Man City's Insane Spending

[Thunderhead]

They spend well now because their insane wealth has bought them the luxury of being able to take plenty of shots in the early years, move on from failed transfers quickly with a really high turnover of players and then eventually settle on a really strong squad which only needs one or two additions each year.

You look at their recruitment now and it's all very calm and calculated and generally they buy well - but look at the first 7/8 years...I could list you 20+ horrible transfers that would have been a major problem for any other club, but not City because they can just write them off and move on.

I have shown many times that the real advantage the oil clubs have is being able to spend 4 or 5 times the market average across two or three windows. Both Chelsea and City did this and you can see Newcastle are starting to do it now. It allows them to build good squads very quickly, addressing several positions at once, whilst even very rich clubs like United or Real Madrid have to work to a budget.

United do spend insane money and we spend it very badly, but just to go back to us as an example...when we make a big-money transfer that doesn't work (i.e. Aaron Wan Bissaka) we are stuck with that player until either someone buys them and we take a loss or we coach them to do better. For comparison, just look how many full backs and centre backs City burnt through to settle on their current back four.

So it's a subject I find interesting. Yes, historical 'big' clubs with big budgets can spend large sums...but the biggest advantage of all is not having to work to any kind of budget and being able to 'fail fast'. It's the same in business, for what it's worth. Companies who can move on quickly from failed investments/projects/initiatives have an advantage.

I always laugh at the full back arguments, since 2009 we've signed 11 full backs and for a grand total of £230m, for central defenders we've signed about 11 since 2009 for about £350m, I wouldn't say that's excessive, £600m on defenders in 13 years, and there has only been Managala and Mendy who haven't really worked out who we never sold on and letting Savic go for free was always a mystery, so I wouldn't say we've bough loads and just let them rot because we can afford too.

João Cancelo £58m - decent
Angeliño - £10m - buy back made a profit on sale
Pedro Porro £10m - never played but looks a great talent, don't think we lost anything on the deal
Benjamin Mendy - £50 - urgh, looked great first few games till he did his knee, but awful human so good riddance
Kyle Walker - £50 - great signing
Danilo - £27m - ok, made a profit on the deal to bring in Cancelo
Bacary Sagna - Free - decent
Maicon £3.5m - woeful but meh
Gaël Clichy - £7m - decent
Aleksandar Kolarov - £21m - decent
Sylvinho - Free - short term freebie



Dias - 60m - decent
Ake £40m - decent, I wouldn't sell him but if he goes we haven't lost anything on the deal to Chelsea
Laporte - £60m - decent
Stones £50m - decent
Otamendi £40m - decent but slighlty overpayed but still played a good 4 seasons
Managala - £40m - Woeful
Demichelis - £5m - decent short term transfer
Nastatic £14m - sold for about 9m so nothing lost in the scheme of things
Savic £10m - no idea why we let him go for free after 1 season
Boetang £11m - duff but didn't lose money
Lescott £25m - decent at the time

 

[b20times]

They are just doing what we did 20 years ago albeit on a grander scale.
I think we should drop this calling it oil money and they're state owned as we look rather immature and childlike.
Yes I hate the fact they are better than us on and off the field but it won't last forever, we need to be ready to pounce when the have a downturn in luck.

 

[cyberman]

I always laugh at the full back arguments, since 2009 we've signed 11 full backs and for a grand total of £230m, for central defenders we've signed about 11 since 2009 for about £350m, I wouldn't say that's excessive, £600m on defenders in 13 years, and there has only been Managala and Mendy who haven't really worked out who we never sold on and letting Savic go for free was always a mystery, so I wouldn't say we've bough loads and just let them rot because we can afford too.

