Micah Richards (gone to Villa)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Micah Richards (gone to Villa)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

bexleydave Barnehurst 21 Jun 14 1.50pm
Quote gbox82 at 21 Jun 2014 12.22pm Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 2.32am Quote gbox82 at 20 Jun 2014 10.26pm I would take him in a heartbeat, but I don't think it will happen for the same reason as previous posters - wages. Can't see him taking the pay cut he would need to come to Palace. But if City subsidise the wages and it's on a loan with option to sign for agreed fee, what's not to like? If it works out, we sign him and pay the fee and wages - but we'll have another £70 mil in the bank. If it doesn't, we part ways. Good point - could be an even better version of the Chamakh deal! The Chamakh deal suited Arsenal, who wanted rid and Chamakh who didn't want to take a pay cut with a year left on his contract. On the other hand, is there one good reason why City would wish to enter into such an arrangement with us? Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)
Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave

Barnehurst 21 Jun 14 1.50pm

Quote gbox82 at 21 Jun 2014 12.22pm

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 2.32am

Quote gbox82 at 20 Jun 2014 10.26pm

I would take him in a heartbeat, but I don't think it will happen for the same reason as previous posters - wages.

Can't see him taking the pay cut he would need to come to Palace.

But if City subsidise the wages and it's on a loan with option to sign for agreed fee, what's not to like?

If it works out, we sign him and pay the fee and wages - but we'll have another £70 mil in the bank. If it doesn't, we part ways.

Good point - could be an even better version of the Chamakh deal!

The Chamakh deal suited Arsenal, who wanted rid and Chamakh who didn't want to take a pay cut with a year left on his contract. On the other hand, is there one good reason why City would wish to enter into such an arrangement with us?

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert a moderator to this post

KingPulis Peckham 21 Jun 14 9.46pm
Some players will take wage cuts to get games we could probably pay 30 35 k a week at most now with the money we got but I think its better for the future if we don't spend that sort of money on wages yet. No doubt he would improve us massively and I preferred Ward at left back.
Alert a moderator to this post

KingPulis

Peckham 21 Jun 14 9.46pm

Some players will take wage cuts to get games we could probably pay 30 35 k a week at most now with the money we got but I think its better for the future if we don't spend that sort of money on wages yet. No doubt he would improve us massively and I preferred Ward at left back.

Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey Surrey 21 Jun 14 11.09pm
Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 1.50pm The Chamakh deal suited Arsenal, who wanted rid and Chamakh who didn't want to take a pay cut with a year left on his contract. On the other hand, is there one good reason why City would wish to enter into such an arrangement with us? It depends if City want rid. Getting him off their books may be what they want for a number of reasons. Money is not an issue for the mega-wealthy clubs so any appropriate deal may be on the cards. As long as they, (or any other top club for that matter), don't see us as a threat to their position and success then we could quite happily feed off the crumbs from their tables while we consolidate PL status and complete our infrastructure improvements. They key to that is remaining in the PL and not letting transfer fees and wages spiral out of control.
Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey

Surrey 21 Jun 14 11.09pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 1.50pm

It depends if City want rid. Getting him off their books may be what they want for a number of reasons. Money is not an issue for the mega-wealthy clubs so any appropriate deal may be on the cards.

As long as they, (or any other top club for that matter), don't see us as a threat to their position and success then we could quite happily feed off the crumbs from their tables while we consolidate PL status and complete our infrastructure improvements. They key to that is remaining in the PL and not letting transfer fees and wages spiral out of control.

Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave Barnehurst 21 Jun 14 11.13pm
Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.09pm Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 1.50pm The Chamakh deal suited Arsenal, who wanted rid and Chamakh who didn't want to take a pay cut with a year left on his contract. On the other hand, is there one good reason why City would wish to enter into such an arrangement with us? It depends if City want rid. Getting him off their books may be what they want for a number of reasons. Money is not an issue for the mega-wealthy clubs so any appropriate deal may be on the cards. As long as they, (or any other top club for that matter), don't see us as a threat to their position and success then we could quite happily feed off the crumbs from their tables while we consolidate PL status and complete our infrastructure improvements. They key to that is remaining in the PL and not letting transfer fees and wages spiral out of control. Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)
Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave

Barnehurst 21 Jun 14 11.13pm

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.09pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 1.50pm

It depends if City want rid. Getting him off their books may be what they want for a number of reasons. Money is not an issue for the mega-wealthy clubs so any appropriate deal may be on the cards.

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey Surrey 21 Jun 14 11.25pm
Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? This: [Link] Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.
Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey

Surrey 21 Jun 14 11.25pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

This:

[Link]

Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.

