The mancityfans.net football forum

Telegraph Football ‏@TeleFootball 6m
Wayne Rooney is close to signing an agreement with #MUFC worth a whopping a £300,000-a-week - http://fw.to/6DtW0ga
Retweeted by Paul Hayward
Next time one of them bastards tell you our players are mercs just shove this up them.

gillie wrote:Telegraph Football ‏@TeleFootball 6m
Wayne Rooney is close to signing an agreement with #MUFC worth a whopping a £300,000-a-week - http://fw.to/6DtW0ga
Retweeted by Paul Hayward
Next time one of them bastards tell you our players are mercs just shove this up them.

Is he not already on £270k?

He already is a mercenary cunt in the eyes of most rags I know

gillie wrote:Telegraph Football ‏@TeleFootball 6m
Wayne Rooney is close to signing an agreement with #MUFC worth a whopping a £300,000-a-week - http://fw.to/6DtW0ga
Retweeted by Paul Hayward
Next time one of them bastards tell you our players are mercs just shove this up them.

Is he not already on £270k?

He already is a mercenary cunt in the eyes of most rags I know

Im_Spartacus wrote:

gillie wrote:Telegraph Football ‏@TeleFootball 6m
Wayne Rooney is close to signing an agreement with #MUFC worth a whopping a £300,000-a-week - http://fw.to/6DtW0ga
Retweeted by Paul Hayward
Next time one of them bastards tell you our players are mercs just shove this up them.

Is he not already on £270k?

He already is a mercenary cunt in the eyes of most rags I know

The old slapper has raised her rates.

And presumably Mata is a mercenary. Leaving a club who can win things for one that is already out of the running? He is sacrificing the chance of glory for money.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:And presumably Mata is a mercenary. Leaving a club who can win things for one that is already out of the running? He is sacrificing the chance of glory for money.

It's almost directly comparable to the players who joined us under Hughes......that's how far they have dropped out of the running.

hang on...
i thought they all played for free??

[youtube]eBlD2N_AwgI[/youtube]

300k a week for that overated tub of hairy lard?...let them pay it, weve seen the best of wooney, everyone knows that.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:And presumably Mata is a mercenary. Leaving a club who can win things for one that is already out of the running? He is sacrificing the chance of glory for money.

Disagree with that re Mata. I'm disappointed he's going there but Mourinho hasn't played him all season and made it clear that he isn't first choice. Mata is too good to sit on the bench and especially with the world cup coming up he'll want to be playing first team football.

It's not his fault he's been inexplicably driven out the club. He was their best player two years running.

Bridge'srightfoot wrote: Disagree with that re Mata. I'm disappointed he's going there but Mourinho hasn't played him all season and made it clear that he isn't first choice. Mata is too good to sit on the bench and especially with the world cup coming up he'll want to be playing first team football. It's not his fault he's been inexplicably driven out the club. He was their best player two years running.

So from the clubs who would be interested in his services, he would go to united 'for the challenge'

Bollocks

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Bridge'srightfoot wrote: Disagree with that re Mata. I'm disappointed he's going there but Mourinho hasn't played him all season and made it clear that he isn't first choice. Mata is too good to sit on the bench and especially with the world cup coming up he'll want to be playing first team football. It's not his fault he's been inexplicably driven out the club. He was their best player two years running.

So from the clubs who would be interested in his services, he would go to united 'for the challenge'

Bollocks

Well who wanted him? Chelsea certainly wouldn't have sold him to us or Arsenal, probably not Liverpool either. I doubt Newcastle or Spurs or Everton could afford him?

Was anyone else in for him? I'm sure he'd rather go to a better club but for his own sake he just needs to get away from Chelsea.
I blame Mourinho, not Mata. It was probably a choice of sit on Chelsea's bench or get some game time.

