Jump to content

Jim Smith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jim Smith

  1. Yes, there is a contradiction between us running a “small” squad by premier league standards and relying on players with poor injury records who we may pick up cheaply as a consequence.
  2. I guess they may not use the upper tiers, bit harder to social distance on the stairs etc.
  3. Take your point but it’s not really “indoors” though is it if they use the big exit doors rather than turnstiles. Should be loads of room in the concourses if you say have 500 people in the lower Barclay rather than 3000. Set up a massive, socially distanced, outdoor bar in the car park. Job done.
  4. 6,000 outdoors spread across 27000 seats really shouldn’t be a big risk.
  5. I see that Ben White at Brighton who has not played a game in the premier is being valued at £30m which rather puts Liverpool’s bid into context.
  6. I have also heard this from what I consider to be a reliable source. It may be his agent who pushes for a move or it may end up being the club if we need the money but from what i've heard he won;t throw his toys out of the pram if he has to stay.
  7. I have heard on the grapevine that Buendia is quite happy to stay but others may be pushing a move.
  8. Surely Gilmour is old enough to play. If he goes out on loan again then I’d query whether he will ever play for us.
  9. My point westcorkio is that if our position is that we will sell any player for whom the valuation is met then we may well end up selling all of our gems (because it’s not inconceivable that the valuation is met for all of them by different clubs) and then whilst we may have £100m in the bank we will undoubtedly have a weaker team. So where do we draw the line. So we sell say two or three then tell the others they can’t go or is the clubs position that they can all go subject to the bids being high enough?
  10. We will not replace any of them with better. if you sell one player for £20m then you may be able to make the team stronger by bringing in three or four as happened with Madders. if we sell Lewis, Aaron’s, Godfrey, Buendia, Pukki and Cantwell then even if we get a combined £100m we will have a weaker team. You can’t replace half the team with cheaper players and make it stronger. Whether you can make it not much weaker is perhaps a different question.
  11. I don;t expect us to spend all of it but i would expect us to spend some of it and I do not expect us to sell all 6 players likely to attract bids even if the valuation is met for all of them. There is a big difference between banking the cash for a couple of them (on the basis that you can keep the others and continue to build a side around them) and agreeing to sell any of them for whom we happen to get a bid that is at a level we consider acceptable.
  12. We already have a tinpot dictator(s) who refuses to give up the reigns.
  13. Depends if you apply it to all six of the players we have who are likely to attract significant bids. In isolation with each one it’s reasonable. Selling 5 or 6 of them because we receive acceptable bids for each one individually would be a massive let down.
  14. Its interesting the pattern this all follows. We get in a load of cheap signings early on in the window and then the stories of big money outward moves slowly start to materialise and fans are more accepting of the departures as we "already have replacements" and don;t tend to focus so much on the disparity between what we've spent and what has been received Makes you wonder who is feeding these stories to the press at times and why we are "willing to listen" to offers. I expect similar stories to start breaking about the likes of Cantwell and Pukki soon. seems we are "willing to listen" to offers for any players provided they are high enough.
  15. Bryam is not a left back though. That was just because he had performed ok whilst Lewis was out and as usual Farke was doing his "don;t change the team" until you have to thing. We also have no real feel yet for whether McCullum is up to it. There is no doubt Lewis is out first choice left back and I think he had a better season than most last season. Yes he has weaknesses in terms of defending crosses at the far post and his final ball is very frustrating but improve those on the training ground and you've got a top player in your hands. In my opinion potentially better than Aarons as he's bigger/more athletic.
  16. Liverpool/agent clearly getting the “bid” out there so as to try and get the player to force the move. “Liverpool value him at £8m plus £2m add ons.” What an arrogant, odious club they are. He will want to go there but we must not allow a move to be forced on the cheap. Big test for Webber this one as will set a precedent.
  17. I very much doubt you will be able to pass tickets on to third parties in a covid restricted world because they will want to ID people going in case they need to track and trace them. Maybe to other family members if notified in advance to the club.
  18. Surely the better option for both parties (i.e. club and St holder) is simply to allow an option where you to defer for a season so the club gets to keep the money for cashflow purposes but your season ticket is deferred to the following season. If in the meantime it becomes possible to attend games then the ST holder gets first refusal on their seat for any game sit can be used for for a price that equates to the ST per game price? I.e. those us who have paid now have their season tickets for season 2021-22 secured and paid for but pay £21 per game (or whatever it works out as) for our seat for any games we can go to this season.
  19. Surely if true then these clubs have made an illegal approach for Godfrey.
  20. Do the rules actually say the points deduction is next season Bethnal? I can seem to find the relevant rule. I ask because you say in your post above that the rule is “set to” say next season which implies it’s possibly a proposed rule? The breach was actually in 2018 as I understand it?
  21. Sorry just to clarify i'm not saying our owners do nothing in the community (perhaps did not express that as well as I could) more that the notion that other "foreign" owners don;t do anything is just not true.
  22. Nope but the notion that these type of owners don’t do anything for the community (and ours do) is simply not true. The Man City owners have rejuvenated a part of that side of Manchester and I believe the club does a lot in the community also.
  23. Sorry but that’s not true. We generally all support the club because it’s embedded in us. That’s why I (and many others) would not have a hissy fit and stop supporting the club is it were bought by a Saudi sovereign wealth fund. I would suggest that those saying they would stop supporting it perhaps do not have it “embedded” in them. laughable really we have fans saying they would not want Man City’s owners. Have you seen what they have done to that part of Manchester even leaving aside what they have achieved on the pitch.
  24. I'm not talking about that, i'm talking about so called "fans" saying they would no longer support our club or watch football if we were bought by a mega rich Saudi backed consortium. I support the football club not the owners. Somewhere along the line at Norwich it seems the two have become unhealthily blurred.
  25. Well as I understand it Saudi Arabia is accused of not doing enough to prevent piracy in Saudi Arabia after a Saudi broadcaster continued showing coverage after Saudi Arabia banned Bein Sports due to the political issues with Qatar. Ultimately though this deal involved backing from the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Saudi Arabia (plus a British property fund as well). Man City are owned by similar state backed companies from Abu Dhabi and also in part Chinese state back enterprises. Is that any better from a human rights perspective?
  • Create New...