João Cancelo £58m - decent
Angeliño - £10m - buy back made a profit on sale
Pedro Porro £10m - never played but looks a great talent, don't think we lost anything on the deal
Benjamin Mendy - £50 - urgh, looked great first few games till he did his knee, but awful human so good riddance
Kyle Walker - £50 - great signing
Danilo - £27m - ok, made a profit on the deal to bring in Cancelo
Bacary Sagna - Free - decent
Maicon £3.5m - woeful but meh
Gaël Clichy - £7m - decent
Aleksandar Kolarov - £21m - decent
Sylvinho - Free - short term freebie



Dias - 60m - decent
Ake £40m - decent, I wouldn't sell him but if he goes we haven't lost anything on the deal to Chelsea
Laporte - £60m - decent
Stones £50m - decent
Otamendi £40m - decent but slighlty overpayed but still played a good 4 seasons
Managala - £40m - Woeful
Demichelis - £5m - decent short term transfer
Nastatic £14m - sold for about 9m so nothing lost in the scheme of things
Savic £10m - no idea why we let him go for free after 1 season
Boetang £11m - duff but didn't lose money
Lescott £25m - decent at the time

You’re blinded by the amount of millions you spend. 600m on defenders is insane and I’m guessing you’re not being generous with the fees since you’re trying to prove a point.
That’s 46m a year on defenders alone! And that started before the fees got out of control so feck knows what the first 7 years of that costs in todays money when including inflation

 

[1950]

I always laugh at the full back arguments, since 2009 we've signed 11 full backs and for a grand total of £230m, for central defenders we've signed about 11 since 2009 for about £350m, I wouldn't say that's excessive, £600m on defenders in 13 years, and there has only been Managala and Mendy who haven't really worked out who we never sold on and letting Savic go for free was always a mystery, so I wouldn't say we've bough loads and just let them rot because we can afford too.

João Cancelo £58m - decent
Angeliño - £10m - buy back made a profit on sale
Pedro Porro £10m - never played but looks a great talent, don't think we lost anything on the deal
Benjamin Mendy - £50 - urgh, looked great first few games till he did his knee, but awful human so good riddance
Kyle Walker - £50 - great signing
Danilo - £27m - ok, made a profit on the deal to bring in Cancelo
Bacary Sagna - Free - decent
Maicon £3.5m - woeful but meh
Gaël Clichy - £7m - decent
Aleksandar Kolarov - £21m - decent
Sylvinho - Free - short term freebie



Dias - 60m - decent
Ake £40m - decent, I wouldn't sell him but if he goes we haven't lost anything on the deal to Chelsea
Laporte - £60m - decent
Stones £50m - decent
Otamendi £40m - decent but slighlty overpayed but still played a good 4 seasons
Managala - £40m - Woeful
Demichelis - £5m - decent short term transfer
Nastatic £14m - sold for about 9m so nothing lost in the scheme of things
Savic £10m - no idea why we let him go for free after 1 season
Boetang £11m - duff but didn't lose money
Lescott £25m - decent at the time

Savić wasn't a free out, he went the other way in the Nastasić deal. You also forgot these two:

Wayne Bridge £12m
Kolo Touré £17m

 

[Beachryan]

Yes … this is called hypocrisy or perhaps two-facedness … when it suits you, a regime (generally brown skinned and with a system of governance different to yours) is an ally/investor but when it doesn’t suit you, they’re disgusting and should be a pariah.
City get hate on this forum because not only do they spend well ( youth infra, etc) but they can spend at least as much as you. This the reality.

I appreciate your effort in writing all that and I did read it but as the saying goes - “if you’re explaining, then you’re losing.”

Wow, that's some serious sh*t right there. I'll leave the politics out of it because clearly your understanding barely warrants addressing it.

The reason City and Chelsea are disliked is not because they 'do things well and spend as much as you'. It's because they spend a multiple of every club not called Manchester United. Sure, City looking like a great window this season - bully for them. What an achievement.

