Varchester City 18/19 discussion
- Thread starter Bergman
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Not with holding midfielders. For every de Jong, Barry and Fernandinho there is a Rodwell, Javi Garcia and Fernando.
Not specifically City-focused, but this is an interesting short article on the increasing financial dominance of the so-called Big Six. It reflects some of the opinions on this thread on the structural health of the game: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...remier-league-sent-manchester-united-16448522.
Some key points:
1) Big Six revenue this past season of £2.77 billion vs. £2.05 billion for the remaining 14 clubs
2) Big Six revenue grew by £247 million vs. £10 million reduction for the remaining 14 clubs
3) In 2009-10 the revenue gap between 6th and 7th place was £1.88 million. It's now £191 million.
This is likely only going to get worse with the redistribution of international broadcast revenue and increasing European competition prize money/revenue. To reiterate my previous opinion: City have worsened the overall competition of the PL via ADUG's investment, but it's a symptom of, and a distraction from, a much bigger issue in the game. The big clubs keep getting bigger. It's not healthy, it's not competitive, and it's not sustainable.
Yes City should be punished (again) if we've broken FFP rules. But it feels like FFP is missing the bigger picture.
Some key points:
1) Big Six revenue this past season of £2.77 billion vs. £2.05 billion for the remaining 14 clubs
2) Big Six revenue grew by £247 million vs. £10 million reduction for the remaining 14 clubs
3) In 2009-10 the revenue gap between 6th and 7th place was £1.88 million. It's now £191 million.
This is likely only going to get worse with the redistribution of international broadcast revenue and increasing European competition prize money/revenue. To reiterate my previous opinion: City have worsened the overall competition of the PL via ADUG's investment, but it's a symptom of, and a distraction from, a much bigger issue in the game. The big clubs keep getting bigger. It's not healthy, it's not competitive, and it's not sustainable.
Yes City should be punished (again) if we've broken FFP rules. But it feels like FFP is missing the bigger picture.
Nah, they get it more right than wrong unlike Man Utd.
Close to Rodri and Cancelo. Top signings done quickly if reports are true. Cancelo is an upgrade on Walker in an attacking sense. I'd be surprised if they aren't in for a LB as well. Seems a bit mad to have Cancelo, Walker and Danilo at RB but then only an injury prone Mendy at LB and a winger/CM as back-ups. I know Danilo can play at LB but he's right footed and naturally a RB.
we're bringing Angelino back from PSV and Danilo is being sold.
Absolute weaponised fanboy nonsense to suggest that the corrupt, cheating, sportswashing UAE £billions blood money project is on par with or somehow a symptom or reflection of the overall state of the game.
Yes the legitimate top four (excluding oilmoney Chelsea of course), now top five, have had too much financial advantage over the rest of the league. But when considering the traditional clubs such as United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs have earned their advantage through hard work and succeeding on the pitch, it is ridiculously disingenuous to claim that the barbaric UAE project at City is just a symptom, a mere distraction from the reality of this structural but legitimately resulting, financial competitive disparity.
The Etihad project is the toy thing of the murderous, human rights abusing regime of the UAE.
The financial advantage gained legitimately by United, Arsenal, Liverpool, over other clubs is indeed a result of legitimate competition, both on and off the pitch and has absolutely nothing to do with the stain on our beautiful game that is the sheikh Mansour's,artificially inflated, financial fair play cheating, book cooking blood money project.
Last edited:
seasoncards sold out again, ground will still look empty unless people actually turn up
No they didn't. Don't know why you refuse to let this sink in... United - John Henry Davies, Liverpool - The Moores family/football pools... I could go on but its pretty easy to find this stuff out yourself. Arsenal literally bribed their way into the league and were constantly criticized for excessive spending to make themselves relevant but whatever... It's not the result of legitimate anything, its getting a massive hand up very long ago (not so long ago in Liverpool's case) thats never spoken about. Was it not for JHD Old Trafford wouldn't be near what it is and United probably wouldn't exist... It's pretty much literally nothing to do with success on the pitch nor has it ever been.
The way you jump into posts so aggressively whilst knowing nothing of your own club is funny. Maybe read a book or even google your clubs history. Also given your hatred of all thinks barbaric, Saudi Telecom and the commercial bank of Qatar are fine legitimate sponsors... not to mention Gulf Oil Middle East right? Or is it ok to take their money, just not ok to be owned by them?
