City start spree with £10m deal for Bridge

[dww]

Naturally, but if you were a City fan, i doubt you'd have been stood in front of the Sky Sports News cameras last August, moronically chanting "we've got Robinho" either

Probably not.

[Joe King]

Steady eddie player. I've liked Bridge when he played at Southampton but no way is he worth £10m.

[wiw]

the Times today said they bid for Parker as well. Hughes is going the right way about it iby the looks of things. He's getting rinsed on the prices though

[Liverpool]

the Times today said they bid for Parker as well. Hughes is going the right way about it iby the looks of things. He's getting rinsed on the prices though

When Chelsea got cash they signed SWP, Bridge and Parker....

[magicalbarnes]

Good bit of business by everyone but Chelsea if you ask me. Bridge needs regular games, City have gained an experienced and very good player. Chelsea have a hole in their squad, what a shame it would be if Cole got injured for a few weeks!

Thats right which is good news for us, as it makes Chelsea's squad weaker.

[Shaggy]

When Chelsea got cash they signed SWP, Bridge and Parker....

Good call

[wiw]

When Chelsea got cash they signed SWP, Bridge and Parker....

true BUT..Parker never played, neither did Bridge really...did they not win the title anyway? City need a left back and a DM other than smokey joe (Hamann) and captain useless (Kompany)

[stringy]

Good move for Bridge he gets to play every game and a shed load of cash. But surely no high profile player will want to move to citeh. Robinho excepted!

[tiktu]

But surely no high profile player will want to move to citeh. Robinho excepted!

But for Robinho's defence, he thought he was moving to Chelsea

[Neil Young]

I actually think it is a somewhat brave but definitely correct decision by Hughes to concentrate on getting a strong base of good players to build on in future. So far this season they have done very well going forward but been abysmal at the back and all recent title wining teams have had the base of an excellent defense.

In their current situation they were unlikely to be able to get ambitious players of the top rank. For a year or so I think they will have to settle for players on the fringes for some reason or those who are up and coming stars rather than the established marquee names.

It's going to be a relatively slow build. Man City are clearly some way off where Chelsea when Abramovich took over.

So Bridge (and Lescott, Santa Cruz, etc.) might be their level at the moment but, just like Rafa has done with us (albeit from a better starting point in terms of club reputation and prominence but with less money at his disposal), the level of signings will improve with time, if all goes broadly to plan.

In other words, gloating at the way Man City's pretensions to the top are being punctured is misplaced. All other things being equal, it's a question of when.

It's definitely arguable that, in the medium term, we are in the weakest position out of current the top four clubs.

[dww]

It's going to be a relatively slow build. Man City are clearly some way off where Chelsea when Abramovich took over.

So Bridge (and Lescott, Santa Cruz, etc.) might be their level at the moment but, just like Rafa has done with us (albeit from a better starting point in terms of club reputation and prominence but with less money at his disposal), the level of signings will improve with time, if all goes broadly to plan.

In other words, gloating at the way Man City's pretensions to the top are being punctured is misplaced. All other things being equal, it's a question of when.

It's definitely arguable that, in the medium term, we are in the weakest position out of current the top four clubs.

I'd agree with the first part of your argument. I'd say the big question is whether Hughes can be Man City's Ranieri - buying in excellent players for relatively decent values (looking back) and converting the existing squad into a well drilled and tactically aware unit. Also it is interesting to see how patient the owners are with their managers.

Other than Lescott the players linked are actually players that people on here have linked us with and many would have preferred to our summer signings.

While I can see the logic behind your final statement I would argue we are better placed than Arsenal in the medium term at least. A lot after that will be determined by the imponderables such as the success of the changes to the youth setup and the impact of the global financial situation on the plans for a new stadium.

[dww]

A Bridge far enough for City as reality bites
Manchester City's signing of Wayne Bridge shows how the financial climate of the Premier League has altered in a short space of time

The FA Cup might have been invented to prove what Sir Alex Ferguson has been saying all season, every time he has been mildly irritated by mention of the riches at Manchester City's disposal. It's being any good that's the difficult part, and City may already be discovering that the money game is mostly for mugs.