City have operated at a loss every season since they were purchased, and will continue to do so. In most seasons, City spend the most on transfers, the most on wages (or in the top 2/3). City certainly spend the most on infrastructure, on managers, on staff, on lunches and gifts for the media, on promotions, on everything. And City is able to do this not because of outstanding success at being a football club, but because it is owned by sovereign wealth and does not have to exist in any reality which all but a small handful of competing football clubs do.

Is City incredibly well run today? Absolutely. It's almost inarguably the best club in the world today. Is that because of great long term strategy, vision and development? Also yes. Could any other club, without City's backers have achieved this over the medium to long term? No. Could any club replicate again without City's backers? No. Is City's model one that should be applauded, studied and used by others? No.

City's model is only replicable if you happen to be one of the richest entities in the world. Should we have a SPORTING league where that is the only way to build a dynasty? No.

Also - and this shouldn't be difficult to understand - City got caught cheating, extensively and like all rich kids, just paid lawyers and cheated the system to get away with it.

 

[EricIn93]

Don't kid yourselves with blind hatred. They make good decisions on top of having unlimited funds. They buy well, they sell well, they employ very capable people, and modern players don't care about jumping on bandwagons (they just want medals).
To make matters worse Real Madrid and Barca have money issues so the best players are left to chose between PSG and Man City for the top wage. In order to compete with them we need a great Manager and staff, top scouts, and a top 3 League finish to attract players.
During this era of Pep and Klopp, it is a nightmare for us which we need to ride out without becoming too mediocre.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

For comparison, just look how many full backs and centre backs City burnt through to settle on their current back four.

Is it really that many?
The only City defender from before Guardiola joined who is still playing regular top level football is Otamendi, everyone else is retired or playing in weaker leagues (Clichy) or not regularly (Mangala). It's not like City could have not bought players.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

They are just doing what we did 20 years ago albeit on a grander scale.
I think we should drop this calling it oil money and they're state owned as we look rather immature and childlike.
Yes I hate the fact they are better than us on and off the field but it won't last forever, we need to be ready to pounce when the have a downturn in luck.

Load of rubbish.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

You’re right. Now you mention it we should protest anything with Middle East investment. We can start with UAE & Saudi in particular so we can really show our detest for the City & Newcastle ownerships.

It’ll be tough though, both countries do run huge wealth funds and own big stakes in things we use everyday; Disney, Apple, Facebook, Boeing, Uber, most banks, and also have stakes in other huge investment funds like Berkshire Hathaway to cover the rest. It gets worse too, what should we do about Aramco providing oil to the rest of the world, as well as all of the Sponsorships they have? I’ll stop watching Formula 1.

Now you mention it, I’m probably just not going to leave my house, and I’ll have to get rid of a few things inside it. Also going to stop being friends with anybody who has ever been on holiday to Dubai, but it’s for the best because you know.. Politics!

I’m in if you are.

Whatabout...
Whatabout...
Don't look at me. Whatabout...

 

[Fluctuation0161]

They are just doing what we did 20 years ago albeit on a grander scale.
I think we should drop this calling it oil money and they're state owned as we look rather immature and childlike.
Yes I hate the fact they are better than us on and off the field but it won't last forever, we need to be ready to pounce when the have a downturn in luck.

Total rubbish.

 

[Zen86]

People saying it won’t last forever as if it’s a normal cycle in football

 

[RedCoffee]

Their spending is anything but insane. Its focused, manageable, productive, etc etc. Everything our insane spending should be but isn't.

 

[AltiUn]

Their spending is anything but insane. Its focused, manageable, productive, etc etc. Everything our insane spending should be but isn't.

No it isn't it's completely fecking mental.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

+ Ko Itakura to Gladbach and Sam Edozie to B. Leverkusen

Wow forgot about those..

 

[overdunne]

You’re blinded by the amount of millions you spend. 600m on defenders is insane and I’m guessing you’re not being generous with the fees since you’re trying to prove a point.
That’s 46m a year on defenders alone! And that started before the fees got out of control so feck knows what the first 7 years of that costs in todays money when including inflation

46m a year!?! Lordy, that’s like half a Harry a year!

