Strange really, as City actually had a very strong youth set-up when they took over. You'd have thought that they'd have wanted that to continue.
Instead they let Daniel Sturridge go to Chelsea for chicken feed, loan Michael Johnson out without telling him in advance, freeze out Nedum Onuoha, and use Stephen Ireland as a pawn to land Gareth Barry. At least in Chelsea's defence you can say their youth set-up was bloody awful before they started to chuck Roman's money around, so it's not like much changed there (until they started asking youth players to break their contracts with their clubs, anyway....)
Daniel Sturridge joined Chelsea for £3.5m - 10% of what your lot paid for Andy Carroll Michael Johnson has publicly criticesed Mancini for snubbing him all summer, then loaning him to Leicester without informing him first Nedum Onuoha has a solitary appearance in the Carling Cup this season Stephen Ireland was used as a player exchange to sign Gareth Barry The last player to graduate from Chelsea's youth academy was John Terry, before him it was Jody Morris and Jon Harley Yes, that really was one of the most incorrect things you ever read, wasn't it? None of what I said can be verified by using Google...
Is he a guaranteed starter like Terry or any of the City players named, or is he someone whose come off the bench a few times when the guaranteed starters have played a game their winning comfortably?
Man City didn't want to lose Sturridge, his contract just ran out and Chelsea offered crazy money for him, something like 70k a week for a 19 year old. That would set a dangerous precedent at the club with the youngsters, so they offered him 30k a week, which is a lot for someone of that age and he refused and went to Chelsea for double the money. The £3.5m was just compensation for losing him, they didn't accept a bid of £3.5m at anytime. Nedum Onuoha isn't as good as Zabaleta or Richards, so I can't see what the issue you have with that, really? And Michael Johnson was sent on loan because he was unfit and had been wasting his career away and he needed competitive football. Stephen Ireland was used in an exchange for James Milner. Verify it if you want, at least 50% of it is wrong.
Notice that I said they let him go for chicken feed. Besides, given what they're reported to be paying various members of their squad, £70k per week for Sturridge is hardly a dangerous precedent - what they're paying Yaya Toure is. You say that someone is incorrect, then compare Onuoha - a centre back - to a pair of full backs? Riiiiiiiiiight... Onuoha is as good a centre back, if not better, than Lescott. And considering how Kolo Toure was banned for a chunk of the early season, that's an opportunity for Onuoha to play a few games as they rest players between Premier League and Champions League. Which is no excuse for: a.) Mancini's lack of contact throughout the summer b.) Not informing him that he was being loaned out in advance Milner, Barry, whatever. So it's gone from "everything" to 50% in a short space of time. In other words, your saying I posted "one of the most incorrect things I've read on here" was, in fact, one of the most incorrect things anyone has read on here.
It was actually nearly everything, not everything. 2 out of 4 is nearly everything. If you're not going to bother reading it then there's no point arguing about it. For the record Onuoha is a Right Back/Centre Back and Savic, Toure, Lescott and Kompany are all considered ahead of him by Mancini, whats the problem in that? And saying they let Sturridge go means you're implying that they had any say in the fee Chelsea had to pay, they didn't. His contract was up, so they couldn't ask for anything. If you'd used "lost" instead of "let go" then it would've been fine.
Please tell everyone who read that comment you do not plan to work in finance. Even the player who was banned for taking his wife's diet pills (yeah, right...) has played more games. Also, have you ever heard of something called "squad rotation"? There's no reason Onuoha has been frozen out - unless Gerry Cook sending offensive e-mails about his Onuoha's mother to...Onuoha's mother constitutes a good reason to freeze him out. They had a say in keeping him, right? They had the chance to match or better Chelsea's wage offer, right? So they let him go.
I'd suggest that buying several players in someone's position and then not playing them is virtually the definition of freezing them out. Part of the reason that Sturridge left Man City was that Ched Evans was being picked ahead of him.
Its like arguing that Spurs are restricting the growth of English players by "freezing out" David Bentley. If by, freezing out, you mean not playing a player that's not good enough.
I think that Bentley did get frozen out, in all honesty. His part in the Redknapp soaking seemed to virtually end his Spurs career.
I think he just wasn't intelligent, or good enough, for the level Spurs want to be at. He really shouldn't have moved to Birmingham though on loan, he should've moved to a club that had a manager wanting to play expansive football, like Wigan for example. I'm sure they'd be grateful to have a player of his ability, and he'd be allowed to develop in an enviroment where there wasn't much pressure and he was free to try things he wouldn't be allowed to under a manager like McLeish. Maybe he wouldn't be willing to give up his wages for thattype of move though. Why would you quote my post about Onuoha then? Quim.
A loan wouldn't have affected Bentley's wages, though. He's still on the same amount now, for example, it's just that West Ham are paying a large chunk of it.
