Just saw this on Soccernet and thought yeah right! http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/s...-city-stars-are-not-motivated-by-cash?cc=3436 So does he mean that if they were offered less money they would still play for City?
Money has now given City's Aguero a setback... http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...with-mystery-stupid-injury-article884650.html ...he dropped his wallet on it!
Apart from Hargreaves I don't think City have signed a player that really believed he was making a choice between money or trophies. Some players will make a blatant choice for money going to China, America or Qatar but most will convince themselves that they're also considering their potential to play and/or win trophies in a respected competition.
City have a real chance of winning trophies so it isn't just money that motivates players to go there. You can see that by how their signings have got better as they got better. In 2008 when they got taken over do you think Aguero would of joined? Clichy left Arsenal for City and said he was proven right when winning the FA Cup in his first season while Arsenal won **** all.
what you doing on the Mongs,board,as you called us on your board,what is it,oh yes the Woolwich nomads.by the way the Ladies did not win the oap cup,get your facts right
They're not alone Luke. Take Rooney: Would he still be a Utd player, if the club hadn't "demonstrated ambition" by doubling his salary?
City seem ruffled whereas Utd are calm. The players want to play for Fergie because he motivates them properly. There's more Kudos in playing for Utd for half the salaries of the big names playing for City.
Exactly. It's plainly obvious. Why would any top class player want to go and play for some previously unheard of club, in the arse- end of England, if it wasn't for the lure of one thing - Money!!
90% of all players are mercenaries. City are no exception to that, but they're not a radical difference, either. Would these players have joined City if they hadn't offered the most money? No. Would other players have joined the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool or Chelsea if they were being offered more elsewhere? No.
Players want respect, but who really respects any player for selling his soul to £ity? Even the £ity fans don't respect these players, because they're not so stupid as to believe that these players would have anything to do with their club unless it was for their playboy Arab owner's limitless billions. That's why you've got £ity players trying to convince us that they didn't go for the money, because they know that they've sold any respect that the public might have had for them. We all know what a great player Tevez is, for example, but we also know that his greed (and that of his agent) makes him unreliable. Unless we get someone like Mourhino to replace Harry at our club, or sell out to a fabulously rich owner (not some cheap-skate owner, like Blackburn has), we will never progress beyond where we are, because £ity and Chavski will always unsettle us by tapping-up our best players. The best players only stay at a club for two reasons: they love the manager, or they love the cash. A delicate balance between the two is always the best trade-off, which is what we've had with Harry. He's not the best manager out there, but he has the kind of personality that gets players to want to play for him; and whilst we don't pay the best wages in the game, we are not too shabby, either.
It's actually worse in City's case. Most Foreign players would know about Man Utd, L' pool, or Chelsea. How many would have even known that Man City actually existed, until they won the ownership lottery?
A few years ago you'd have said the same about Chelsea, NSIS. The other two clubs are where they are because of spending, too.
If I was that rich Arab, I would have bought a club like Leeds. Big in its day, with a glorious past. And I would have pumped my limitless billions into making it the club that it once was - bigger than 'Pool, bigger than United, bigger than all of the London Clubs put together. Europeans - certainly those of a certain vintage - have heard of the mighty Leeds. And the rivalry between Leeds and United is far, far stronger than that between United and £ity. Far greater. Given that one of the major reasons why the rich playboy Arab bought £ity was to embarrass United (and, thereby, gain maximum publicity for its other business ventures, across the world), it surely would have achieved that to a much higher degree by using Leeds United as its puppet club?
I think Man Utd and L'pool have been household names in Europe for generations now. Yes, Chelsea are relative newcomers, but have still been on or around the European scene for some 15 years or so. City, on the other hand, nobody in Europe would have even heard of until the last year or so.