Alert a moderator to this post

beer man Kent 22 Jun 14 8.30am
Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? This: [Link] Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books. So you expect City to let us have him for nothing and subsidise his wages, when they could sell him for £6m, on the basis that he joined them as a teenager. Well good luck with that
Alert a moderator to this post

beer man

Kent 22 Jun 14 8.30am

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

This:

[Link]

Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.

So you expect City to let us have him for nothing and subsidise his wages, when they could sell him for £6m, on the basis that he joined them as a teenager. Well good luck with that

Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave Barnehurst 22 Jun 14 12.30pm
Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? This: [Link] Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books. You have a very strange idea, to my mind, of how the world works. You have previously expressed the view that, on the basis that a player has earned massive amounts for years, he would be prepared to play for relative peanuts because he doesn't need the money. You now seem to think that because a player hasn't cost a team a transfer fee and they want rid, they will let him go for nothing, despite his current value and subsidise his wages at the new club. That's akin to buying a house in the 70s for £15,000, which is now valued at £300,000 but, because you want to move, you let it go for the price you paid for it and pay the mortgage of the new owner for the first year. Who would do that? Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)
Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave

Barnehurst 22 Jun 14 12.30pm

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

This:

[Link]

Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.

You have a very strange idea, to my mind, of how the world works. You have previously expressed the view that, on the basis that a player has earned massive amounts for years, he would be prepared to play for relative peanuts because he doesn't need the money.

You now seem to think that because a player hasn't cost a team a transfer fee and they want rid, they will let him go for nothing, despite his current value and subsidise his wages at the new club.

That's akin to buying a house in the 70s for £15,000, which is now valued at £300,000 but, because you want to move, you let it go for the price you paid for it and pay the mortgage of the new owner for the first year. Who would do that?

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert a moderator to this post

comeonyoueagles20 caterham 22 Jun 14 1.47pm
Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? This: [Link] Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books. You talk as if city are desperate to get rid and no one else wants him , which they aren't. As he counts towards their homegrown quota!! It's Richards who wants first team football , and he has been linked with Liverpool and arsenal who will both match his wages, he has also tweeted about how arsenal are a proper football club and that wenger is a top manager , we have no chance if any top teams are interested.
Alert a moderator to this post

comeonyoueagles20

caterham 22 Jun 14 1.47pm

Send a Private Message to comeonyoueagles20

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

This:

[Link]

Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.

You talk as if city are desperate to get rid and no one else wants him , which they aren't. As he counts towards their homegrown quota!! It's Richards who wants first team football , and he has been linked with Liverpool and arsenal who will both match his wages, he has also tweeted about how arsenal are a proper football club and that wenger is a top manager , we have no chance if any top teams are interested.

Alert a moderator to this post

Jamesrichards8 23 Jun 14 10.56pm
Quote comeonyoueagles20 at 21 Jun 2014 9.02am Quote Jamesrichards8 at 20 Jun 2014 10.24pm I keep thinking about Richards, and remembering all the potential he had. He has realized none of it. Pulis is definitely the man to get the best out of him. And for the idiots saying it is unrealistic, he can't get a game at city, made 2 appearances last season, with limited injuries, and has one year left on his contract. Wages wouldn't be a problem because no club would pay them considering his track record of limited success and game time. WBA just signed Lescott who is much more experienced and OK he's older, but not ancient and definitely had more success. We should do it. Edited by Jamesrichards8 (20 Jun 2014 10.24pm) It is completely unrealistic , I would love him but it's never gonna happen , the only reason he hasn't been as successful or played much is just to the fact zabaleta is superb, as for being an idiot , he has been linked with arsenal and Liverpool ,so I'm afraid If you think we have a chance your an idiot.. We definitely have a chance. Or do you want me to only consider championship players? We've been in the PL for a season now, i wouldn't say that this suggestion is even that optimistic. WBA, who finished below us, signed Lescott, and Richards played less than him last season. If i'm an idiot for thinking this could happen, then you're a c&nt When you’re knocked on your back and your life’s a flop...
Alert a moderator to this post

Jamesrichards8

23 Jun 14 10.56pm

Send a Private Message to Jamesrichards8

Quote comeonyoueagles20 at 21 Jun 2014 9.02am

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 20 Jun 2014 10.24pm

I keep thinking about Richards, and remembering all the potential he had. He has realized none of it. Pulis is definitely the man to get the best out of him. And for the idiots saying it is unrealistic, he can't get a game at city, made 2 appearances last season, with limited injuries, and has one year left on his contract. Wages wouldn't be a problem because no club would pay them considering his track record of limited success and game time. WBA just signed Lescott who is much more experienced and OK he's older, but not ancient and definitely had more success. We should do it.

