TRon Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. Somehow I had this feeling we would 'try' but fail to make the signings at the end of the window. I was pretty sure that we would manage to sell Given and Zog though. If we could find buyers I'm pretty sure Enrique and Xisco would have been out the door as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ... the place would of been as equally kneee-jerk with overly positive views about how the transfer market went. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1878 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm not going to say anything that would get the site in trouble but Michael Johnson is bad news. Well known. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. No, we needed midfielders. People are sick to death of seeing Butt play and alot (me included) aren't convinced with Nolan. Johnson is a good player, i would say he is better than Guthrie - and i rate Guthrie. When the news was announced I don't remember seeing anyone having a bad reaction to it. I would say Ashley showing intent is a huge thing too - uniting the fans, less believing he is here to 'asset strip'. This failed deal has ONLY incensed those who believed that. I mean why would you negotiate a deal for Given and not ask about the availability or use him as a bargaining tool. Instead you get the money from the sale and then try their luck. Pure incompetence if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? Better to try and fail than not try at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? Doing the bare minimum may keep us up this season but doing this for the next season or two could back fire. Look at the forum now buddy supporters aren't happy, we needed some bodies, we needed player sales to be reinvested. That didn't happen. Whereas showing intent now, surviving (not saying its guarantee), then showing further interest in improving the squad in the summer. Fans more optimistic, happier set of campers. That is why its important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? I'd say it would have had a better chance of doing so than not bothering at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 We would have gotten an inexperienced, injured player with no return date, who is also a rumoured alcoholic and has played three times this season. Indeed, he would have saved our season and kept us up Stick to watching South Park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 BUT HE DIDN'T SIGN. And neither did anyone else. We kept Smith though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? I'd say it would have had a better chance of doing so than not bothering at all. By the time he returns from injury, I would expect Guthrie to be fully match fit. I wouldn't want us having to play another half fit player for three games over two fully fit players who has played before and know eachother when we're in this relegation battle. I'm not saying that I didn't want us to sign Johnson, btw, but I don't think he would have been the difference between staying up and going down (like many seem to be making out). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 BUT HE DIDN'T SIGN. And neither did anyone else. We kept Smith though I hate this 'we tried' stuff. They had well over 30 days. No excuses for deals falling though now. We may as well put a sign up around St James - "Players wanted". That would also classify as trying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 We would have gotten an inexperienced, injured player with no return date, who is also a rumoured alcoholic and has played three times this season. Indeed, he would have saved our season and kept us up Stick to watching South Park. Great point. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/800/great-white-up-close-sw.jpg There, go and have a wank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That OP is a complete joke. The fact that Ashley would have invested cash into the team would of been a major sign of intent in sorting us out. He tried, didn't he? Also, on deadline day in our situation, showing intent isn't at the top of our priorities, staying up is. Michael Johnson would have done little to nothing to help us do that, yet now everyone are certain that we're going. Had he signed, I bet you that the tone on the forum would have been completely different. What point are you trying to make? That people are nigh on slicing their wrists, but the very same people would have been very happy if we had signed a player who might not even play any more this season. Dear God. It's not the player, it's the intent. Also, I don't think we would have been in for him if it was unlikely he would play. So, that intent would have kept us up? I'd say it would have had a better chance of doing so than not bothering at all. By the time he returns from injury, I would expect Guthrie to be fully match fit. I wouldn't want us having to play another half fit player for three games over two fully fit players who has played before and know eachother when we're in this relegation battle. I'm not saying that I didn't want us to sign Johnson, btw, but I don't think he would have been the difference between staying up and going down (like many seem to be making out). Pure fantasy and, again, point completely missed. See HTT's post, mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Nice photo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 BUT HE DIDN'T SIGN. And neither did anyone else. We kept Smith though 'Just like a new signing'... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 BUT HE DIDN'T SIGN. And neither did anyone else. We kept Smith though 'Just like a new signing'... We both know we'll be treated to that line soon. This season has been so shit I'm kinda looking forward to seeing him back [/hides] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why was it so important to supposedly chase Johnson rather than Donadel or Veloso? Or Bent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why was it so important to supposedly chase Johnson rather than Donadel or Veloso? Or Bent? We wanted Johnson as part of the Given deal, but Man City said that they could get more money for him by just selling him. I guess part of our master plan was to try it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why was it so important to supposedly chase Johnson rather than Donadel or Veloso? Or Bent? We wanted Johnson as part of the Given deal, but Man City said that they could get more money for him by just selling him. I guess part of our master plan was to try it! I realise we have a bunch of Delboys in charge but I'm not sure even they are that incompetent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakie Doke Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 We would have gotten an inexperienced, injured player with no return date, who is also a rumoured alcoholic and has played three times this season. so he'd have fitted in well then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooneyToonArmy Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Johnson considering City future after missing Newcastle move • Midfielder was keen on St James' Park switch • City rejected deal because Newcastle didn't meet valuation * Daniel Taylor * guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 February 2009 03.42 GMT * Article history Michael Johnson is giving serious consideration to his future at Manchester City only five months after signing a new five-year contract. Johnson, regarded as one of England's most promising footballers, would willingly have moved to Newcastle United on transfer-deadline day had an £8m bid not been turned down, and he is open to the idea of a deal being resurrected at the end of the season. The likelihood of that happening is complicated by the current instability at St James' Park and the persistent doubts about who will be managing them next season, who will own the club and, first of all, whether they will still be part of the Premier League. Johnson, however, has other admirers in England's top division, predominantly Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal, even though the interest in him has waned during a challenging season in which he has been restricted to only three league appearances because of a persistent groin problem. Johnson, who turns 21 later this month, had another injury setback last week and a frustrated Mark Hughes described the player's rehabilitation as "one step forward and two steps back". Hughes was instrumental in persuading Johnson to sign his last contract – Johnson had "wanted out" before Hughes's appointment as manager, according to the executive chairman, Garry Cook – but their relationship has been affected since then by a series of off-field issues. City's management have become increasingly concerned about the player's apparent fondness for Manchester's nightlife and the frequency with which he has been seen in the city's casinos. Hughes and his coaches are so concerned they have had several meetings to discuss how to bring Johnson into line. It does not reflect well on Johnson either that these issues date back to Sven Goran Eriksson's time as manager, when club officials let it be known that the England Under-21 international might be sold because of his alleged "big-time" attitude. Johnson, however, believes it has been badly exaggerated, arguing that he has not broken any club rules or curfews, and he is alarmed about the way he has been portrayed. Roy Keane once described Manchester as a "village" because of its propensity for gossip, and Johnson is wondering whether it would benefit him to start afresh somewhere else – as one of his associates put it, to "get out of Manchester." On a separate issue, he also has misgivings about the way his rehabilitation has been handled. Johnson has had pain in his lower abdomen for over a year and the problem has now been pinpointed to his pubis symphysis, for which there can be little treatment other than rest. Whether Hughes would try to talk Johnson out of leaving for a second time remains to be seen, but it should not be considered a foregone conclusion. Johnson's information is that Newcastle's bid was turned down because it did not meet City's valuation rather than, as was widely assumed, his current employers did not want to sell one of their best young players. The fact City had a valuation in the first place is, perhaps, a critical clue into the club's thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teepee Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 i just love how everyone keeps talking about us as relegation candidates (which we are, i know) but fail to see that a team like city is only 4 points clear of us, having spent fantasy money..... imagine city and spurs relegated, that would be a riot.... as for johnson, i hope we stay up and get him in the summer, as good a player as we can attract these days! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now