You do though my friend need to take something for all that anger. Your posts are dripping with it. It's ok, no need to worry, you'll be back at the top sooner or later.
And you my confused friend display your weaponised ignorance and blind loyalty in your lying defence of the illegitimate project of the UAE human rights abuser's and slaughterers of innocent Yemeni children.
It was easy for the oppressive regime to weaponise you lot due to your decades of abject failure to succeed legitimately and your proximity to a real successful club.
And yes of course there is a distinct ethical and structural difference between the project at the Etihad being actually designed, manufactured and owned by the UAE (mass murderers of Yemeni children, systemic abusers of migrant populations, torturers of the LGBT community and 'disappearers' of pro democracy advocates) and the financial dealings of true independent clubs, though I would rather EUFA ban Abudhabi, Qatar and Saudi as sponsors of our legit clubs too.
As for your blatant lies that United's success is not legitimate and has nothing to do with winning on the pitch, you should be ashamed of yourself. A grown man, spending hours and hours of your life, reinventing history and lying on a rival fans forum in order to defend the human rights abusers of an oppressive gulf state who cheat our rules to buy glory for their barbaric regime.
Last edited:
Still living up to your name with your faux outrage bingo then. You seem genuinely upset that the legitimate anti-competitive behaviour of your legitimately, legitimate traditional top 4 is being frustrated. Competition is tough sometimes.
I note your acceptance of the “resulting, financial competitive disparity.” Looking forward to your ideas on how to resolve that.
you are aware that the UK as well as the US, France Canada and Germany also have soldiers on the ground, are you petitioning your MP, what are you doing to help the Yemini children?
The mass murder of Yemeni children by your owners is real,their systemic sexual abuse of vulnerable migrant female domestic workers is real, their imprisonment and disappearance of pro democracy advocates is true, their punishment of the lgbt+ community is real.
You really think you're being clever by using the word 'bingo' in a puerile and shameless attempt to undermine the very real concerns that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and any grown up with a sense of ethical responsibility hold regarding Abudhabi and the £billion+, sports washing project.
As for financial disparity I have already noted that. Mansour's Etihad blood money project is not a symptom of that financial disparity. The disparity is the result of footballing and legitimate commercial success whereas the stain on our game that is the human rights abuser's £billion cheating project is neither the result of footballing nor historical football club commercial success.
As for Thunderhead's apology for the UAE's ongoing slaughter of innocents in Yemen by the classic but impotent 'whataboutery' of finger pointing at others, (what other club is owned by a mass murdering, military invasive state?), is this not just another point in case that proves that the embittered fans of City have completely discarded any ethical considerations once the murderers and human rights abusers buy our trophies in their name.
Last edited:
You haven’t answered my question. We both acknowledge that the financial disparity created by your traditional, legitimate top 4 is the result of footballing and commercial success, but that’s irrelevant to my question. I assume we both agree that this financial disparity is unhealthy for the game. So again, looking forward to your ideas on how to resolve that.
Insulting another member
where have I apologised, find me a post where I've ever praised the owners of MCFC, find me a post where I've ever defended them, problem is Namco I'm just sick of you stinking up threads going over the same issue again and again, you've been banned from this site more times than Joey Barton yet still like a bad smell keep coming back spouting the same shite on something you know feck all about.
Will some mod find a way of banning this twat once and for all.
Didn't know Joey 'The Philosopher' Barton posted on here.
heh, forgot, by the Premier League
We've done our due investigation and has found no evidence that he's Namco.
@DevilAgeIdiot whilst I agree that City's owners family are serial human right abusers however this isn't the thread for it. Let's keep the discussion about the owners in other thread.
Last edited:
Walker contract extension, good signing was excellent most of the season. Interesting to see what effect it has on the Cancelo rumours.
I don't really understand the Cancelo rumour in the context of the Walker contract extension. Why would we want/need two 50m right backs? I understand we need cover if we sell Danilo, but it's a second choice full back position, surely we can promote from the academy or find a much cheaper back up.
Didn’t expect it to be a 5 year contract for Walker. Most of the rumours said 2 years.
Ha our messages crossed on other thread. It's a 2 year extension, so now he's got 5 years left again given that he still had 3 years left on his original contract.
Didn’t realise he had 3 years left, just assumed he was down to his last year or two hence the extension.
