The Milner Novela... Final episode page 296

[eamonn]

The annoying thing is that clubs we are competing with seem to be able to cherry pick our best players. Why can't we keep them?

Not clubs - club singular.  And they're the richest club in the world so there's no shame in it.

What concerns me is that we're not exactly paupers ourselves and yet it appears we may be tempted to cash in on a player because we're being offered over the odds for him.

For a side that has Champions League ambitions, wouldn't it be more sensible to build the side around Milner rather than go for the money?  We can't need it that badly surely?

I don't think Milner is good enough to build a top four side around - and if City pay over the odds for him I think it might be in our interests to let him go if we can make good use of the cash.

[Lowendbehold]

The annoying thing is that clubs we are competing with seem to be able to cherry pick our best players. Why can't we keep them?

Not clubs - club singular.  And they're the richest club in the world so there's no shame in it.

What concerns me is that we're not exactly paupers ourselves and yet it appears we may be tempted to cash in on a player because we're being offered over the odds for him.

For a side that has Champions League ambitions, wouldn't it be more sensible to build the side around Milner rather than go for the money?  We can't need it that badly surely?

Ultimately every player has his price and Milner is not worth anywhere near £30m anymore than Lescott was worth £24m.

We have not got a bottomless pit of money and if we are able to reinvest all of that in say a £20m striker that can score goals and a £10m midfielder who can create goals, then the team will be stronger.

Its not who is on the books now that matters, its who is there next season.

[hilts_coolerking]

Are we saying then that the cash just isn't there to buy this striker and midfielder, unless we sell Milner?

[eamonn]

It goes without saying that we could buy far better strikers and midfielders if we have an extra 30m in the kitty.

[hilts_coolerking]

It goes without saying that we could buy far better strikers and midfielders if we have an extra 30m in the kitty.

But it's not an extra £30m is it?  It's an extra £30M minus whatever we have to spend on replacing our best player from last season, a hole that wasn't there before.

What I'd be interested to know is how much money there would be available for strengthening, if we didn't sell Milner.

[Concrete John]

The annoying thing is that clubs we are competing with seem to be able to cherry pick our best players. Why can't we keep them?

Not clubs - club singular.  And they're the richest club in the world so there's no shame in it.

What concerns me is that we're not exactly paupers ourselves and yet it appears we may be tempted to cash in on a player because we're being offered over the odds for him.

For a side that has Champions League ambitions, wouldn't it be more sensible to build the side around Milner rather than go for the money?  We can't need it that badly surely?

They took Adebayor from Arsenal and Tevez from Man Utd - it just breaks all rules and sense the money they have now!

[Mazrim]

I think we have enough money, especially now with a new sponsorship deal, to keep Milner and continue building a top side. And I think we should.

The only Caveats I would add is that an offer too good to refuse comes in, which to my mind would include not only a large cash sum but worthy players we could use and/or that Milner makes it very difficult to keep him, which I do not envisage under any circumstances as he's an honourable level headed and professional chap.

If we get £25-£30m plus for this sponsorship deal, which is quite feasible, plus money from other sales and Randy, we could easily fund the tranfers to move us on a level. Without selling Milner.
We could probably just about replace him but we could and should build a side around him for years to come. A very successful side.

[hilts_coolerking]

Without selling Milner.
We could probably just about replace him but we could and should build a side around him for years to come.

I agree with this 100%; all I'd add is that I would be concerned about trying to find someone who could have the same impact as Milner did last season.  Because if we don't, then straight away we've weakened the side in one position.

I just don't believe our finances are such that we need to accept even a silly money offer.  £28M would be over the odds, but only by about £8M-£10M at the most.  We don't need it that badly do we?

[robbyfvillain]

I'd say this.

This Uefa ruling is going to increase demand for homegrown players the closer it gets.

We play in the wealthiest league. James Milner is the golden boy of the next generation of English players. He will not regress next season.

If we think £28m is a lot now, it could look like chicken feed come next summer.

So, a one year contract extension, sweetened by a juicy pay rise and sold with the promise of a guaranteed central midfield starting place, keep your trap shut with the rags, smile and wave to the fans and we'll definately do business next year if we haven't made the promised land.

Only problem is that Fifa has dropped the rule
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8733164.stm

[Dave]

If we get £25-£30m plus for this sponsorship deal, which is quite feasible

You reckon we're getting close to £10m per season? I'd be astonished if it were close to that.

[Mazrim]

I'd go as far as to say that unless we could guarantee an adequate replacement we shouldn't consider any offer at all.

[Mazrim]

If we get £25-£30m plus for this sponsorship deal, which is quite feasible

You reckon we're getting close to £10m per season? I'd be astonished if it were close to that.

I reckon £5m-£7m per year over 4 or 5 years is reasonable.

[eastie]

I think milner knowing man city are in for him would probably want to treble his wages and go there-they will win trophies and make the champions league- it's just a matter of when.

Unless he signed a new contract I'd do the deal this summer and let's hope mon spends it well !

[dave.woodhall]

If we get £25-£30m plus for this sponsorship deal, which is quite feasible

You reckon we're getting close to £10m per season? I'd be astonished if it were close to that.

I reckon £5m-£7m per year over 4 or 5 years is reasonable.

So we wouldn't be getting £30 million to spend this summer, and if we couldn't get £2 million two years ago, £7 million now would be at the top end of optimistic.

[Mazrim]

If we get £25-£30m plus for this sponsorship deal, which is quite feasible

You reckon we're getting close to £10m per season? I'd be astonished if it were close to that.

I reckon £5m-£7m per year over 4 or 5 years is reasonable.

So we wouldn't be getting £30 million to spend this summer, and if we couldn't get £2 million two years ago, £7 million now would be at the top end of optimistic.

I dont know. Nobody met Randy's criteria two years ago, now they have. Until I hear the details of the deal its just speculation but £5m-£7m a year isnt outlandish for a top Premier League club, which we surely are.

If its less, so be it. It should be and probably would be put into any transfer fund.