's dick and I don't recall anyone getting into a paddy over that.

[BobKowalski]

You paraded on about the signing of Vieira - I'm not one to trawl back through posts but you know you were all over that signing and I was taking stick for saying it was a pointless one, which turned out to be the case.

Never one to exaggarate, you.

I thought he was good signing for nothing, nada zero, zilch. He helped us in couple of crucial games (Villa, Bolton and Wigan at least to my recollection) and therefore was well worth the aforementioned price. I can't for the life of me understand how some people tried to say that Sylvinho should've been given another years contract and then go on to moan about Vieira! Apart from that one goal he was mainly shite. He played 485 minutes of Premier League football during which time we conceded 11 goals. That's roughly goal in every 44 minutes. Two goals in every game. In comparison, Vieira played 815 minutes of Premier League football in which we conceded 8 goals. That's LESS than goal in one game. Not ONCE did we concede more than 1 while Vieira was playing. So maybe, in fact, you don't know what you are talking about and he was in fact decent enough for player signed for nothing. Do you think that's possible?

I don't know why all the Sylvinho comparisons are coming out there chief. Sylvinho was a BACK UP player, like Santa Cruz. Never intended to be a starter in important games.

Vieira on the other hand was who Mancini wanted the most. He was the first player he went for. After his signing, Mancini said "I hope he plays every game until the end of the season". There is a HUGE difference between a player held in that regard and a player who was bought for back-up - regardless of how much our money men were willing to spend on said back-up.

The fact he cost nothing except silly wages and Santa Cruz came with a silly price tag means fuck all to me. What matters to me is why they were bought and how their place in the side affects how my team performs.

Relying heavily on Vieira to be fit and playing every game was a silly move by Mancini. A fool could see he was past it when he left the premier league 5 years ago.

A mong can see signing him twice (or extending his deal) makes no sense. "Its for off the field" I've heard from some quarters.... well I think I'd rather someone that inspires ON THE FIELD and the fact that we're the richest club in the world should help us a tad in going for targets that will do just that.

Paddy wasn't on silly wages. He was on a basic topped up with a 'play for pay' deal. You have no idea if Paddy was the player 'who Mancini wanted most'. I suspect there were a host of players that Mancini would have preferred to get including the chap who got denied a WP and ended up at Inter. I suspect that AJ was more up Mancini's street given he played AJ in virtually every game. I also suspect that having shelled out a small fortune prior to Mancini's arrival his basic brief was make what we have work because at the moment it ain't so spending silly money was out of the question and there is a 6 month review/break in your contract anyway so spending big when you may not be here in the summer is definitely not going to happen.

Paddy is simply someone Mancini trusts and could get and wouldn't cost anything and was for 6 months and wasn't even on big money so fuck it why not? Now that Mancini has been confirmed for the forseeable future Paddy is just someone who Mancini prefers to have around and bring some leadership to the table for next season. Paddy is a back up player with tons of experience and knows how Mancini likes to work and can reflect that. He also can give some of the players a lesson in the right mentality witness his frank admission that he felt he had let himself, the manager and the club down. No whining or crying on Soccer AM just an honest self assessment. Personally I think we could do with more of this attitude because I don't think Mancini has a great deal of patience or love for the more fragile types which is probably why half the players don't like him :)

WRONG!

And that's where my problem is. Forgive me for failing to take any of your post on board when this was the major point I was making, yet you overlooked it with absolute distinction.

Paddy is a back up player. If we fail to sign any midfield players this summer and Ireland is still on walkabout and MJ is still in rehab leaving us (again) short of midfield bodies then Paddy may find himself in the front line but with 2 months and 3 weeks of the transfer window still open I'm not going to fret just yet.

[halnone]

i still can't understand after reading 3 fucking pages why some of you are fucking moaning so much about this. in no way can this hurt the squad.

[Original Dub]

i still can't understand after reading 3 fucking pages why some of you are fucking moaning so much about this. in no way can this hurt the squad.

That could apply to nearly every player we go for... so from now on we'll just accept any contracts being given/extended then without discussing it?

Nah, I'll still give my tuppence. If we stopped doing that, the board would be completely dull. Anyway, I think his signing did hurt the squad if I'm honest, because Mancini was hoping he'd play every game and drive us to glory. I would have been far more happy had we went for and thrown our weight behind an attacking mid, or at least one capable of driving the ball into the attack.

As soon as the window opened we were linked with Vieira and he was here in a jiffy. It makes a lot more sense to presume he was a top target than some back-up player that we ended up having to play.

[btajim]

i still can't understand after reading 3 fucking pages why some of you are fucking moaning so much about this. in no way can this hurt the squad.

It will hurt the Squad if he's getting Games ahead of other Players yet doing little or nothing on the pitch to warrant it. He did well against Wigan and Bolton but that's not going to frighten Chelsea and Man Ure. His one strong game against credible opposition was Villa.

A man with Vieira's ego / temper won't want to be on the Bench regularly. Especially if, as others have suggested, he's Mancini's "Man" in the Dressing Room.

Bellamy caused this kind of debate when he arrived yet he proved many wrong. Hopefully Vieira will do the same - but I can't see it. Bellamy hit the Ground running and Vieira did not.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

i still can't understand after reading 3 fucking pages why some of you are fucking moaning so much about this. in no way can this hurt the squad.

That could apply to nearly every player we go for... so from now on we'll just accept any contracts being given/extended then without discussing it?

Nah, I'll still give my tuppence. If we stopped doing that, the board would be completely dull. Anyway, I think his signing did hurt the squad if I'm honest, because Mancini was hoping he'd play every game and drive us to glory. I would have been far more happy had we went for and thrown our weight behind an attacking mid, or at least one capable of driving the ball into the attack.

As soon as the window opened we were linked with Vieira and he was here in a jiffy. It makes a lot more sense to presume he was a top target than some back-up player that we ended up having to play.

not one single decent attacking midfielder moved in january. There was only crap for inflated prices available.