Kia Joorchian

[brite blu sky]

That's weird, I'm sure I replied to Ted but can't see it anywhere. Ah well, what I wanted to say was this: why would KJ say this is if it didn't have some truth in it:

"City say they have emails saying this is all about money....They can publish the emails if they want to but they have to do it in their correct chronological order and then everyone will see we have acted in a professional manner and have nothing to hide."

I've replied to your reply & it's just above the previous post up there ^^^^^ ;-)

The fact that he wants to mention the chronological order means he sent the contract just as City said he did.

No, read the quotes, he saying that City offered something before that and he replied that Tevez wasn't interested.

Ok there can be a big game of bluff here, but as Duvet says KJ wouldn't make big statements like this if he couldn't back it up. ie, lets get all the emails out in public and see who says what when. There is more to this.

[Ted Hughes]

That's weird, I'm sure I replied to Ted but can't see it anywhere. Ah well, what I wanted to say was this: why would KJ say this is if it didn't have some truth in it:

"City say they have emails saying this is all about money....They can publish the emails if they want to but they have to do it in their correct chronological order and then everyone will see we have acted in a professional manner and have nothing to hide."

I've replied to your reply & it's just above the previous post up there ^^^^^ ;-)

The fact that he wants to mention the chronological order means he sent the contract just as City said he did.

No, read the quotes, he saying that City offered something before that and he replied that Tevez wasn't interested.

Ok there can be a big game of bluff here, but as Duvet says KJ wouldn't make big statements like this if he couldn't back it up. ie, lets get all the emails out in public and see who says what when. There is more to this.

That's not what he said at all. He sent an improved contract back to City & City have the e-mail to prove it. He then claims that he sent another e-mail (don't think he says when, could have been last week or never) saying "I'll tell you what we don't want to sign it anyway" No doubt he's deleted it from his computer & if City haven't got that e-mail he'll just say they're telling lies. Even if he did send it, he could have been told to fuck off in person previous to that. The fact, which he admits to, is that he sent a contract in to City fairly recently.

[brite blu sky]

That's weird, I'm sure I replied to Ted but can't see it anywhere. Ah well, what I wanted to say was this: why would KJ say this is if it didn't have some truth in it:

"City say they have emails saying this is all about money....They can publish the emails if they want to but they have to do it in their correct chronological order and then everyone will see we have acted in a professional manner and have nothing to hide."

I've replied to your reply & it's just above the previous post up there ^^^^^ ;-)

The fact that he wants to mention the chronological order means he sent the contract just as City said he did.

No, read the quotes, he saying that City offered something before that and he replied that Tevez wasn't interested.

Ok there can be a big game of bluff here, but as Duvet says KJ wouldn't make big statements like this if he couldn't back it up. ie, lets get all the emails out in public and see who says what when. There is more to this.

That's not what he said at all. He sent an improved contract back to City & City have the e-mail to prove it. He then claims that he sent another e-mail (don't think he says when, could have been last week or never) saying "I'll tell you what we don't want to sign it anyway" No doubt he's deleted it from his computer & if City haven't got that e-mail he'll just say they're telling lies. Even if he did send it, he could have been told to fuck off in person previous to that. The fact, which he admits to, is that he sent a contract in to City fairly recently.

I read the original article in the Telegraph not the re-hash above from the Sun. My take is that he KJ is quoted as saying City initially sent some improved contract, which they then responded to.
But im not that interested in that as it isn't what i think this is about.

There has appeared another article in the telegraph now.. hinting at what i am saying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8202606/Kia-Joorabchian-Manchester-City-reneged-on-promises-made-to-Carlos-Tevez.html

Here is a bit of it..

"And he felt the situation at the club was not going in the same direction as he imagined it would be going. He played out of his skin, did everything he possibly could.
“In the summer he wanted to leave. I then spent most of my summer travelling all around the world talking to the chairman of Manchester City [Khaldoon Al Mubarak] and to Carlos in order to try and convince him that we should try to find an agreement that would allow us and help us to go to the next phase.
"He would then not feel like he wanted to leave. I think I managed to successfully convince Carlos to speak to the chairman and let the two of them find a harmonious way to get this back on track.
“I’m surprised at the club’s reaction because they were fully aware of the situation and how I was helping. The two of them spoke and they spoke with the rest of the management.
"The chairman asked Carlos to stay and the management agreed that he had certain issues that he wanted dealt with. They wanted to wait until Sept 1 to address the issues he had because they wanted to concentrate on the transfer window.”
However, Joorabchian said, it was the failure to address these ‘issues’ that changed everything. “Through September Carlos again began to get disillusioned because his viewpoint was it was not happening. His view was that they had agreed and spoke and promises were made to him and now the window was closed these issues were not being resolved.

[Ted Hughes]

I don't need to read that as I've read every word the full transcript & it says almost exactly what I've put in my post. I've read the whole thing on more than one occasion. I don't read the Sun.

In case the point gets lost I'm saying that KJ has admitted he sent an amended contract back to City. He then claims he sent an e-mail at a later date saying something along the lines of "I'll tell you what, we don't want to sign it anyway". That contract was sent recently. City have the proof. KJ is worried about the e-mails being sent 'in context'. Presumably he's lost his copy.

If you think that fits in with your idea of Tevez refusing to sign because of our player aquisitions then that's up to you. Unlike the tales of summer, both sides admit this contract was sent. It's one of the few known facts in the whole thing. It also makes a mockery of the 'homesickness' thing. So much so that if you notice; they've hardly mentioned it since wheras they were saying it was the main reason previously. Perhaps they'll read your idea & put that out as a reason next? Anything but money.

Btw, if you're interested in buying a car, give me a shout, I've got a really good contact.