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

20 plus? Is that a wind up?

You've made more than 20 bad transfers since the takeover.

2008/9 - Robinho, Jo, Ben Haim
2009/10 - Roque Santa Cruz, Adam Johnson
2010/11 - Balotelli
2011/12 - Nasri, Savic, Pantilimon
2012/13 - Garcia, Nastasic, Rodwell, Sinclair, Maicon
2013/14 - Jovetic, Negredo, Navas
2014/15 - Mangala, Bony, Fernando, Caballero, Zuculini
2015/16 - Roberts, Onal
2016/17 - Bravo, Nolito, Moreno, Rulli

These are only the multi million signings. You signed many more players for less than a million who vanished without trace. You also signed many players on free's who had done well at previous clubs. Many of these players would have been on massive wages. They also flopped. You were able to move them on but you had to pay them off or contribute towards their wages.

There are players in the 08/17 list, Negredo, Bravo that won a title in ther spells with you. These players have to be considered flops also. Bravo was a terrible keeper full stop. Negredo was a good striker but only stayed 1 season. No clubs buy players in their prime in the expectation that they will only be at the club for 1 season.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

They are just doing what we did 20 years ago albeit on a grander scale.
I think we should drop this calling it oil money and they're state owned as we look rather immature and childlike.
Yes I hate the fact they are better than us on and off the field but it won't last forever, we need to be ready to pounce when the have a downturn in luck.

Total crock of clueless drivel.

 

[AshRK]

Whenever anyone says City always spend money, City fans quicky "But but but net spend, but but Manchester United...."

Just admit you spend the most and are lucky to have sheikhs as your owners. Why this playing around the bush crap. That's what bugs me the most with them. It's like they want to show they are winning everything like Leicester did in 2015-16. Well if not for Sheikhs, you would be competing with Leeds right now.

 

[cyberman]

46m a year!?! Lordy, that’s like half a Harry a year!

And we only bought him once

 

[MongeySpangle]

You've made more than 20 bad transfers since the takeover.

2008/9 - Robinho, Jo, Ben Haim
2009/10 - Roque Santa Cruz, Adam Johnson
2010/11 - Balotelli
2011/12 - Nasri, Savic, Pantilimon
2012/13 - Garcia, Nastasic, Rodwell, Sinclair, Maicon
2013/14 - Jovetic, Negredo, Navas
2014/15 - Mangala, Bony, Fernando, Caballero, Zuculini
2015/16 - Roberts, Onal
2016/17 - Bravo, Nolito, Moreno, Rulli

These are only the multi million signings. You signed many more players for less than a million who vanished without trace. You also signed many players on free's who had done well at previous clubs. Many of these players would have been on massive wages. They also flopped. You were able to move them on but you had to pay them off or contribute towards their wages.

There are players in the 08/17 list, Negredo, Bravo that won a title in ther spells with you. These players have to be considered flops also. Bravo was a terrible keeper full stop. Negredo was a good striker but only stayed 1 season. No clubs buy players in their prime in the expectation that they will only be at the club for 1 season.

Most of the signings you mentioned here are the kinds of signings that most big clubs make two or three times every year. How can you seriously say that most of these signings would have ruined most other clubs when all but five or six of them cost us less than 20 million? And even then a good proportion of them we went to sell on for a profit (including Negredo). So your point that we just shoot on a player and hope that it works and if it doesn’t we can go for someone else doesn’t make any sense, because the vast majority of players you’re mentioning here we got our money back from.

I’m not saying that the majority of these weren’t poor transfers, believe me, they were. But to say that other top clubs wouldn’t have been able to carry out these transfers is completely false.

 

[overdunne]

And we only bought him once

So far………

 

[cyberman]

So far………

I don’t get what this point is? You’ve only spent 600m on defender so far? One is consistent over many years, other is a Woodward brain fart

 

[ForeverRed1]

Just watched their unveiling of new signings on YouTube... wow it’s pretty cringe but I’m jealous of haaland signing.

