Im_Spartacus wrote:zuricity wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Bleed_Blue wrote:blues2win wrote:Sunday Mirror saying that Milner wants a 4 year deal while City offering three.
James Milner demanding new four-year Manchester City deal as Premier League rivals monitor stand-off
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ar-5164129
Well his demands are not exorbitant and good thing is it seems like he wants to stay.
He's already stated that he wants to stay. Just a few people decided he wasn't telling the truth.
But this is no small problem, if the club has an age policy re contracts. Which may be the case.
That would mean he's gone. Unless he backs down.
Age policy. ?
Seriously,think before you post.
How old is DeMich and more importantly , what had he contributed to our success before he signed for City last season ?
Seriously, think before you post
An age policy that we have benefitted from recently is that at Chelsea where they refuse to give players over a certain age, a certain length of contract. I assume this is what Ted is talking about, not an outright refusal to have players in the squad over a certain age.
In this case, if they are offering 3 years, Ted is suggesting that there may be some kind of policy which means that we won't offer 4 years to a 29 year old player.
However Silva signed a 5 year deal age 28, which would take him to the same age as Milner (33) on a 4 year contract, and Toure signed one age 30 taking him to 34 so I would suggest such a policy doesn't exist, and if city are trying to play the age card, Jimmy is probably digging his heels in citing the Silva deal and that he is fitter than the pair of them.
I couldn't care less what Chelski implement. Not my team . How have we benefitted from Chelski's policy, if they have one?;Signing Frank on a freebie ? Very forward holistic thinking indeed.