The mancityfans.net football forum

Interesting quotes from Owen Coyle on Gary Cahill.

"The summer before he moved to Chelsea, Manchester City came in and offered £17 million and a player. That was going to be a huge deal. Obviously, something happened, so he stayed on at Bolton and it never materialised."

Apparently Mancini thought the price was too high and opted for Stefan Savic instead.....what a fuck up!!!

The player going as part of the deal was Boyata!

Wonderwall wrote:Interesting quotes from Owen Coyle on Gary Cahill.

"The summer before he moved to Chelsea, Manchester City came in and offered £17 million and a player. That was going to be a huge deal. Obviously, something happened, so he stayed on at Bolton and it never materialised."

Apparently Mancini thought the price was too high and opted for Stefan Savic instead.....what a fuck up!!!

The player going as part of the deal was Boyata!

Oh dear.

He said the player going as part of the deal was Onuoha. Cahill's massively overrated anyway, not worth anything close to £17.

AntMcfc wrote:He said the player going as part of the deal was Onuoha. Cahill's massively overrated anyway, not worth anything close to £17.

I disagree, I think Cahill is a good defender and is also good on the ball, he is the type of partner that would have been perfect for VK

Wonderwall wrote:

AntMcfc wrote:He said the player going as part of the deal was Onuoha. Cahill's massively overrated anyway, not worth anything close to £17.

I disagree, I think Cahill is a good defender and is also good on the ball, he is the type of partner that would have been perfect for VK

Nah WW... i agree with Ant here, massively overrated and lumbers around. He got lucky going to Chelski.

So we offered £17m, then decided not to offer £17m? It's difficult to know what to believe there.

That aside, Cahill has turned out to be a very good defender for Chelsea. Far better than I thought he could be before he joined them.

Whether he could have created a better partnership with Kompany than what we had with Kompany-Lescott is hard to know.

But Mancini's decision to bring in Nastasic and believe he was good enough to play for us has to go down as one of the biggest fuck-ups we've seen in recent years. The fact it took Pellegrini so long to work out how useless he is was always concerning, but we finally seem to have seen the back of him. Considering the price we paid for him, Cahill would have been a far better option.

aaron bond wrote:So we offered £17m, then decided not to offer £17m? It's difficult to know what to believe there.

He said that Mancini and Cook disagreed on signing him, and the plug was pulled on it. I don't know which of Mancini and Cook wanted to sign him, he didn't disclose that. I'm guessing Mancini wanted to sign him and Cook cancelled it.

Summer 2012? Wasn't that the summer that the purse strings were tightened? May have been beyond Mancini's control for all we know.

Well obviously, Cook instead signed Savic, who was recommended to Mancini, by a friend of Mancini's, then signed Nastasic also recommended by a friend of Mancini's, then Marwood took over the job of signing players Mancini didn't want, just purely to piss him off & stop City from passing FFP..

It was Cook & Marwood's constant hobnobbing with Mancini's mates & signing of players close to Mancini, or followed by Mancini, which caused the bustup with Mancini.

Ted Hughes wrote:Well obviously, Cook instead signed Savic, who was recommended to Mancini, by a friend of Mancini's, then signed Nastasic also recommended by a friend of Mancini's, then Marwood took over the job of signing players Mancini didn't want, just purely to piss him off & stop City from passing FFP..

It was Cook & Marwood's constant hobnobbing with Mancini's mates & signing of players close to Mancini, or followed by Mancini, which caused the bustup with Mancini.

Crikey, who needs enemies when you've got 'friends' like that ?

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Well obviously, Cook instead signed Savic, who was recommended to Mancini, by a friend of Mancini's, then signed Nastasic also recommended by a friend of Mancini's, then Marwood took over the job of signing players Mancini didn't want, just purely to piss him off & stop City from passing FFP..

It was Cook & Marwood's constant hobnobbing with Mancini's mates & signing of players close to Mancini, or followed by Mancini, which caused the bustup with Mancini.

Crikey, who needs enemies when you've got 'friends' like that ?

Tbf, Cahill was fucking gash at the time imo, so I can see why Bob thought a player from abroad might be better. I still wouldn't want Cahill now personally, but I'd have him over those two obviously.

Considering the money on Savic and Nastastic the signing or non signing of Cahill, with hindsight of course, has been a disaster. Always thought he looked tasty and though not an obvious choice, was always a better bet than an untried youth from the Balkans

nottsblue wrote:Considering the money on Savic and Nastastic the signing or non signing of Cahill, with hindsight of course, has been a disaster. Always thought he looked tasty and though not an obvious choice, was always a better bet than an untried youth from the Balkans

Tbf Nastasic was looking comfortable, as Savic does at times now. Just shows the difference of playing in the Premier League.

Ted Hughes wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Considering the money on Savic and Nastastic the signing or non signing of Cahill, with hindsight of course, has been a disaster. Always thought he looked tasty and though not an obvious choice, was always a better bet than an untried youth from the Balkans

Tbf Nastasic was looking comfortable, as Savic does at times now. Just shows the difference of playing in the Premier League.

But Savic and Nastastic looking comfortable in the Italian league is absolutely not a barometer of the Prem league. It's the same with Mangala. He will be a great addition, but at the moment he looks lost and its surely in no small part to being a big leap from the Portugese league.Mdm last year, another prime example.

Sometimes an honest pro who has learned his trade in the Prem is a better bet than a young 'star' from sunnier climes.

nottsblue wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Considering the money on Savic and Nastastic the signing or non signing of Cahill, with hindsight of course, has been a disaster. Always thought he looked tasty and though not an obvious choice, was always a better bet than an untried youth from the Balkans

Tbf Nastasic was looking comfortable, as Savic does at times now. Just shows the difference of playing in the Premier League.

But Savic and Nastastic looking comfortable in the Italian league is absolutely not a barometer of the Prem league. It's the same with Mangala. He will be a great addition, but at the moment he looks lost and its surely in no small part to being a big leap from the Portugese league.Mdm last year, another prime example.

Sometimes an honest pro who has learned his trade in the Prem is a better bet than a young 'star' from sunnier climes.

Innit.

I miss those two. Bless em.

I wanted us to get Cahill in 2011/2012 and still think he would have been an excellent buy.

Plain Speaking wrote:I wanted us to get Cahill in 2011/2012 and still think he would have been an excellent buy.

Yes he would, didn't chelski end getting him for 6m or something around that.

sheblue wrote:

Plain Speaking wrote:I wanted us to get Cahill in 2011/2012 and still think he would have been an excellent buy.

Yes he would, didn't chelski end getting him for 6m or something around that.

As I recall we were linked in the summer of 2011 with a bid of approx £17m bid? the following summer he would have gone for free on a bosman.

Chelsea got him for cheap in January 2012, fee apparently £7.39m (according to transfermarkt).

Chelsea seem to have been very shrewd in the transfer market, perhaps with odd exceptions like Torres and Shevchenko who were most likely Abramovich picks?