SSN's Bellamy Reporting: More Shite Coverage

SSN has naturally run a report on the Bellamy saga following yesterdays comments from the man himself stating he will not go to Celtic as he wants to stay at Man City.

This is fair enough, as SSN's report reflected this in the majority. However as the reporter (Dharmesh Sheth) elaborated on the story and gave an over arching of the situation we were not mentioned once. He continued to state Bellamy does not want to go anywere else and he wants to ONLY play for Man City next year.

This is laughable, Bellamy himself only a couple of months ago at the end of last season stated in the media he only wants to come back to us. The local media have been all over it for weeks, however any local reports always fail to get a mention on there (they go around Britain on a certain segment of their show acknowledging the Liverpool Echo, Birmingham Chronicle etc etc).

I don't know whether this is simpy English arrogance or whether they refuse to accept the media in this part of the world...bottom line its not the first time recently theyve failed to reflect a story fully re Bellamy, by consciously ignoring our role/influence. f**k em

SKY Sports News has gone really down the pan since they started focusing on HD and getting the viewers in with tabloid rubbish. They used to actually be good and report only true stories but I am starting to think that since things started going pear shaped with Gray/Keys and News International, they're losing all their sources and really don't have much clue about what's going on.

It used to report news first but now I am seeing it the BBC before SKY Sports.

Totally agree

Hardly laughable.

They are repeating Bellamy's position - which is that he wants to stay with Man City.

If you can't work out *why* Bellamy is saying that...

I'm not too sure why we would be mentioned though. It was a report on why Bellamy has turned down a move to Celtic

But that is what Bellamy has suggested, he will stay and fight for his place.

Sky Sports News is exactly that, a news channel, they are not there for rumour. This is why people think they have gone downhill. The major stories hit the net before Sky even mention them, but the same happens with BBC News.

Bellamy is saying all the right things, he wants to stay and fight for his place. Mancini knows he won't be in his 25 man squad so he is left with having a £90k a week player doing nothin for a year. At some point Man City will come forward with an offer that suits Bellamy.

He changes his story. Remember this from May

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/cardiff-city-fc/2011/05/26/craig-bellamy-ready-to-play-for-cardiff-city-for-free-91466-28765760/

that seems to have been forgotten now. If he'd play for free then you could afford to pay a transfer fee for him

He changes his story. Remember this from May

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/cardiff-city-fc/2011/05/26/craig-bellamy-ready-to-play-for-cardiff-city-for-free-91466-28765760/

that seems to have been forgotten now. If he'd play for free then you could afford to pay a transfer fee for him

Or maybe, as most people with an intellect would grasp, it's called contractual leverage.

Bellamy plays nice, hasn't requested a transfer move. Man City want him to leave. Man City sell / release him, Man City liable for contractual payments to Bellamy.

Bellamy requests transfer, loses out on a lump payment from Man City.

Given Bellamy hasn't requested a move and has said all the right things about wanting to stay, wanting to work for his place, Man City lose all leverage in any transfer negotiations. It's as simple to understand as that. Man City want £4m? Well, Spurs may pay that. Bellamy wants to stay however, won't agree personal terms. Nothing difficult to understand there.

That then drives, over time, Bellamy's value to Man City down even further, especially as the various windows approach.

So, Bellamy plays nice, it becomes more apparent to Man City they've an unsellable asset that they'll have to pay 4.5m over the season to.

He changes his story. Remember this from May

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/cardiff-city-fc/2011/05/26/craig-bellamy-ready-to-play-for-cardiff-city-for-free-91466-28765760/

that seems to have been forgotten now. If he'd play for free then you could afford to pay a transfer fee for him

There is not one quote from Bellamy in that piece, more Echo rubbish. Anyway playing for 'free' does not LITERALLY mean for free.

The premise would be that Man City release him from his contract with a pay off. At the time he was probably hoping that Man City would pay him off perhaps at two-thirds of his salary, this means he gets about 60k a week and Man City save 30k a week. He could then play for a sort of 'free' as he was already getting 60k.

It has probably now come about that Man City will only pay, say, a third of his salary to release him, so Bellamy says, nah, I'll fight for my place.

He changes his story. Remember this from May

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/cardiff-city-fc/2011/05/26/craig-bellamy-ready-to-play-for-cardiff-city-for-free-91466-28765760/

that seems to have been forgotten now. If he'd play for free then you could afford to pay a transfer fee for him

Or maybe, as most people with an intellect would grasp, it's called contractual leverage.

Bellamy plays nice, hasn't requested a transfer move. Man City want him to leave. Man City sell / release him, Man City liable for contractual payments to Bellamy.

Bellamy requests transfer, loses out on a lump payment from Man City.

Given Bellamy hasn't requested a move and has said all the right things about wanting to stay, wanting to work for his place, Man City lose all leverage in any transfer negotiations. It's as simple to understand as that. Man City want £4m? Well, Spurs may pay that. Bellamy wants to stay however, won't agree personal terms. Nothing difficult to understand there.

That then drives, over time, Bellamy's value to Man City down even further, especially as the various windows approach.

So, Bellamy plays nice, it becomes more apparent to Man City they've an unsellable asset that they'll have to pay 4.5m over the season to.

Spot on mate and pretty much what I was going to post. Thanks for saving me 10 minutes!