[DoomMerchant]

I don't need to read that as I've read every word the full transcript & it says almost exactly what I've put in my post. I've read the whole thing on more than one occasion. I don't read the Sun.

In case the point gets lost I'm saying that KJ has admitted he sent an amended contract back to City. He then claims he sent an e-mail at a later date saying something along the lines of "I'll tell you what, we don't want to sign it anyway". That contract was sent recently. City have the proof. KJ is worried about the e-mails being sent 'in context'. Presumably he's lost his copy.

If you think that fits in with your idea of Tevez refusing to sign because of our player aquisitions then that's up to you. Unlike the tales of summer, both sides admit this contract was sent. It's one of the few known facts in the whole thing. It also makes a mockery of the 'homesickness' thing. So much so that if you notice; they've hardly mentioned it since wheras they were saying it was the main reason previously. Perhaps they'll read your idea & put that out as a reason next? Anything but money.

Btw, if you're interested in buying a car, give me a shout, I've got a really good contact.

agreed -- the implication is that somehow Manchester City Football Club made "promises" about "things" that are not contractually enforceable in nature, and we've not lived up to them so Carlo wants to leave.

If that's not fucking "Agent-ish" speak for "we were told we would get shitload of new investment which we'll pour into another deal for Tevez once we achieve CL football" and since we didn't do that Carlo and Kia want their slice of the pie early. Carlo wasn't mad because Hughes was sacked because he liked him, but because he felt like it delayed his bumper payday of making CL which we didn't -- perhaps because of the managerial unrest last season. Carlo blames Cook for firing Hughes and ruining his chance at hitting the CL kicker he must have in his contract. it must be a big fuclin number. Cook offered him a small portion of that kicker to try and temper his angst. Tevez told him to lick his nuts, etc. This is pretty simple, isn't it?

Ultimately, Carlo's obsession with how conservative Mancini & City are under him on some occasions going forward is directly tied to his compensation. I'm convinced of this now. This guy is more coin-operated that i ever would have believed and his filthy fuclin cuntface "agent" is just as bad.

i'm getting angry. is that normal?

cheers

[Blue Since 76]

Ultimately, Carlo's obsession with how conservative Mancini & City are under him on some occasions going forward is directly tied to his compensation. I'm convinced of this now.

cheers

Thing is, if he'd come out with that as a reason after the Birmingham game, most on here would have agreed. Although I don't agree with player power a Mancini or Tevez poll after the Brum game could have been interesting.

Since then, Mancini appears to have turned into Kevin Keegan with a defence. Poor finishing/bad luck has stopped us scoring more, but the football has been much, much better. It would therefore seem strange to say 'this negative football is going to stop me getting my bonus again', when we're so close to the top, let alone 4th.

From the recent quotes, it's clear that KJ and Cook have fallen out. Much as I'm no fan of a lot of what Cook says/does, the club MUST stand by him. If they want to sack him for incompetence later, fine, but KJ can't get his way. As far as KJ goes, if he told me it was Wednesday, I'd want to check the calendar first. (For those of you living in upside down land, it is still Wednesday, I don't care what day you call it)

[Blue Since 76]

While he wears that shirt, I will cheer and encourage his every move. As a City fan, it is in MY interest that he is successful. As a paying customer and a fan, why the fuck would I want to do or say anything that may harm his efficiency or effect on the pitch?

I am not naive enough to believe that every bloke who dons a City shirt has the same level of feeling for City that I have. I don't personally care as long as each and every one of them pulls his arse apart to entertain me and make me happy that we have another 3pts.

I've been thinking about Monday's game today and what the reaction will be if he's even on the bench. I think it could be mixed, to say the least. Personally, I never want to see him in a City shirt again. Not even if he does a shrek style apology. Don't know what his reasons are and don't care, just want him gone. However, I'm not sure I'd boo him if he was playing, as it could/would have a negative effect on the rest of the team. But I'm also not sure I could clap and cheer, even if he scores, for someone who's told us all where to go. Sure, he's been clever, saying the fans are great and his issue is with someone else, but either way he's dumped on us.

So I'll probably go for completely ignoring him for the next few weeks till he retires/plays for Boca/goes to Real or whatever it is he actually wants.

[Dameerto]

Top post John, in relation to Tevez on the pitch i hope everyone takes that viewpoint. Tevez will celebrate his goals with no sense of hypocrisy or anything, he is fighting the hierarchy not the team.

In relation to the OP, i just think there is more to come out in this.. the crux of the whole thing. JK quoted again saying there are assurances that have not been met. What the fucl are these assurances? Image rights? Money? Player aquisitions? Targets? WHAT? JK again saying it is not about money. So if it isn't about money then what is it about... holiday time off??

I'm starting to think that this is one almighty row about what happened last season... namely Hughes, the decision to get rid and the subsequent progress. It is perhaps about ambition and the actual football.

Tevez has argued with Mancini.. namely substitutions that he deemed defensive. He is reported has having professional differences with Mancini, what does that mean? surely it means the set up and style of play?
Mancini had a row with Tevez, next game we are playing more attacking football. Is that a coincidence?

Maybe at the time of Hughes going Cookie assured Tevez something.. about strike partners.. or the commitment to attacking football from the new manager.. i dont know, but there is something to come out of the woodwork here yet and if it isn't about money then wtf is it?

I don't think Cook's alleged assurances will be anything other than financial & would be more in KJ's interests rather than Tevez'. If there's any truth in the 'promises' it's more likely to have been regarding the possibility of Tevez moving on (& KJ making even more money) if we missed the Chump's Lg. If these things were so crucial to Tevez & KJ at the time of signing, they would be in the fucking contract not 'verbal agreements'. They are full of shit.

That's what it boils down to. Hot air and bullshit in otherwords. The guy makes me want to punch him repeatedly everytime I read something he is supposed to have said.