As mentioned on the other thread, it seems a big contract due to him being 29 but he’s an important part of the team so he’s being rewarded and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Yea he's been decent for us, so it makes sense if he's going to be the absolute first choice. But, on the other hand I think it's a bit of a risk given that his game is pretty reliant on pace (both defensively and offensively), and there's the rumours about bringing Cancelo in too. We don't need two mega money right backs.
You only have to look at Moores ownership of the club and the correlation between Liverpools success and the success of the football pools my friend. It's pretty easy to follow.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/a-dynasty-divided-1582568.html
It's really interesting this uses the word bankrolled. It's also interesting Liverpool started to become the dominant force on Moores becoming the main man, and than when he invested in Everton too we saw Merseyside dominance.
Or do you think its all just a weird coincidence?
Moores family buys club. Don't give club a hand up but club has its most successful period ever as complete coincidence (not once but twice).
Littlewoods and football pools start to struggle said clubs success goes away. Nothing to see there, just more coincidence?
Last edited:
Omg... I'm pretty sure you have a complete inability to read. Again nowhere have I taken issue with anyone calling out our owners as shithouses, I've openly said it myself. You keep typing weaponized like you understand the word though, even though the only one of us capable of actually admitting the truth about our clubs is me.
On the second line I agree completely.. that is a huge difference and one that 100% needs fixing. I actually wholeheartedly agree that club owners need better policing.
You last statement has no grounding in reality given the idiocy of it and the fact that United even existing is down to a wealthy benefactor.
I'll say it again, you are either too stupid to read my posts or just on a wum because you are desperately trying to link my posts to defending Cities owners when you have no legit argument because you know fecking nothing of your own club. The very definition of a glory hunter. You know nothing of United's history if you think it's solely to do with winning on the pitch.
You are also a hypocrite, happy for United to receive all those middle eastern sponsors without so much as a word. No complaints about your club being in bed with major government owned human rights abusing regimes.
I've also said many times that United are probably the best run club in Europe (well pre-Woodward) competing with Real, Barca and other clubs, given the genuine tragedies the club experienced. You can find a ton of posts from me stating so and on pitch success has played a major part but not the only part. Nowhere have I tried to say Uniteds success is not legitimate and you don't need to bold things, unlike you I can read and actually understand what I'm reading.
The foundations for that success were laid by a very wealthy man (arguably two), very early in the clubs story. You can deny it or bury your head in the sand but it's true. Without outside investement from a sugar daddy United wouldn't exist today. That does not mean you success is not legitimate it means simply what it is. A fact.
Now be a good hypocrite and constantly bash middle eastern regimes whilst following a club who have ties to them all and are happy to take all their money too. It's what you do best. Just remember whenever you buy another £90m virus you are using cash from very lovely sources like Saudi Telecom, commercial bank of Qatar and Gulf Oil Middle East. Three lovely wholesome groups which have nothing but exemplary human rights records and most certainly having nothing to do with tyrannical regimes in the middle east.
Last edited:
So you've literally taken a small piece (bankrolled) from an article that comes from a left-wing newspaper, which reeks of bitterness towards people from a working class family, who devised a way to make lots of money, & who also gave something back to society - For example, Littlewoods was Liverpool's biggest employer for many years - & you've taken everything at face value. Have you actually done any research on exactly how much money the Moores 'bankrolled' both Merseyside clubs by ? Sir John Moores was chairman of Everton FC, but he was a minority shareholder. In 1959 he LOANED the club £56,000 to buy new players. It was an interest-only loan, but it was duly paid back. David Moores who became our chairman in 1990 held 51% of shares in LFC, but at no point prior to that did he ever make significant funds available for the purchase of new players. The money generated from gate receipts & our successes at home & abroad was used to buy players. In fact Bill Shankly once made a remark about our tight-arsed bunch of directors, saying that he virtually had to turn them upside down & shake out the loose change out of their pockets to get money out of them. I've pointed this out on another thread, but our rise from the early 60's came about from Liverpool Football Club employing the right people, who made the right decisions most of the time, which in turn meant we got the right results. There was no trickery involved, no big 'leg-up' from people with unlimited supplies of cash etc. We were, at the time of our dominance, a supremely well-run club.
