Home
Blog
Careers
Forums
Downloads
FM24 Real Name Fix
FM23 Real Name Fix
FM23 New Leagues
FM24 Tactics
FM24 Data Update
FM Database
FM Guides
FM Shortlists
FM24 Wonderkids
FM24 Free Players
FM24 Bargains
FM24 Players to avoid
FM24 Club Budgets
FM24 Club Facilities
Graphics
Installation Guides
Records
Prediction League
Fantasy Football
Search
Ninja
King Luis
(Granted it had sod all to do with Hargreaves)
Tommo.
King Luis
bluemoon.
Hilarious but inaccurate. It was a token gesture signing to give Bobby Manc a defensive-midfielder without splashing the cash.
Ninja
Well it wasn't, unless you believe that the club petty enough to put up the 'Welcome to Manchester' actually had a footballing reason for signing a perma-crock who no other club would touch with a bargepole.
Slashman X
bluemoon.
They're entirely different cases. Why the fuck would they try and sign Owen Hargreaves to get one over United? It's utterly ludicrous. The Hargreaves signing was a quiet, cheap deal done without any real fanfare ( on deadline day, as I recall) largely to placate Mancini's persistent demands for an expensive defensive midfielder - which the board didn't want to fund - the only real comparison to Tévez (a loud, protracted, expensive deal) is that they were both signed from United.
That said you're sort of right. It was done as much for political reasons as for footballing reasons.
He's never been great when it comes to City, he seems to be getting worse though.
Ninja
I'd have thought the first point you'd look at for a signing was whether a player could actually play, Owen Hargreaves quite obviously couldn't and everyone except City knew it.
So either your arguing that your board was incompetent and was unable to see what everyone else could, or there were ulterior motives.
You have to be aware that City are going global, part of City's attraction in markets where we are big is by not being us, by being our rivals and by attempting to eclipse us. It's, according to some (that I'm not sure I buy), the reason you were chosen full stop to be taken over. Fanning that narrative serves your attempts at becoming a global merchandising machine that will ultimately be self sufficient
bluemoon.
What I'm arguing is that the board sanctioned the transfer because Mancini wanted a defensive midfielder and for whatever reason (be it based on the advice of the medical staff, coaching staff or just plain incompetence) they believed Hargreaves was up to the job.
Frankly, anybody who thinks that the reason we were bought was because of United's presence is an idiot. No doubt it played a part, after all the rivalry makes for a far more interesting narrative but despite what you seem to believe City aren't just attempting to ride to glory on United's coat-tails. In the early days of the takeover it served a very useful purpose (the Tévez billboard serving as a good example. That created invaluable exposure) but even at his peak Hargreaves wouldn't be prime candidate for that sort of marketing, he just didn't have the pull. So unless you think our PR people are total amateurs, the idea that he would be used to try and get one over United despite being years (and a litany of injuries) past his peak is ridiculous.
Besides, useful as that sort of stunt was, City have moved far past the need for it. The club has a solid long-term plan that is entirely independent of United and that sort of thing is unnecessary and goes against the ethos of the three main executives at the club (Txiki, Soriano, Khaldoon).
Ninja
You're not trying to convince me that for a club that has spent money virtually at will, and yes I know Mancini had his clashes, decided that a cheap option to a problem was to sign a player that in all likely hood would not play a game for the club, rather than spending pennies on a player that had two working knees. The only plus that Hargreaves ever had was that he had played for United, he didn't even do anything else useful like fill a home grown quota slot.
I think you've misunderstood my previous comments as a criticism, they're not, its an entirely sensible policy and one that has to have factored in to the decision to buy you. In comparison if they had bought Stoke, for example, the process of marketing that club abroad is instantly more difficult when there is essentially nothing interesting about them. City and United's rivalry has propelled you, probably, ahead of Chelsea in terms of marketability already (admittedly with the aid of some suspicious sponsorship deals) its provided a massive boost in that regards.
Honestly, I think Hargreaves was a bit of a punt. I think you took him on, figured you'd take a look at his knees and see if you could fix them, and to succeed where we had failed. If you had done that then Hargreaves perfectly served the narrative and no amount of long term planning would match the short term satisfaction that a lot of City fans, both in England and in emerging markets for the brand, would have taken from that type of success. All for the cost of a few thousand in medical bills. I think that makes a far more sensible explanation of what went on than the idea that your club all simultaneously lost the plot and genuinely expected Hargreaves to play a role, no one who had followed him at United could have expected his time at City to go any differently to how it did.
Poe
SpinSwimScream
Eric Portapotty
bluemoon.
That's essentially what I was getting at.
Ninja
I don't see how you'e got that I hate Man City from thinking that a policy which I described as sensible is a better explanation of what went on than a bout of temporary insanity.
But I don't know why I bother, might as well start calling all their players cunts and all their signings shit and save myself the bother of actually discussing it if thats all people are going to take from it anyway.
Jason
Overachievers: Norwich (Europe places)
Underperformers: Everton (bottom half)
Winners: Chelsea, i see Lukaku as being a big threat.
Relegation: Hull, Cardiff, West Ham
imo
SpinSwimScream
im pretty much exactly the same as you with that, although i cant see Norwich doint THAT well, not European places anyway although i would like to see it. Reckon Sunderland could have a half decent season too looking at their signings
King Luis
Deano
Can't see us finishing in the bottom half, our squad has improved and has more strength in depth than Moyes ever had with us.
Esprit Vanilla
Zog
Jason
I'm just not sold on Martinez being that good. Its his first full season away from a relegation battle, think he'll find it hard to adjust to the difference in being relegationm candidates and challenging for Europa.
BR.
The promoted teams could be up against it - the teams that were near the relegation zone at the end of last season like Norwich and Newcastle should be better this season (although you never know with Newcastle). Sunderland could go either way.
Norwich have made some good signings but I can't see them getting a European place, there's already basically a top 6 in place unless one of them f*cks up, and if they do it'd probably be Everton taking their place - although of course nobody knows how Martinez will get on yet.
K3V0
hammer9
Franck
You really think Crystal Palace will stay up?
Crane
Eric Portapotty
Fulham I'm worried about, looked dire towards the end of the season.
Jason
I like what Holloway did with Blackpool, bar Adam they really didn't have a great deal, if he can replicate that with Palace i don't see why they can't stay up tbf