City agree Jo fee - £19M

[DEFchenkOE]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_3747114,00.html

"Sky Sports News understands Manchester City have agreed a £19million deal with CSKA Moscow for striker Jo.

The Brazilian has been a long-term target of City, but he looks set to become new manager Mark Hughes' first signing.

Jo was a member of the Brazil squad which played England in the first game at the new Wembley in May 2007.

However, Jo - who is also thought to be a target of Valencia - made his international debut against Turkey in June later that year.

The 21-year-old has scored 30 goals in 53 appearances for CSKA Moscow and Hughes would welcome that firepower as City chase a place in the top six of the Premier League next season.

There have been previous fears that possible third-party ownership of Jo, who is represented by Kia Joorabchian, would prevent the deal following new rulings by the Premier League.

But a spokesman for Joorabchian recently said that there is nothing complicated in the proposed transfer and there is no issue of third-party ownership."


Not a done deal yet but £19M, what does everyone think? I've seen him a few times and he has a good record in Russia, despite I don't think being great at finishing yet. Seems like Thaksin wants fourth badly too!

 

[Blotto]

I've heard he is good but never seen him, wonder how he'll do in the Prem...

 

[donny1013]

Liverpool paid what, £2mill more for Fernando Torres? I have only seen him a handful of times, once against Inter in the CL and he scored a belter. Bit of a gamble at that price though

 

[General Levy]

Liverpool paid what, £2mill more for Fernando Torres? I have only seen him a handful of times, once against Inter in the CL and he scored a belter. Bit of a gamble at that price though

http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=31990

 

[Marty]

Man City ruin strikers just like Newcastle ruin defenders. Huge gamble at 19mill.

 

[PT]

Supposed to be shit hot. None of the big clubs would take the gamble though, so fair play to City, especially as it's a fucking great big 19m gamble!

 

[nldnboi]

Wow, I thought Bent was a gamble but at least he'd been proven to score goals in the Prem. I can only see this one going really really good or really really bad.

 

[robbiesavagehasbreasts]

I think he will be excellent for them. And he better deliver, they paid 19m.

 

[SpurSince57]

Liverpool paid what, £2mill more for Fernando Torres? I have only seen him a handful of times, once against Inter in the CL and he scored a belter. Bit of a gamble at that price though

£7m more, although about £5m-£6m of that was Sergio Garcia.

Apart from Monsieur le Sulk, I really can't remember the last half-decent striker City had. Actually, my brother-in-law has the same problem, and he's been a ST holder there for thirty-odd years.

 

[spurslenny]

i'm gonna reserve judgement, just in case i bok us for when we play them

 

[Pinto]

That is huge fee for someone who hasn't done it on the biggest stage. The problem with it is if he doesn't get off to a decent start for them, which isn't hard to do in the Prem the fans might turn on him. I know if he played 10 to 15 games and only has one or two goals I would be wondering why we spent that much money on him, I still wonder why we spent 16 million on Bent, not because he isn't any good but because he won't get enough minutes on the pitch with Berby and Keane in front of him.

 

[DC_Boy]

It's a gamble - but City face a problem shared by quite a few 'second/third tier' clubs outside the big 4 -

you often/always can't attract the top players - so you may pay OTT for gambles - if you've got the money like City seem to have

other clubs like Rovers and Toffees don't have that kind of cash so don't take that type of gamble

they've done ok through their strategies - but in Everton's case their trophy drought stretches back 13 years now - that's a long time for a major club like Everton - they won major trophies in 4 straight decades from the 60s thru to the 90s - they're now in the last chance saloon for this decade -

from Everton's current spending and the way other clubs like us Portsmouth and maybe City are improving - not to mention the all powerful big 4 - you have to feel this will be a barren decade for one of the traditional forces in English football

City have been barren now since 76 - they must feel that pain quite a bit - now they have money, who knows what may happen - chances are very little and no trophies again next season - but they'll probably give it a good go

 

[DC_Boy]

, I still wonder why we spent 16 million on Bent, not because he isn't any good but because he won't get enough minutes on the pitch with Berby and Keane in front of him.

Hi Pinto, it's pretty much agreed we overspent on Bent, though the actual fee still seems to be debated- there seems to be a consensus the fee was between £12-15.5m plus add ons -

anyway that's by the by - we bought Bent to replace Mido and probably as insurance against either Defoe or Berbs leaving

JD has now gone - Berbs mmmm

it's also worth noting that Berbs and Keane were rarely injured last season - let's hope it stays that way - but it might not

also it was Bent who was injured for quite a considerable time - which restricted further his playing time

If he stays fit and we buy no more strikers I think Bent will get a lot of playing time this season, provided of course when he get the chances, which he will, he does enough to justify further chances

 

[milkman]

a lot of money there!! (lets hope hes shit for them!) :wink:

 

[SpurSince57]

Hi Pinto, it's pretty much agreed we overspent on Bent, though the actual fee still seems to be debated- there seems to be a consensus the fee was between £12-15.5m plus add ons -

anyway that's by the by - we bought Bent to replace Mido and probably as insurance against either Defoe or Berbs leaving

JD has now gone - Berbs mmmm

it's also worth noting that Berbs and Keane were rarely injured last season - let's hope it stays that way - but it might not

also it was Bent who was injured for quite a considerable time - which restricted further his playing time

If he stays fit and we buy no more strikers I think Bent will get a lot of playing time this season, provided of course when he get the chances, which he will, he does enough to justify further chances

Although I haven't seen the quotation to back it up, Chrissy Hughton apparently let it slip that we were confident of offloading Defoe last summer. That would certainly make sense of Bent's OTT fee—maybe £4m profit on Defoe and £1.75m on Mido would have knocked it down to about £10m, in real terms.

 

[joey55]

I think he looks like a homeless crack addict.

 

[antiloqus]

I think he looks like a homeless crack addict.

reminds me of crab man from my name is earl

 

[robbiesavagehasbreasts]

Hi Pinto, it's pretty much agreed we overspent on Bent, though the actual fee still seems to be debated- there seems to be a consensus the fee was between £12-15.5m plus add ons -

anyway that's by the by - we bought Bent to replace Mido and probably as insurance against either Defoe or Berbs leaving

JD has now gone - Berbs mmmm

it's also worth noting that Berbs and Keane were rarely injured last season - let's hope it stays that way - but it might not

also it was Bent who was injured for quite a considerable time - which restricted further his playing time

If he stays fit and we buy no more strikers I think Bent will get a lot of playing time this season, provided of course when he get the chances, which he will, he does enough to justify further chances

Exactly. If say, Berba would have got injured for two months last season we would have to play either Defoe or Bent alongside Keano. Now, we all know Defoe and Keane weren't the perfect pair, so...

 

[milkman]

I think he looks like a homeless crack addict.

He is. Eek