But here's the big sting in the tail for you Man City fans who are trying to convince themselves that there's some sort of correlation between their sugar-daddy owners, & The Moores family. Back in 1973 there was a gentleman who went by the name of Peter Swales, who took over as chairman of Manchester City. Swales himself was a very successful Mancunian businessman, who wasn't short of a bob or two. He was also an ardent City fan, who 5 years earlier had seen his beloved club become English champions for the first time in their history. Wanting to experience more of the same he ploughed loads of his hard-earned money into the club over a period of 10 years or so. City were the ultimate benefactor from this guy's generosity as top class signings were now seen as the norm at Maine Road. Players like Asa Hartford, Joe Royle, Dennis Tueart, Dave Watson, Mick Channon, Paul Futcher, Steve Daley, Michael Robinson, Kevin Reeves, Trevor Francis etc, all signed for hefty fees via Peter Swales bank account over an 8 year period. & despite all the money that was splashed out during that period, the only happy memory City fans can speak about from that era is winning the League Cup in 1976, & finishing runners-up to Liverpool in the league the following year. To put City's spending into some sort of perspective, back around the time they were paying Norwich £1.2 million for the services of Kevin Reeves, Liverpool were signing a young lad called Ian Rush from Chester City for £300,000. No prizes for guessing who got the better deal there.
So if you really believe this narrative you're trying to generate, perhaps you could give some examples of just how the Moores have helped elevate LFC to the massive club it is today.
Swales era, 1973–1994[edit]
See also: Peter Swales
At the start of the 1973–74 season Eric Alexander announced his intention to step down in October.[43] Minority shareholder Peter Swales positioned himself as a unifying figure acceptable to both Joe Smith's faction and longstanding directors such as Eric Alexander and John Humphreys (who was also managing director of Umbro).[43][44] Swales was elected as chairman, and held the position for more than 20 years. Swales time in charge was one of impatience with him sacking eleven Manchester City managers in 21 years, however he had reputation as a generous chairman when providing money for transfer[45] Swales was remembered for his gaffe with manager Malcolm Allison after Swales sanctioned the purchase of Steve Daley from Wolves for £1,450,000, a then British transfer fee record. Daley turned out to be a flop, and Allison always claimed that he had agreed a much lower fee with the then Wolves manager for Daley. Allison later claimed Swales intervened on a chairman to chairman basis and secured the transfer instantly but at a much higher, possibly rip-off price.[45]
David Bernstein, Manchester City chairman from 1998 to 2003
After over 20 years of frustration delivering little success, Swales fell out of favour with the Manchester City supporters who led a long anti-Swales campaign. Momentum gathered in the 1990s, in the form of a movement named Forward With Franny, backing former City player Francis Lee's attempt to gain control of the club.[46]
In 1994, with Swales was ousted from his chairmanship by former City player Francis Lee, whose paper business F.H Lee Ltd. had made him a multimillionaire. Lee gained control of the club by purchasing £3 million of shares at a price of £13.35 per share.[47]
Swales was offered a role as life president at the club upon his departure but he never returned to Maine Road. It was a sad departure for a chairman who loyally invested large sums of money into Manchester City in search of new success and greater parity with a resurgent Manchester United.[45] Swales died on 3 May 1996, 3 days before a now yoyo club, Manchester City were relegated from the top tier of English football.
You'll get no argument from me on what swales did. I know his story thoroughly.
What does that change? How is that a sting in the tail. You wont find me saying city never got investment nor will you find me saying that we weren't shockingly mismanaged during that and in particular the granny Lee era. So badly mismanaged we went from being one of England's top clubs to a joke over the period.
It's literally nothing to do with the Moores family and Merseyside's. i dont really care what paisley said. I'm pretty sure the crowds and gate receipts didn't go away so what changed. The football pools that's what changed.
Also there is zero correlation between what's happening at city and anything in the history of English football nevermind the Moores family and the merseysider clubs. My issue is with clubs who say "we did it without investment, all from our own hard work". The correlation is between the height of lfc peak and the height of littlewoods and the pools. And than once he bought 17% of Everton's them suddenly joining the pool at the top of English football.
Nope all the big clubs had wealthy benefactors. Like United, liverpool were brilliantly run, nor is me pointing out the correlation between John Moores and merseyside football a slight on liverpool nor everton. It's simply what happened.
The fans never went away nor did the gate receipts, the success only went away when littlewoods and the pools did.
What does that change? How is that a sting in the tail. You wont find me saying city never got investment nor will you find me saying that we weren't shockingly mismanaged during that and in particular the granny Lee era. So badly mismanaged we went from being one of England's top clubs to a joke over the period.