 

[kaiser1]

City cheat in every way they can afford to. I guarantee a lot of these supposedly high fee player sales are just creative accounting in order to meet FFP (like every other method of creative accounting they do) in order to justify their ridiculous spending.

You mean Chelsea Southampton deliberately inflate the prices they paid for these City players just to cover up for Citeh

 

[kaiser1]

Whenever anyone says City always spend money, City fans quicky "But but but net spend, but but Manchester United...."

Just admit you spend the most and are lucky to have sheikhs as your owners. Why this playing around the bush crap. That's what bugs me the most with them. It's like they want to show they are winning everything like Leicester did in 2015-16. Well if not for Sheikhs, you would be competing with Leeds right now.

Is there any club who has been able to consistently compete with the top clubs without spending serious money?

 

[AshRK]

Is there any club who has been able to consistently compete with the top clubs without spending serious money?

Probably none but that's not my point. For example I will never say Manchester United don't spend big. City fans (at least most)get defensive whenever someone points at their insane spending.

 

[GazTheLegend]

You mean Chelsea Southampton deliberately inflate the prices they paid for these City players just to cover up for Citeh

There's a lot of creative ways a club can report the fee they paid for a player. Joe Shields is now at Southampton.

Look up "project longbow Man city". I wish I was joking.

 

[b20times]

Total crock of clueless drivel.

I'm just being honest and posting without my red tinted glasses on.

 

[b20times]

Total rubbish.

Like I said to previous person posting a reply, I'm just being honest and not wearing my red specs.

 

[Biggins]

You mean Chelsea Southampton deliberately inflate the prices they paid for these City players just to cover up for Citeh

If this means paying less for the particular player? Absolutely, I believe that Chelsea and Soton would not mind inflating the public price. Happens in other businesses as well…

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Like I said to previous person posting a reply, I'm just being honest and not wearing my red specs.

Your comparison with United from 20 years ago is crazy. For one, most of Uniteds best players had come through the academy. Scholes, Giggs, Beckham. The Neville brothers, o'shea and Nicky Butt were a core part of the squad. All developed in house.

United would occasionally spend big on a player in the 90s and 00s but were regularly outspent by other clubs. And any money made stemmed from success, which came from managing a club properly. Not faking sponsorships and pissing away hundred of millions every season. The growth was organic.

The scenarios are not comparable at all regardless of what colour glasses you may have. You'd have to have blinkers on not to see the clear and obvious differences.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Your comparison with United from 20 years ago is crazy. For one, most of Uniteds best players had come through the academy. Scholes, Giggs, Beckham. The Neville brothers, o'shea and Nicky Butt were a core part of the squad. All developed in house.

United would occasionally spend big on a player in the 90s and 00s but were regularly outspent by other clubs. And any money made stemmed from success, which came from managing a club properly. Not faking sponsorships and pissing away hundred of millions every season. The growth was organic.

The scenarios are not comparable at all regardless of what colour glasses you may have. You'd have to have blinkers on not to see the clear and obvious differences.

I also don't remember when United went out and bought and owned a bunch of football clubs? But you know they're the same.

 

[weetee]

If this means paying less for the particular player? Absolutely, I believe that Chelsea and Soton would not mind inflating the public price. Happens in other businesses as well…

I‘m at a loss here. The public prices don‘t account for the FFP? I thought the OP meant CFC or Soton payed inflated prices to City to help them with FFP which just doesn‘t make any sense for them business wise (unless it was implyed that those clubs would receive substantial under the counter payments by city, not impossible but also not what this „shady image rights dealings“ leak was about, no? Not to mention that those sums would have to be enormous to account for the risk involved (footballleaks were mentioned already regarding this).

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'm just being honest and posting without my red tinted glasses on.

