So the journo's have taken HJ's comment of "We haven't actually agreed any deal with Man City at the moment," and turned it into us turning down £6.2m. As if we would turn that down.
If you read the article it doesn't say we turned it down, huw says that a deal hasn't been done as man city are dragging their heels a bit. The title of it is very misleading
Not sure what the hell is happening with this deal but i would rather sell Scott now than wait until January or worse case scenario he see's his contract out and then goes for feck all like Prately and DDV.. Please please sort it out before friday..
Maybe they don't want to pay the price the HJ is asking. Both clubs need to agree a price, and at the moment it seems that Man City don't value him as highly as Swansea do, so no deal. Maybe he'll stay. But why do you want hi gone? He's a great player.
But digging their heals in suggests they have made a bid but it's not enough and are refusing to go higher. But that's their right. They want a player at a certain price. If Swansea say no, then that's it. Can't blame Man City for that. You could just as easily say Swansea are digging their heals in and not lowering their valuation. It works both ways. But Swansea want to sell, so that doesn't put them in a good negotiating position. If they don't take 6.2m now, then they will have to accept less in Jan or nothing in the summer.
People want him gone because we don't want to risk losing him on a free. If he siged a new contract, great, but he won't. If he doe go, we can sign Hernandez as his replacement, who is much better than Scott. Simples.
You answered your own question in your next comment "If they don't take 6.2m now, then they will have to accept less in Jan or nothing in the summer." If he signs a new contract I'd be more than happy for him to stay,, but we can't afford to let him go for nothing. I'd rather see us get some good coin for him now to cover the purchase of someone else - hopefully Hernandez. Talksport saying this morning that Man city could be favourites to sign Walcott if he doesn't renew his contract at Arsenal. I'm guessing that would be instead of Sinclair?
Sorry Ash, didn't see your reply or I wouldn't have bothered. Took me ages to post my reply as I was juggling it with work
It looks as though we want considerably more for Sinclair because surely we wouldn't jeopardise the deal for a comparative few quid? We need Scott gone to realise some money for us to pursue the Hernandez signing. A lower fee in January or nothing at the end of the season doesn't make sense. If Scott is having a change of heart, fair enough. I would be happy to keep him but only if he signs a new contract. Looking at the economics, if we got say £3/4 million in January, is he going to deliver £2+ million (our loss) in value during those few months? I doubt it and the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. I reckon Citeh have changed their minds or aren't particularly bothered whether they sign him or not.
I see on Sky Sports that Walcott has reached an agreement with Arsenal that he won't leave in this transfer window, so will that now make Man City go for Sinclair?
