[Archived] Nicko's January Rumour Mill

[AJW]

think city will definatley buy at least 1 striker possibly 2 , they already have jo, benjani, sturridge , calceido (anyone else i missed?) so i think at least 1 will be able to leave, benjani couldnt hit a cows backside with a banjo when he first signed for pompey after that he scored plenty of goals ,

nicko are you saying benjani would struggle with a medical? was that the delay when he signed for city last window , i seem to remember it being done after midnight had passed

[islander200]

  philipl said:

This is funny- find myself arguing against myself now.

But apparently City have had a bid for somebody accepted by Chelsea and have made about five other bids already.

At least one of which is a forward.

[/quote philip every paper in the country is expecting a bid to be made yet you think we should take your word for it?

[Hi Mack]

  AJW said:

think city will definatley buy at least 1 striker possibly 2 , they already have jo, benjani, sturridge , calceido (anyone else i missed?) so i think at least 1 will be able to leave, benjani couldnt hit a cows backside with a banjo when he first signed for pompey after that he scored plenty of goals ,

nicko are you saying benjani would struggle with a medical? was that the delay when he signed for city last window , i seem to remember it being done after midnight had passed

add vassell, evans and castllio to that list!

[RibbleValleyRover]

  Hi Mack said:

add vassell, evans and castllio to that list!

Bojinov is due to come back as well. They have something like 9 strikers around the first team/reserves...

[BomBom]

  Hi Mack said:

add vassell, evans and castllio to that list!

Not forgetting the mighty Jo!

[nicko]

Benjani is not fit and probably won't be.

Sturridge is obviously a stand-out, but may have bigger ideas for his future.

The rest are average at best.

Mark Hughes, by the way, approved of the Jo signing...makes you think.

[Hi Mack]

  AJW said:

think city will definatley buy at least 1 striker possibly 2 , they already have jo, benjani, sturridge , calceido (anyone else i missed?) so i think at least 1 will be able to leave, benjani couldnt hit a cows backside with a banjo when he first signed for pompey after that he scored plenty of goals ,

nicko are you saying benjani would struggle with a medical? was that the delay when he signed for city last window , i seem to remember it being done after midnight had passed

[BomBom]

OK, so I am not observant LOL sorry!

Nicko, Do you think Sam is still the Sam of old insomuch that he will rummage around the freebie bin and pull off some no namers and low contract players or do you think he will play this window more "straight up" as most clubs tend to do?

Also, someone mentioned exchanges for Cruz, if we hypothetically got Ben Haim, Sturridge and Onuha for him, would the club have to pay him anything as it would be a straight player exchange deal?

[brian_gallagher85]

  nicko said:

Mark Hughes, by the way, approved of the Jo signing...makes you think.

He would have approved of almost any striker when he saw Darius Vassel high up the list in his striking options

[thenodrog]

  Anti-Dingle-Brigade said:

Would a swap deal be best then, if it is 15m each way? I expect us to keep hold of Roque if he is 15m either way, but if they want him this window, a swap deal would allow him to go, us to get some cash to strengthen and possibly a player or two in the deal, which would mean we didn't have to go out and buy somebody.

Various offers would help us strengthen without having to go to the hassle of selling then buying with the risk of not getting anybody.

Sturridge + Cash

Elano + Cash

Elano + Sturridge

Johnson + Cash

Johnson + Sturridge

Ireland + Cash

Ireland + Sturridge

Would all make us a stronger team.

Any ideas which City players could move if such a circumstance occured? Ireland is on fire, and Sturridge has potential but there are others who could be willing to move.

Those sort of deals are history. A wholly unworkeable can of worms. Too many strings attached, too many individual requirements to satsify, too many agents, too much possibility of any one of them holding the deal to ransom, and SA is sure to fancy somebody from elsewhere.

City are cash rich so cash only please.

[nicko]

  BomBom said:

OK, so I am not observant LOL sorry!

Nicko, Do you think Sam is still the Sam of old insomuch that he will rummage around the freebie bin and pull off some no namers and low contract players or do you think he will play this window more "straight up" as most clubs tend to do?

Also, someone mentioned exchanges for Cruz, if we hypothetically got Ben Haim, Sturridge and Onuha for him, would the club have to pay him anything as it would be a straight player exchange deal?

I think Sam knows a player and whether it is likely to work. But he signs as many duds as crackers - and there are not the great Djorkaeff, Okocha or Hierro bargains out there.

This is tough, but at least you have a manager who knows the market. It's a help but it doesn't guarantee results.

Pass on the second question. All I would say is that Roque won't budge unless he gets his slice...and quite rightly as that was agreed in the deal with Rovers.

[bluebruce]

  dave birch said:

As for Neill, we should never go back for an ex player, always look to the future.

I don't agree, because of one very fine example- Colin Hendry.

[Hi Mack]

  nicko said:

I think Sam knows a player and whether it is likely to work. But he signs as many duds as crackers - and there are not the great Djorkaeff, Okocha or Hierro bargains out there.