No, you’ve got your utterly clueless as feck steamed up glasses on. Give them a wipe.

 

[MongeySpangle]

I‘m at a loss here. The public prices don‘t account for the FFP? I thought the OP meant CFC or Soton payed inflated prices to City to help them with FFP which just doesn‘t make any sense for them business wise (unless it was implyed that those clubs would receive substantial under the counter payments by city, not impossible but also not what this „shady image rights dealings“ leak was about, no? Not to mention that those sums would have to be enormous to account for the risk involved (footballleaks were mentioned already regarding this).

Agreed, it’s absolute nonsense.

 

[RedBanker]

The entire world and it's effin uncle know that City are spending limitlessly. What's anyone with power actually done about it? Any bans? Any fines? Any points docked? Don't waste time cribbing here. They will continue to do what they are doing and will continue to buy success very very successfully.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I also don't remember when United went out and bought and owned a bunch of football clubs? But you know they're the same.

Yep. Or bought Girona FC for our managers brother as an allegedly "off the books" sweetener deal.

Why Girona? Manchester City’s deal with Pep Guardiola’s brother raises questions
Of all the football deals in all the world, what attracted Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi owner and executives to go into business with their manager Pep Guardiola’s brother and agent?
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions

 

[Lentwood]

Like I said to previous person posting a reply, I'm just being honest and not wearing my red specs.

It's not an accurate comparison at all. There is this myth that United spent their way to dominance in the 90s and early 00s but it just doesn't stack-up when you look at the numbers. Sure, we spent money, but so did Blackburn, Newcastle, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and more at various points in-time. We weren't spending in a vacuum and we weren't outspending the average of our rivals. We always had a budget, and it was always basically in-line with whomever our main rivals were at the time.

As I keep pointing out, and some seem to get it and some don't, it's being able to spend huge amounts of money in a short period of time relative to the average that is a real 'cheat-code' advantage that propels mediocre sides like City and Chelsea into the teams they are today.

Remember the absolute shower of sh**e that City and Chelsea started out with? They would just buy anybody and hope it worked out. Some, like Sergio Aguero became 'legends', whilst for every one of those there were multiple Adebayor's, Roque Santa Cruz's, Robinho's, Valeri Bojinov's, Ballotelli's, Martin Petrov's, Fernando's, Carlos Tevez's, Craig Bellamy's, Jo's etc....

Fact is, you remember the good transfers because they stuck around and became successes, so it's easy to forget all the crap they threw at the wall to end-up with that good squad in the first-place. It's not like they spent ages scouting the globe and carefully selected a young Sergio Aguero...they just signed so many players they were bound to stumble on someone.

You think for one second that if City had shareholders to appease and budgets to consider that they would have enjoyed the dominance they currently do? Every time they bought a Santa Cruz or an Adebayor or a Robinho they would have had to ask themselves "do we stick or twist?" every season. Do we sell them and buy a replacement? Do we address other areas of the squad and 'make do' for now? No, they just bought as many players as they could and discarded the failures.

Their total spend could still have been huge but working to a budget and having to do things much more slowly and in a much more calculated manner makes each signing more critical.

As I mentioned, it all looks very calm and calculated now, and of course it is.....but be under no illusions, they bought that luxury and it cost them billions!

United, on the other hand, squandered our carefully constructed advantage during the 'no value in the market' years during the initial 5 years of Glazer ownership. Since then, our recruitment has been terrible and we now face the reality of yes being super-rich but also having a budget. So the point being, we need to replace several players but we can't do that all at once, it will have to be a gradual process over 6/7 windows and the pressure to get each signing right is huge.

 

[overdunne]

I don’t get what this point is? You’ve only spent 600m on defender so far? One is consistent over many years, other is a Woodward brain fart

That quote? My point is I expect him to leave and then expect you to buy him again. Might not happen but “Maguirementary” has a nice ring to it.

 

[Noot]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Southampton have appointed our head of youth development this summer, that's why.