Moneybags City are once again poised to sign an expensive young star of English football. That initial sentence itself should tell everything about what the writer thinks of their transfer policy, sarcasm and all.
John Stones is not worth £50m. He couldn’t secure a place on the pitch at Euro 2016 and given the performance of virtually all those around him that doesn’t say an awful lot about his form. Too many mistakes last year cost both Everton and Stones dearly, in terms of league and squad position respectively. Maybe the previous speculation over a non-move to Chelsea was playing on his mind?
Manchester City, on the other hand, do have form – form in terms of spending silly money on a player yet to reach his potential, yet to prove the extent of that potential, and yet to prove that a stint in a Merseyside first team can translate into becoming a World-beater in his chosen position.
You would have thought that Raheem Sterling would be a lesson for anyone to take in. Clearly not in City’s case.
Stones is a good young defender. He has shown an ability to tackle, to pass, to play, to use his head in both physical and metaphorical senses. He is an England international. But where the world is apparently their oyster with limitless cash to spend, £50m could surely be spent in a better way?
Sterling has hardly set the world on fire since his overly-expensive transfer. Maybe the money and everything that came with it has been a little too much to cope with. Or maybe he simply isn’t that good, to the tune of £50m plus anyway.
Transfer fees are silly these days. Yet, as mentioned before City have history, and not only recent.
Some 20 years ago, the very same Manchester City paid over £1m for Alan Kernaghan.
Sorry, must stop laughing!
This article was submitted via our Write For Us feature. Think you can do better? Submit your own article via the link below, and give yourself the chance of winning monthly cash prizes…