surely its a good thing that young english footballers are moving to the big clubs. Isn't this what the uefa homegrown player rules and the EPPP are trying to do?
Another good example in Shaun Wright-Phillips, his move to Chelsea cost him a big future, so I worry that it'll be a similar situation for Sinclair.
This.
Think City are going backward a bit with this signing - two years ago they were signing the good British players from the year before like Milner etc, last year theri signings were a cut above - Aguero, for example.
IMO he has just sacrificed his career for money, like many footballers would do given a chance , dont expect to see him playing any time soon with the Iikes of Tevez, Dzeko, Ballotelli, and when he returns aguero, all ahead of him, may get a cup appearance if he's lucky
IMO he has just sacrificed his career for money, like many footballers would do given a chance , dont expect to see him playing any time soon with the Iikes of Tevez, Dzeko, Ballotelli, and when he returns aguero, all ahead of him, may get a cup appearance if he's lucky
He's not a striker though. City have no width and so although he will be used as a substitute, he could do well for them. I don't think he's good enough to have a massive impact but City do need a good winger off the bench.
Agreed Stu you'd like to think they'd have confidence in their own ability and if they don't get to play there'll always be a sunderland qpr or whoever to move on to afterwards
Yes, but the time they move on - after 2 or 3 seasons with little regular first team football they are very rarely able to recapture their best form.
SWP and Bridge are two excellent examples of this and it took Parker a fair while at Newcastle before he really started motoring and found top form again.
Sinclair would have been better off going to Spurs or Newcastle, he is not going to play much at Man City and that will put him right back where he was when with Chelsea for all that time.
Just had a thought on this thread..... unfortunately Sinclair probably won't score for Man City (hardly gets game time) so we won't get to hear the chant they had at Swansea when he scored "Scotty Sinclair, Scotty Sinclair, shags Rosie Webster and Sally don't care."
Bench warmer. Bit of a waste of young talent going to the likes of City. I think they all think they can hold down a first team slot but they rarely do.
Just had a thought on this thread..... unfortunately Sinclair probably won't score for Man City (hardly gets game time) so we won't get to hear the chant they had at Swansea when he scored "Scotty Sinclair, Scotty Sinclair, shags Rosie Webster and Sally don't care."
Bench warmer. Bit of a waste of young talent going to the likes of City. I think they all think they can hold down a first team slot but they rarely do.
Difficult, because I suppose you've got to have confidence in your own ability, and people like Lampard, Carrick, Milner have done well in terms of appearances and trophies.
But there are so many 'Parkers' - Wright-Phillips (twice), Adam and Glen Johnson (for Chelsea), Bridge....
Bench warmer. Bit of a waste of young talent going to the likes of City. I think they all think they can hold down a first team slot but they rarely do.
Do you? I think they all think soley about the money and the status.
City have signed Sinclair and Rodwell not just for their potetntial but also because they need to get their quota of home grown players up. I would suggest that the latter reason is why they signed Richard Wright because, let's face it, he ain't gonna be getting anywhere near the first team. He will also help to keep the wage bill down because, as emergency fourth choice keeper, I would be surprised if they are paying him more than 5k per week.
Thought it was a ridiculous signing at the time, Sinclair has totally bolloxed up his career with this move - but made himself a very rich bloke in the process.
Sinclair had always struggled to get a regular spot, Swansea accomodated him in their system and played to his strengths and he was a starting player in the Premiership - albeit only for a season.
Now, given that he has little chance of becoming a first team player at City, he will end up getting loaned out to mid-to-lower table Premiership sides for a couple of games here and there before getting a free transfer to a similar club as Swansea but having wasted his best years sitting on the bench.
If you're a footballer, do you want to play every week for 15K per week and have a fulfilling career and create great memories, or barely play at all and be 'outside the bubble' but get paid close to 100K per week?
I'd choose the first option myself, I'd rather be financially poorer but play 250 games in the Premiership and really achieve things than be paid a fortune to be a bit-part player.
Anyone who has ever been on the periphery of a team knows the pain, the frustration, of not being able to compete, of not being allowed the chance to show what you can do, money would not dull those feelings for me.
The money every time for me. Not even close. Still going to be living the dream playing for the premiership champions even if you struggle to make it into the first team at times.
The money every time for me. Not even close. Still going to be living the dream playing for the premiership champions even if you struggle to make it into the first team at times.
That's the whole point, isn't it? Sinclair is not and will not be "playing for the Premiership champions" he'll be sitting on the bench the whole time.
Bit like getting excited about being a net bowler or carrying the drinks as 12th man in a winning Ashes team.
Anyone outside the top 6 just cannot be allowed to keep promising players. Soon the only players teams like Swansea will be able to keep won't be able to kick a ball without falling over.
This thread really encapsulates all that is wrong with the modern game. A salary of £15K/week is now considered "paltry" compared to what the top clubs pay. Do the maths that is £780K/annum which for a person on average wage is 31 years at work! I mean how much do these greedy little f*****s want to earn? it is just ridiculous. If he is a pro footballer he should want to play the game not sit around wasting his life which to me is what it is regardless of the money he is receiving for doing it.