It's literally nothing to do with the Moores family and Merseyside's. i dont really care what paisley said. I'm pretty sure the crowds and gate receipts didn't go away so what changed. The football pools that's what changed.
Also there is zero correlation between what's happening at city and anything in the history of English football nevermind the Moores family and the merseysider clubs. My issue is with clubs who say "we did it without investment, all from our own hard work". The correlation is between the height of lfc peak and the height of littlewoods and the pools. And than once he bought 17% of Everton's them suddenly joining the pool at the top of English football.
Nope all the big clubs had wealthy benefactors. Like United, liverpool were brilliantly run, nor is me pointing out the correlation between John Moores and merseyside football a slight on liverpool nor everton. It's simply what happened.
The fans never went away nor did the gate receipts, the success only went away when littlewoods and the pools did.
But you still haven't showed any instances, or examples, where the Moores used their money to elevate Liverpool, & Everton ( to a lesser degree) to big things. The family were simply very rich people who owned a stake in both Merseyside clubs. They most certainly didn't 'bankroll' either club as your newspaper article suggested. They existed in an era where players were bought to make better teams, not better squads. Which in turn made for a more level playing field. There were no agents around back then prostituting their clients to the biggest bidders. & lets be real here, nobody stays at the top forever, regardless of the era. But if you really want to know the real reason why we won what we did in the 70's & 80's, & the reason that slowed down post 1990 - but never dried up it has to be said - is because of a man who went by the simple name of John Smith, or Sir John Smith as he was eventually known. See below:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sir-john-smith-obituaries-1571126.html
Our dominance of the 70's & 80's began in 1973 when he took over as Chairman of LFC - the same year we won the league & UEFA Cup - & it ended in 1990 - The year we won our last league title. So when you talked about coincidences in your previous posts, is it just 'coincidence' that the greatest, & most successful, period, of our existence, began, & ended, with his appointment, & eventually ended with his retirement ? You obviously know full well how much a chairman can influence the fortunes of a football club. So it won't surprise you to learn that our chairman - who also took over in 1973 - went along a totally different path to big-spending Peter Swales at Manchester City, & whereas we went on to setting the foundations for the very big club we are today, thanks to Sir John, your club spent a long time in the wilderness, & were known as a 'yo-yo' club. Flitting in between divisions season after season.
Let me just finish by saying this. We've seen with Manchester United ever since Ferguson retired that money alone can't keep you top of the tree. Even Real Madrid with their massive wealth built on their European Cup successes of the 50's & early 60's spent a long time out of the spotlight. Having the right people in charge at the club is absolutely fundamental for a football club to move forward. So for all the criticism that City receive, I think it's important to recognize that they are a very well run club. How long that lasts is anyone's guess. But sooner, rather than later, they'll have to fall in with everyone else in regards to not spending more than they 'legitimately' earn. It might well be then that we'll find out just how dependent your club is on having the massive financial advantage over other clubs. It might well be that you'll continue being well run & successful. But in the future when opposition fans start talking about the big 'leg-up' you received in getting you to the top, you certainly won't be able to deny it - with great justification - the way I have in relation to our connection with the Moores family & their great wealth.
I’ll bow to Redmans''s greater knowledge of the Moores family, and fully agree that Liverpool’s success was based around sensible long term planning, and the sense of recognising when an established player had lost his hunger.
It was the same at Old Trafford when many United fans questioned the early departures of Jaap Stam and Andree Kanchelskis etc.
However, United’s dynasty was undoubtedly kick-started by a huge cash outlay in the summer of 1989, when attendances were low, prize money was virtually non existent, and English clubs were still banned from European football.
Liverpool are slightly different, especially if you’re counting 1973 as Year Zero.
Rewind to the mystique of the early Shankly years, and ask yourself how a Second Division Club (averaging 30,000) could afford to smash their own club record for Ian St John, and Ron Yeats.
That’s the crux of the City argument
To sign Aguero, we needed Tevez, but to sign Tevez, we needed Robinho.
Of course, it cost stupid money, but that was almost ten years ago.
In complete contrast, the club is now succeeding, by following the same principles of Shankly, Paisley and Ferguson. Buy young hungry talent, and develop their potential.