Bridge'srightfoot wrote: Well who wanted him? Chelsea certainly wouldn't have sold him to us or Arsenal, probably not Liverpool either. I doubt Newcastle or Spurs or Everton could afford him? Was anyone else in for him? I'm sure he'd rather go to a better club but for his own sake he just needs to get away from Chelsea. I blame Mourinho, not Mata. It was probably a choice of sit on Chelsea's bench or get some game time.

So, when faced with exactly that issue, a player who signed for us was a mercenary?

I'm pretty sure Chelsea would have sold to any club bar us and arsenal, the fact nobody else came up with the money is further proof that this deal is all about an overinflated fee, and most likely overinflated salary for a club in uniteds position.

Exactly what the players were called mercenaries for when they signed for us

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Bridge'srightfoot wrote: Well who wanted him? Chelsea certainly wouldn't have sold him to us or Arsenal, probably not Liverpool either. I doubt Newcastle or Spurs or Everton could afford him? Was anyone else in for him? I'm sure he'd rather go to a better club but for his own sake he just needs to get away from Chelsea. I blame Mourinho, not Mata. It was probably a choice of sit on Chelsea's bench or get some game time.

So, when faced with exactly that issue, a player who signed for us was a mercenary?

I'm pretty sure Chelsea would have sold to any club bar us and arsenal, the fact nobody else came up with the money is further proof that this deal is all about an overinflated fee, and most likely overinflated salary for a club in uniteds position.

Exactly what the players were called mercenaries for when they signed for us

So you've made my point for me, the only place he could really go was United. No one else could afford him bar us and Arsenal, whom Chelsea would not have sold to.
I didn't call them mercenaries, so why would I call him one? It's not his fault Mourinho has a bizarre dislike of him despite the fact he's been there best player for 2 years.
If anything, it's good to see a player moving for first team football, rather than sit on the bench week in week out just to pick up a trophy.

Blame falls on Mourinho for selling to a rival.

Why must we debate this again?

Yes we ruined football --- for every Rag in the world. I am ok with it.

If it was just about game time they would have been more likely to have loaned him out, which suggests it is a clash of personalities. Mourinho suggested earlier in the season that he wasn't as willing to adapt to new instructions as the others which is why he didn't get as much game time (and why he was brought off after starting).

indeed we are says Tom Watt on BBC Fighting Talk today - Arsenal lover, Beckham Ghost Writer and Labour Party Activist
and City hater

[youtube]6cQvm_vOxw8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:So you've made my point for me, the only place he could really go was United. No one else could afford him bar us and Arsenal, whom Chelsea would not have sold to.
I didn't call them mercenaries, so why would I call him one? It's not his fault Mourinho has a bizarre dislike of him despite the fact he's been there best player for 2 years.
If anything, it's good to see a player moving for first team football, rather than sit on the bench week in week out just to pick up a trophy.

Blame falls on Mourinho for selling to a rival.

I think you've missed the point of the thread pal. You think it's good, I think it's good, but when it was city, the players were all mercenaries. I'm asking you where is the difference (other than in e minds of the media)

Funny how the money hasn't really been mentioned this season. Its all been about how great we are.

The week united go and spend 40 million on Mata plus probably 200,000 a week in wages and are going to put Rooney on 300,000 a week all our match reports include the comment "city's bench today cost 84 million".

This subject doesn't head in. When the Champions League draw had taken place Sky summarised all the fixtures and said big spending City have been drawn with Barca but when they read out other fixtures including the likes of PSG and Real Madrid there was no reference to big spending. We have nt spent anywhere near what Madrid have spent £80+ mil on Bale and Ronaldo etc etc. our record signing being £38 mil on Sergio. Massive difference. Even Wigan after the Cup Final bleating on about our rich owners etc. Without Whelan bankrolling them they would be in the Conference now. I will stop at this point before I start ranting.

A rag pal has just posted on FB that he's reading about the Scum making a 23m profit last year and City making a 97m loss. Having the cheek to call us and Chelsea cheats whilst the Scum, Bindippers and the Arse are 'real clubs'. I'm pondering my response carefully, any ideas?