Confirmed Signing Jack Grealish

[James Patrick]

It wasn't just the 80s we were successful in mate. Other than their 61 double team , look what they have won. We have always historically been more successful than them. Then factor in their relegations. We all know our history , but perhaps not theirs.

Tell that to any 20-30 year old now - winning gets the eyes on you. We are as relevant in football terms as Torino are in Italy.

 

[blulouie]

There isn't a loan fee though. And if you or another club agree to paying his wages for next two seasons you won't have paid a transfer fee either, and will be able to negotiate a new contract on less money.

This to me is possibly the only way this deal gets done.

2 years would cost us around 30 mil then he's free agent ( might be successful and want to stay here )

Apart from getting his wages off the books , City would be shouldering a huge loss on him .

 

[Maine road Man]

This to me is possibly the only way this deal gets done.

2 years would cost us around 30 mil then he's free agent ( might be successful and want to stay here )

Apart from getting his wages off the books , City would be shouldering a huge loss on him .

I'd be happy enough if we gave him away. I think City should offer him on a free just to get him off the payroll. Same goes with John Stones and that useless lump of Yorkshire lard, Kelvin Phillips.

 

[blulouie]

I'd be happy enough if we gave him away. I think City should offer him on a free just to get him off the payroll. Same goes with John Stones and that useless lump of Yorkshire lard, Kelvin Phillips.

We were actually tentatively linked to John Stones earlier in the window.

And I still rate him alot.

But back to Grealish I can see this rumbling on for a while as clubs try to get better terms.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I'd be happy enough if we gave him away. I think City should offer him on a free just to get him off the payroll. Same goes with John Stones and that useless lump of Yorkshire lard, Kelvin Phillips.

City won't let him leave permanently on a free or for a very low fee because that would create a big loss on the players book value.

 

[Maine road Man]

We were actually tentatively linked to John Stones earlier in the window.

And I still rate him alot.

But back to Grealish I can see this rumbling on for a while as clubs try to get better terms.

Stones has said he's feeling fit and up for staying at City another year till his contract expires. I'm hoping he can stay fit because he is a top player. I doubt he will though.

As for Grealish I think there'll be one or two other clubs (besides Everton and Spurs) waiting to throw their hat in the ring, and whoever takes him on loan will be fully paying his wages. I think City are standing firm on this.

 

[Maine road Man]

City won't let him leave permanently on a free or for a very low fee because that would create a big loss on the players book value.

It's reputed we'll take 20m but no club have offered that as of yet so we'll have to see how things pan out. We'd rather sell than loan him but his wages are proving to be a stumbling block...

 

[Rob17896]

We were actually tentatively linked to John Stones earlier in the window.

And I still rate him alot.

But back to Grealish I can see this rumbling on for a while as clubs try to get better terms.

Being a bit old fashioned in what a defender is for, Stones could not lace the boots of our current defence.

 

[BlueBarrow]

Tell that to any 20-30 year old now - winning gets the eyes on you. We are as relevant in football terms as Torino are in Italy.

That's a really good comparison , and ncidentally , the club I "support" in Italy , partially due to their non extreme right wing association. Having said that , we are now in a better position than them mate .

 

[Ian]

We won’t be paying his 300k a week wages I can guarantee you that mate
We offer city 200k basically 10mil late in the window, city will snap our hands off.
The only other way is if Grealish Takes the hit himself

200k pw plus £10 million is £20 million in one year. Out of a £200 million turnover. No chance.

 

[JobForTheMoyes]

Take your blue tinted glasses off. Our 80s achievements are about as relevant now as Wolves in the 50s. Club has not seriously competed in the league for nearly 40 years.

Don’t forget we were a force in the 30s!

 

[MACCA75]

It's reputed we'll take 20m but no club have offered that as of yet so we'll have to see how things pan out. We'd rather sell than loan him but his wages are proving to be a stumbling block...

Baffles me when a club pays such high wages when there is no need. Would he have turned down £200k a week?

 

[blueboy72]

200k pw plus £10 million is £20 million in one year. Out of a £200 million turnover. No chance.

The max we will pay city is 10mil , maybe a little more. However that is worked in wages and loan fee

 

[DayL08]

City won't let him leave permanently on a free or for a very low fee because that would create a big loss on the players book value.

Not sure City would care. Hardly going to breach PSR and we’ve seen what would happen if they did . . .

 

[Super Ken McNaught]

Stones has said he's feeling fit and up for staying at City another year till his contract expires. I'm hoping he can stay fit because he is a top player. I doubt he will though.

As for Grealish I think there'll be one or two other clubs (besides Everton and Spurs) waiting to throw their hat in the ring, and whoever takes him on loan will be fully paying his wages. I think City are standing firm on this.

City can stand as firm as they like. There isn't a club in England (or Europe) that will stand £300k a week for a loan player - particularly any team playing in Europe that is subject to SCR regulations on wages.

No sir, aint gona happen.