To suggest that City have bottomless pockets is frankly absurd. Otherwise Jorginho, Fred, Sanchez and Van Dijk would all be wearing sky blue.
We only bought Mahrez last season, and he was largely funded by the sales of Gunn, Diaz, Rotondo, amd Maffeo.
Hopefully, Foden will become the player we all want him to be, because ultimately our lack of homegrown talent is the only major flaw.
It was the same at Old Trafford when many United fans questioned the early departures of Jaap Stam and Andree Kanchelskis etc.
However, United’s dynasty was undoubtedly kick-started by a huge cash outlay in the summer of 1989, when attendances were low, prize money was virtually non existent, and English clubs were still banned from European football.
Liverpool are slightly different, especially if you’re counting 1973 as Year Zero.
Rewind to the mystique of the early Shankly years, and ask yourself how a Second Division Club (averaging 30,000) could afford to smash their own club record for Ian St John, and Ron Yeats.
That’s the crux of the City argument
To sign Aguero, we needed Tevez, but to sign Tevez, we needed Robinho.
Of course, it cost stupid money, but that was almost ten years ago.
In complete contrast, the club is now succeeding, by following the same principles of Shankly, Paisley and Ferguson. Buy young hungry talent, and develop their potential.
To suggest that City have bottomless pockets is frankly absurd. Otherwise Jorginho, Fred, Sanchez and Van Dijk would all be wearing sky blue.
We only bought Mahrez last season, and he was largely funded by the sales of Gunn, Diaz, Rotondo, amd Maffeo.
Hopefully, Foden will become the player we all want him to be, because ultimately our lack of homegrown talent is the only major flaw.
The problem with going so far back is that it's difficult to really get a true perspective of transfer fees at that particular time. As for us breaking our own club record when we signed Ian St John for £37,500 in 1961. It could be argued that Bill Shankly had been right, & the club's directors had been pretty frugal when it came to buying players & that's why we were struggling to get out of the old 2nd division. For example: Manchester United paid £115,000 for Dennis Law just 12 months after we paid what we did for St John. 12 months prior to us signing the very same player Manchester City broke the British transfer record when they too signed Dennis Law for £55,000. When Shankly left Huddersfield to take over at Anfield in 1959 he wanted to take Law with him, but Liverpool couldn't afford him. That in itself paints a true picture, & it also shows that even way back then, the 2 Manchester clubs were spending more than we were.
Like I stated in my previous post, City haven't got to where they are by simply spending lots of money. It's good management behind the scenes that have helped contribute to that. I would say though that your club has been able to shop at Harrods for most of the time, whereas we've been more of a M&S shopper, who've occasionally been able to join you at the elite London store, but only after we've had to sell off some of our prized assets (Suarez, Coutinho, Sterling etc)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Pep spent 167m in 2016-17 clawing back only 12m for Jovetic and indeed only Jovetic and Demechelis left that season. So City were able to bring in 12 players, pay extra wages and transfer fees. Most clubs can't add a net of 10 players to their squad. To be fair City redressed this in 2017-18 moving on 16 and bringing in 9 a net movement of 7 players out. Spent 268m clawing back 89m. As you say outgoings in 2018-19 paid for Mahrez which was clever business by Guardiola. To illustrate the extent of player movement by the start of the 2018-19 season Guardiola had moved on 21 out of the 31 man squad he inherited from Pellegrini. Guardiola has now shaped his squad to his liking to the extent that I don't expect large number of outgoings and incomings from here on while he is there.
If I'd been drinking tea I'd have spat it out, for this is hilarious stuff. You were taken over in a friendly coup and are now a franchise belonging to a nation-state (of sorts).
We should try to get him on a free.
Didn't he say he was going back to play for Las Palmas? One of Man. City's greatest ever players anyway.
Is Aguero going back home in 2020 aswell or is it the next year? Band slowly breaking up a bit if we factor in a Pep departure around that time.
Is Aguero going back home in 2020 aswell or is it the next year? Band slowly breaking up a bit if we factor in a Pep departure around that time.
Aguero is 2021, I believe. Yeah he has mentioned a return home to Las Palmas but there has also been some talk of a move to Japan so maybe he'll go for a final pay-day before/rather than Las Palmas. Yeah there's going to be some big exits, but we have a young squad and the resources that should enable us to deal with it. We coped well enough without Toure and in all honesty if you'd have asked me a few years back which player I'd have been most worried about replacing it would have been him.