Could City really get Messi?

There's always chatter that this may happen and more rumours today/recently that City will exercise the buy out clause of €200M.

Now, in my mind, two things are needed for this transfer to happen.

1. Messi himself has to want it.
2. City have to pay for the deal.

Would Messi really sway sunny Barca for rainy Manchester? I'm not so sure unless he is really pissed off with folks at Barca/Spain for his tax problems, contract issues etc. He has been at Barca for so long that he may be homesick if he did leave and would he choose City over Munich?

Let's say his Argentinian and Spanish buddies convince him to come (along with a 6 year £25M a year contract), can City afford to broker this deal?

I'm sure Nike would help to fund this deal, but it us very very expensive indeed.  It's not just the €200M transfer fee but the £25M a year (at least) that it would cost to pay him.

The transfer fee would probably be spread over a few years, so maybe we 'only' have to find €40M a year with £25M  a yer for wages. That's about £55M a year which should actually be pretty much offset by the new tv deals (PL and CL) which should be netting us an extra £60M a season anyway.

I'm sure we'd sell bundles of shirts (Madrid were supposed to have sold > 1M Ronaldo shirts in the first season alone) so I'm sure we'd get £30M just from this source. Add in other sponsorship deals and I'm pretty sure we'd recoup the other £25M a year he'd cost us.

So, I'm confident we could easily fund this deal and keep UEFA off our backs regarding FFP. The only issue is persuading him to come to Manchester!

We can't afford it and, honestly, we don't really need him.  Who would he play instead of?  Silva?  Nasri?  Aguero?  Honestly, our forward line is pretty sturdy and Messi isn't getting any younger.

We need to be focussing on the back, chiefly the left side of defense.  After that, perhaps expand the squad a touch.  But we don't need a Galactico.

I tend to agree with Leo....however, players like Messi come along once in a blue moon....and it's whether the owner/chairman see it as a good business investment.

I honestly cannot think of any club in world football that would say "no".

Do we need him? I don't think so. If he came, then the whole wage structure would be under threat. Yes, I'm sure Nike and shirt sales, advertising and high profile sponsors would be all over it, however, if a player was on £400k pw....what would the likes of Aguero or Toure think? Maybe nothing....but it then sets a precedent and we've seen over the other side of the city what these wage demands do to morale.

If he was offered and the owner said yes, MP would have no choice....and we could accommodate him quite easily...but I guess it would involve a potential swap deal with David Silva somewhere......

For him, it's not the holistic approach that the owner wants. I agree with Leo, we definitely have more pressing issues in defence that need addressing this summer....and the issues of Lescott, Richards, Rodwell....all of which need to be really well handled and thought through, as this summer's transfer dealings will set the tone of approach and how we do in the CL next year.....and we'll be expected to do better than potentially going out at the stage we may this year.

MP will need to earn his salary this summer....and we MUST make sure we do our business before the WC....as historically, WC signings have sometimes been a disaster and a waste of money.

Would be incredible though!!! 

I've worked it out:  We sell Jovetic.

Seriously, anyone who can take a fortnight off with cramp shouldn't be here.  It's bad enough we've got Crystalli Richards and "Tissue Hamstrings" Rodwell, but at least they fulfill the homegrown criteria.  We don't need "Spazzy Muscles" Jovetic cluttering up the squad.

BUT Leo, there is no home grown criteria! We don't need any home grown players at all. We are only allowed 17 non home grown players so Rodwell and Richards fulfill no purpose whatsoever.

Dawg, there IS a criteria, this is what defines a player as homegrown.  What there isn't is a defined quota.

But I'm quibbling over terms;  Rodwell and Richards don't soak any of the 17 squad places, so having them doesn't hurt.  But Jovetic does take up one of these precious slots, so on that basis he should move on and free it up for another player.

These are the generic rules that were published at the time of the ruling:See No.2....but did Dawg mean they don't have to be ENGLISH?

1) All Premier League clubs must submit a squad of up to 25 players, by 5pm on Wednesday, September 1.
2) Each 25-man squad must include at least eight 'home-grown' players.
3) The 'home-grown' players do not have to be English. According to the Premier League: "A home grown player is defined as one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Welsh Football Association for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the season during which he turns 21)." In practice this means that Cesc Fabregas, who joined Arsenal when he was 16, counts as one of the Gunners' home-grown quota.
4) In addition to the 25-man named squad, clubs can use an unlimited number of players aged 21 or under. This means that Manchester City's new £22.5m striker Mario Balotelli, who is just 20, does not need to be named in their 25-man squad. According to the Premier League: "An Under 21 player is defined as one who is under the age of 21 on 1st January in the year in which the season commences. For the 2010/11 campaign Under 21 players will have been born on or after 1st January 1989."
5) Clubs can make changes to their squad but only during transfer windows, so once submitted the clubs will be stuck with that squad until January. Only in exceptional circumstances, such as a goalkeeper crisis, can changes be made outside the window, and then only if the Premier League board approves the changes.
6) Once the transfer window opens again, there are no restrictions on how many changes clubs can make to their squads, so they can replace the entire 25 if they want to.
7) Even if a player is not named in the 25-man squad, they can still play in the FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League or Europa League.
8) Players from the 25-man squad cannot be replaced if they are loaned to Football League clubs, but can regain their spot in the group if they return to the parent club.
9) Clubs do not have to name a full squad of 25 if they do not have that many contracted players and in this case they can add free agents outside the transfer window. However if they have 25 eligible contracted players, they must be named.
10) Similarly, clubs do not have to name eight 'home-grown' players if they do not have enough, but this would mean submitting a reduced squad.

What I meant was that was no criteria that we have to have 8 HG players. Maybe I worded it badly.

Topdawg wrote:What I meant was that was no criteria that we have to have 8 HG players. Maybe I worded it badly.

But isn't that what ruling number 2 says........ we MUST have 8 HG players? 

Maybe I've misunderstood somewhere along the line!

in a squad of 25 we MUST..
can't go over 17 quota of none HG.

so can name 2 HG if we have a squad of 19 players, and 17 foreigners

blueboy wrote:

Topdawg wrote:What I meant was that was no criteria that we have to have 8 HG players. Maybe I worded it badly.

But isn't that what ruling number 2 says........ we MUST have 8 HG players? 

rule 10 says we don't !!!

Topdawg wrote:

blueboy wrote:

Topdawg wrote:What I meant was that was no criteria that we have to have 8 HG players. Maybe I worded it badly.

But isn't that what ruling number 2 says........ we MUST have 8 HG players? 

rule 10 says we don't !!!

     

Yeah, but can you see us naming a squad of 17? Nice try.  

No, but several teams don't have squads of 25 from what I remember. Rodwell and Richards don't play at all so we wouldn't miss them from our squad. Lescott and Clichy don't play much either.