The transfer window is here and Mark Hughes has been as good as his word and acted early so as not to be rushing around again on the last day. There is little need for brinkmanship, after all, when the object of your interest is a Chelsea reserve who has started just three Premier League games this season and, while Wayne Bridge's name may not have featured on any of the stellar wish lists that City's new owners were bandying about in summer, at least no one can accuse the manager of bowing to pressure from above and making only marquee signings.

Before anyone starts mocking City's drastically recalibrated scale of ambition, let it be remembered that every good team needs a decent left-back and that Bridge was an early acquisition when it was Chelsea threatening to take over the world. Just because he is no longer playing regularly for Chelsea or England does not make him a reject, as Shaun Wright-Phillips can testify. It could be argued City have accepted second best by not offering Ashley Cole whatever flabbergasting wages it would have taken to get him to relocate to Manchester, but Hughes has always been a value man rather than a wad waver.

What may have been envisaged, when the Abu Dhabi money arrived in the summer, was that City would have to spend a few years making eyewateringly expensive signings and attracting unlikely names just to prove they were the wealthiest club in the world. This has not turned out to be necessary. Along with their neighbours, Manchester United, they are clearly at the top of the Premier League's rich list, and therefore automatically in a position to be regarded as a major player. They no longer need to splash the cash to establish this. That was so last year. These days, in the Premier League at least, wealth means being able to hang on to your best players, or contemplate signing new ones without having to sell first, immunity from warring factions in the boardroom or an owner whose financial circumstances have altered radically for the worse, backers who are looking to build and not sell and can avoid the spectre of administration. What was basic solvency a few months ago is now luxury. The Premier League still resembled a billionaires' playground when City's owners bought in six months ago, now it looks more like an entrepreneurs' graveyard.

There is probably nothing too much wrong with the finances of smaller, tidily run clubs such as Hull and West Brom, as long as they can continue to fill their grounds and content their fans with nothing more than lower-end Premier League football. Those clubs who find it hard to fill their grounds and were bankrolled by benign benefactors in kinder financial climates - Blackburn and Wigan spring most obviously to mind - are surely living above their station. Blackburn have been up for sale with an ominous lack of buyers. But why, when Newcastle, Everton and West Ham are sitting around like cheese at fourpence, would anyone wish to sink money into Blackburn? Or Portsmouth. Liverpool are thought to be open to offers, Arsenal appear to be heading for an ownership dispute and even Chelsea have begun to cut their cloth more realistically.

So City may find that mountains of cash are not necessary. For the simple reason that no one else is in the market for top-of-the-range players. United have just signed two young and relatively obscure Serbians and declared the shopping season over until summer. Aston Villa, just about the only other club with some money to spend and no strings attached, are more likely to be looking at mid-price, low-maintenance, domestic captures along the lines of Emile Heskey or Peter Crouch. Martin O'Neill undoubtedly fancies himself as the inheritor of some of Brian Clough's nous in the transfer market and, in view of the unhappy experiences of English teams attempting to crack the top four in the past decade, sensible parsimony may be no bad thing.

No one is going to level that charge against City if they continue to spend £10m on reserve left-backs, but it was equally significant last week that Marcos Senna turned down a switch from Valencia to Eastlands. City's lowly league position, relative newness on the block and the inevitable uncertainty surrounding their manager could all have something to do with that, though one has the feeling that the Premier League as a whole is not the all-singing, all-dancing attraction it once was. How can it be when half of its clubs are for sale with no takers? Even the much-vaunted competition within the theoretically secure top four has taken a knock this season. Arsenal have dropped off the pace and it will be a surprise, playing as they have been recently, if Manchester United and Chelsea meet up again in this year's Champions League final.

Maybe, as with so much of the pre-credit crunch world, what we took for granted a season or so ago was not quite as solid and sustainable as we imagined. Maybe 2008 was a good year to get out and not to get in. And maybe £230m was a good price to get for City. It is not quite a case of come back, Dr Thaksin, all is forgiven, but you could understand Mike Ashley, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, Alexandre Gaydamak and a few others admiring the man's style.

[joyno]

Naturally, but if you were a City fan, i doubt you'd have been stood in front of the Sky Sports News cameras last August, moronically chanting "we've got Robinho" either

what they should have been chanting was "i wish Malcolm Allison hadn't pissed that gypsy woman off that put a curse on this club" they should be waving lucky white heather instead of scarves.

[Harv]

Outrageous fee