My strong opinion is that clubs like City and Chelsea buy these players not because they want them but because that stops other clubs from having them hence playing against them and it should be stopped forthwith it does the game no good. By the way his bird is absolutely tasty!
If you're a footballer, do you want to play every week for 15K per week and have a fulfilling career and create great memories, or barely play at all and be 'outside the bubble' but get paid close to 100K per week?
Or the other option where he has belief in himself that once he's got his foot in the door, he might then have a chance of playing in one of the best clubs in europe? Training every day with top quality players and coaches & being in a position to impress the manager on a daily basis, and if they want to chuck shed loads of cash at him in the proccess, then that's a bonus too.
I'm not for one minute saying that he's actually good enough the break into their team, but sometimes it's just a case of being in the right place at the right time and taking your chance when it comes along.............
Not seen her, but there was me thinking she'd be below average, a little bit overweight & a homely kinda girl like most premiership players go for.........
I mean how much do these greedy little f*****s want to earn?
As much as they possibly can, and there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. If he is happy to sit on the bench week in and week out then that's up to him - it's his career, nobody else's.
yes its his career but as a fan of the game and its players we are in our right to comment. i want the best young players in this country to play week in week out for the sake of our national side. another talented young englishman ruining his career for a pound note and not progressing to play on the top stage. he was doing the business at swansea and pushing for a an england squad place. now hodgson wont touch him. just not really roy of the rovers, boyhood dream stuff anymore.
If I was single and had no family at all whatsoever I may do the playing bit but back on planet earth without doubt take the money and run
Understandable, but if Sinclair got himself a four-year deal at Swansea of 15K per week (about the going rate for a promoted Premiership player) then that's 780K per year, which is nearly 3.2 million over four years - take away the 45% tax and he's clearing 1.8 million over four years - more money than most will see in a lifetime.
Even if he only signs the same deal at 27 years old in four years time (unlikely, it would actually be more) he would clear another 1.8 million, that's 3.6 million quid trousered in basic wages over 8 years - how much money is enough exactly?
I can't believe people are saying they would rather sit on their arse and take the mega money rather than be an actual performing, achieving player - says a lot about our current society in my thinking.
Seriously, what would you rather tell your Grandkids about? Scoring the winner at Old Trafford for Swansea, or winning a trophy with Swansea, or about the time your current account reached 10 million quid?
Comments
Think City are going backward a bit with this signing - two years ago they were signing the good British players from the year before like Milner etc, last year theri signings were a cut above - Aguero, for example.
SWP and Bridge are two excellent examples of this and it took Parker a fair while at Newcastle before he really started motoring and found top form again.
Sinclair would have been better off going to Spurs or Newcastle, he is not going to play much at Man City and that will put him right back where he was when with Chelsea for all that time.
To be fair he lost most his second season at Chelsea with glandular fever - it took him a long time to recover from that.
But there are so many 'Parkers' - Wright-Phillips (twice), Adam and Glen Johnson (for Chelsea), Bridge....
Sinclair had always struggled to get a regular spot, Swansea accomodated him in their system and played to his strengths and he was a starting player in the Premiership - albeit only for a season.
Now, given that he has little chance of becoming a first team player at City, he will end up getting loaned out to mid-to-lower table Premiership sides for a couple of games here and there before getting a free transfer to a similar club as Swansea but having wasted his best years sitting on the bench.
If you're a footballer, do you want to play every week for 15K per week and have a fulfilling career and create great memories, or barely play at all and be 'outside the bubble' but get paid close to 100K per week?
I'd choose the first option myself, I'd rather be financially poorer but play 250 games in the Premiership and really achieve things than be paid a fortune to be a bit-part player.
Anyone who has ever been on the periphery of a team knows the pain, the frustration, of not being able to compete, of not being allowed the chance to show what you can do, money would not dull those feelings for me.
Bit like getting excited about being a net bowler or carrying the drinks as 12th man in a winning Ashes team.
My strong opinion is that clubs like City and Chelsea buy these players not because they want them but because that stops other clubs from having them hence playing against them and it should be stopped forthwith it does the game no good. By the way his bird is absolutely tasty!
I'm not for one minute saying that he's actually good enough the break into their team, but sometimes it's just a case of being in the right place at the right time and taking your chance when it comes along.............
;-)
another talented young englishman ruining his career for a pound note and not progressing to play on the top stage. he was doing the business at swansea and pushing for a an england squad place. now hodgson wont touch him.
just not really roy of the rovers, boyhood dream stuff anymore.
Even if he only signs the same deal at 27 years old in four years time (unlikely, it would actually be more) he would clear another 1.8 million, that's 3.6 million quid trousered in basic wages over 8 years - how much money is enough exactly?
I can't believe people are saying they would rather sit on their arse and take the mega money rather than be an actual performing, achieving player - says a lot about our current society in my thinking.
Seriously, what would you rather tell your Grandkids about? Scoring the winner at Old Trafford for Swansea, or winning a trophy with Swansea, or about the time your current account reached 10 million quid?