Karlos13 wrote:Thought city were supposed to be keeping their best young players rather than 'buying success?'
Sturridge out.
Hart replaced by a 32(?) year old keeper on big money.
At least Ireland is still there though.
Hart is going out on loan for a year. What's the issue with that? He will be back and will be our future keeper if he is good enough.
I'm glad our club maintained their stance on the Daniel Sturridge situation. It just goes to show that, despite what people think, we aren't just going to fritter money away, willy-nilly, on players that aren't worth it.
City have a strong pedigree of bringing through youngsters and I hope people do not think this is going to change now we have the cash and this one has escaped. The fact is, he tried to hold us to ransome and asked for a salary that is at least double what he is worth and it failed. It seems strange because, at the moment, he has less chance of first team football at Chelsea and I think a move to Villa or West Ham would have been far better for his career.
Sturridge and his advisors thought they could take the p
iss and expected us to cave into their demands. What they didn't bank on was that the club don't rate him highly enough to do just that. If he was worth it and we thought he was going to be a world beater, I'm sure we'd have fought harder to keep him. It's not as if we couldn't afford it.
In my opinion, he is going to be a good player, a Premier League regular, one day, but I have seen little to suggest that all the hype about him is going to be justified. He seems to think he is the next Thierry Henry but I have a feeling Chelsea are going to be somewhat disappointed. Not as disappointed as if they had signed Ched Evans but still disappointed.