This is tough, but at least you have a manager who knows the market. It's a help but it doesn't guarantee results.

Pass on the second question. All I would say is that Roque won't budge unless he gets his slice...and quite rightly as that was agreed in the deal with Rovers.

Has there been any developments today alan or are Sundays usually quiet?

[AJW]

All I would say is that Roque won't budge unless he gets his slice...and quite rightly as that was agreed in the deal with Rovers.

strange scenario a player goes on radio saying he wants to leave for a bigger club , then backtracks if he isnt going to get enough money out of it....

welcome to modern football eh?

[nicko]

  Hi Mack said:

Has there been any developments today alan or are Sundays usually quiet?

Lots of fall-out from the weekend - transfer window Sundays are still lively.

Spurs trying hard, Man City in confusion and causing headaches for everyone else.

It's like buying houses these days. One has to move in before one moves out in most cases...apart from the wealthy.

Even Chelsea shunted out Bridge to give them cash for a signing.

[BomBom]

  nicko said:

I think Sam knows a player and whether it is likely to work. But he signs as many duds as crackers - and there are not the great Djorkaeff, Okocha or Hierro bargains out there.

This is tough, but at least you have a manager who knows the market. It's a help but it doesn't guarantee results.

Pass on the second question. All I would say is that Roque won't budge unless he gets his slice...and quite rightly as that was agreed in the deal with Rovers.

I might be playing catch up here and may have missed this but my understanding of the situation as it is was that if he moves this window he isnt entitled to anything, so where does the agreement with Rovers work its way in? I was under the impression it was from summer 2009 onwards?

These bloody contract clauses....clear as mud eh?

Just out of curiosity, anyone know, including Nicko, how much we got in for Sergio? and Nolan?

Bom

[philipl]

Islander quoted philip every paper in the country is expecting a bid to be made yet you think we should take your word for it?

It has been coming every day so far and hasn't happened yet but other bids have been made by City.

Fact or fiction?

Nothing to do with my word or the fact you were horribly wrong about Ince.

[Tim Southampton Rover]

I think Nolan moved on a free to Preston but in the future we could earn a 6 figure fee for him dependent on how well he does.

[Bobby G]

Id guess that the Givet story is real, but he isnt a left back. He can do a job there, but definitely a center back. A solid and good one at that. Definitely would be good for us, but if the plan is to play him left back, it would be more of a case of center back being pushed out wide cause of his foot.

[nicko]

  BomBom said:

I might be playing catch up here and may have missed this but my understanding of the situation as it is was that if he moves this window he isnt entitled to anything, so where does the agreement with Rovers work its way in? I was under the impression it was from summer 2009 onwards?

These bloody contract clauses....clear as mud eh?

When the clause was put in both sides must have reckoned that a £20 million deal - with a £5 million slice to Roque - was on the cards next summer when hopefully he had scored goals again.

To be fair to Roque he signed a new contract at a time when he could have been sold and the club were happy with the 'profit' and 'price' clauses. It was a good idea.

The problem arises when somebody bids in January and Roque - reasonably - expects to get a percentage of the sale.

It's going to take some sorting out.

Or not - if Man City decide not to back their manager.

[ebenrocks]

Surely if Rovers had expected a 20 million sale then they sould have set that as a piece in the the clause.

"If Roque gets sold for 20 million then he gets a 5 million cut"

surely that would help us not get totally buggered if he fails for therest of the season and ends up going for like 10 million or even less

[Bobby G]

I cant see Hughes sacked before their next league game, meaning enough time to sign a Santa Cruz...

Roque has been careful with his words to the English press, so I dont think he has burnt his bridges.

An on-form Roque would give us a great option up front and who would complain if he stays and plays well!

[RevidgeBlue]

  nicko said:

The problem arises when somebody bids in January and Roque - reasonably - expects to get a percentage of the sale.

Imo It's not reasonable at all for him to expect a "cut" if he leaves in January.

The contract he was happy to sign in the summer apparently entitled him to a bonus if he stayed the entire season. Almost like a loyalty bonus if you will.

If he bails out this month, stuff him.

As for your earlier assertion that we're better off getting rid now for 15m, I couldn't disagree more. If we were to clear 18m by letting him go now, that would be worth at least considering for the extra 3m, but why on earth should we

a) Consider giving Roque 3m when we're not contractually entitled to give him a penny

or

b ) Put our Premiership survival on the line by offloading him now for a net 15m when we could get the same in the summer?

From a purely footballing standpoint, it's looking more and more essential we say "no deal" and he stays until summer.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Double post.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

  AJW said:

strange scenario a player goes on radio saying he wants to leave for a bigger club , then backtracks if he isnt going to get enough money out of it....

welcome to modern football eh?

Its pretty shyte mate but thats football and footballers today.Then again, if it was MILLIONS you were going to pocket wouldn't we ALL be the same?..............