The last 'god knows how many pages' have added nothing to my simple & concise post that pointed out PNP was talking ****, but I'm glad you all had fun lol please log in to view this image I hope Mancini counts the rings on his fingers after he shakes hands with saggy chops.
No, I have clarified my post now. However, let's confine our spat to the other thread rather than ruin this rare beauty in which a few Arsenal fans came together in the common cause of humiliating that Islamophobic spud moderator.
While I agree that lending players to other Premier League teams shouldn't be allowed, there is no conflict of interest for Man City and there is probably no subsidy to Spurs either. The question of who is paying a loanees wages is completely irrelevant. A players wages are set in his contract which, in the case of Adebayor was signed a while back. City thought he was worth £170k per week then - he clearly isn't now or City would lend him to someone who would pay that: I'm sure they don't want to be paying out any money for no return. There is no conflict for City because as Piskie said it is generally in City's interests for Spurs to take points off City's main rivals. But it is far fetched to believe that this was the main reason for the loan. If so they would have made sure the loan was agreed before Spurs played Man U, surely. I suspect that the reason he was loaned to Spurs was that Spurs made the best offer: they also judged at the time that Spurs would not be a close rival in the league. They might have been wrong about that. The reason that such loans should not be allowed is because the player could have a conflict, especially late on in the season. What if going into the last match Spurs are fourth, one point ahead of City in fifth. Ade is through on goal in the last minute, blazes wide and then rejoins City to play in the CL. All hell would break loose. That is why such loans shouldn't be allowed: but of course the same argument applies exactly to Bendtner and Benayoun........