Edited by Jamesrichards8 (20 Jun 2014 10.24pm)

It is completely unrealistic , I would love him but it's never gonna happen , the only reason he hasn't been as successful or played much is just to the fact zabaleta is superb, as for being an idiot , he has been linked with arsenal and Liverpool ,so I'm afraid If you think we have a chance your an idiot..

We definitely have a chance. Or do you want me to only consider championship players? We've been in the PL for a season now, i wouldn't say that this suggestion is even that optimistic. WBA, who finished below us, signed Lescott, and Richards played less than him last season. If i'm an idiot for thinking this could happen, then you're a c&nt

When you’re knocked on your back and your life’s a flop...

Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey Surrey 24 Jun 14 5.07am
Quote bexleydave at 22 Jun 2014 12.30pm Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness? This: [Link] Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books. You have a very strange idea, to my mind, of how the world works. You have previously expressed the view that, on the basis that a player has earned massive amounts for years, he would be prepared to play for relative peanuts because he doesn't need the money. You now seem to think that because a player hasn't cost a team a transfer fee and they want rid, they will let him go for nothing, despite his current value and subsidise his wages at the new club. That's akin to buying a house in the 70s for £15,000, which is now valued at £300,000 but, because you want to move, you let it go for the price you paid for it and pay the mortgage of the new owner for the first year. Who would do that? I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley!
Alert a moderator to this post

GorBlimey

Surrey 24 Jun 14 5.07am

Quote bexleydave at 22 Jun 2014 12.30pm

Quote GorBlimey at 21 Jun 2014 11.25pm

Quote bexleydave at 21 Jun 2014 11.13pm

Meanwhile back in the real world, Chamakh had only a minimal transfer value, Richards price would be £6m+, so why would we get him on the cheap...kindness?

This:

[Link]

Cost City nothing, wages are a cost, which a loan/wage subsidy would reduce and he'd be off their books.

You now seem to think that because a player hasn't cost a team a transfer fee and they want rid, they will let him go for nothing, despite his current value and subsidise his wages at the new club.

I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley!

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 24 Jun 14 6.17am
Quote GorBlimey at 24 Jun 2014 5.07am I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley! Interesting article [Link] stating that 11 of the USA's most dangerous cities are in Florida. I've also read Our Man in Orlando which is the diary of the Consul there and it seems that it's the second busiest consulate in the world due to the amount of crime there coupled with the fact that Florida was the holiday destination of choice for the lowest strata of British society Edited by Ian J (24 Jun 2014 6.18am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

24 Jun 14 6.17am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Quote GorBlimey at 24 Jun 2014 5.07am

I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley!

Interesting article [Link] stating that 11 of the USA's most dangerous cities are in Florida.

I've also read Our Man in Orlando which is the diary of the Consul there and it seems that it's the second busiest consulate in the world due to the amount of crime there coupled with the fact that Florida was the holiday destination of choice for the lowest strata of British society

Edited by Ian J (24 Jun 2014 6.18am)

Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave Barnehurst 24 Jun 14 7.27am
Quote Ian J at 24 Jun 2014 6.17am Quote GorBlimey at 24 Jun 2014 5.07am I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley! Interesting article [Link] stating that 11 of the USA's most dangerous cities are in Florida. I've also read Our Man in Orlando which is the diary of the Consul there and it seems that it's the second busiest consulate in the world due to the amount of crime there coupled with the fact that Florida was the holiday destination of choice for the lowest strata of British society Edited by Ian J (24 Jun 2014 6.18am) A fool will always resort to, what he perceives as, personal insults when he's lost an argument. I have absolutely no desire to visit, let alone reside in, the crime-ridden khazi that is Florida. London's top 10 safest boroughs: [Link] Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)
Alert a moderator to this post

bexleydave

Barnehurst 24 Jun 14 7.27am

Quote Ian J at 24 Jun 2014 6.17am

Quote GorBlimey at 24 Jun 2014 5.07am

I think I have a better idea as to how the world works than you Bexley Dave; which is why I don't have to live in Bexley!

Interesting article [Link] stating that 11 of the USA's most dangerous cities are in Florida.

Edited by Ian J (24 Jun 2014 6.18am)

A fool will always resort to, what he perceives as, personal insults when he's lost an argument. I have absolutely no desire to visit, let alone reside in, the crime-ridden khazi that is Florida.

London's top 10 safest boroughs:

[Link]

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Micah Richards (gone to Villa)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors