That is the point innit? We have the money (ok not bottomless oil money and fake sponsorship companies), but we are not run like a football club. The money spent also goes up into the smoke most of the time.
Man City's Insane Spending
- Thread starter marktan
- Start date
You've forgotten the £60m in agents fees and the £20m signing bonus for Haaland. Also, the prices you expect to rake in for Jesus and Sterling seem at the very top of the range, and I doubt you will actually achieve that.
Really so we don't count agent fee's on other transfers? Why do we on that? You can't pick and choose when to count them. In fact the last transfer I remember where agent fees were bandied about as much as with Haaland was Pogba. If you wanna tell me the agent fees Raiola got. Why aren't we talking agent fees for big Harry or Varane or anyone really?
It also wasn't near £60m but whatever add 50% made up fees to feel good.
https://theathletic.com/3308080/2022/05/13/manchester-city-34m-agent-fees-haaland-deal-thing-past/
What goes around comes around and Newcastle will come around and City will be a well run club that wins nothing and means nothing. And then Abu Dhabi will turn to another league’s club to become their City franchise’s sportswashing leader and we will laugh once more.
Those fees included agent fees. E.g. Pogba's £80m transfer included something like £20m in agent fees. For some reason we're not including it for Halland?
And Bernado, Sterling etc have been on the move for two summers now. You can talk about net spend when they've actually sold those players.
You CIty and Chelsea broke the net spend system so you can't compare. You have such an advantage with spending so much on buying so many young players, loaning 20+ a year (or keep some to build up) and then sell the best ones. Your books are always gonna look decent when you do this.
I'd question any City deal like this, they wanted 50mil from us and they sell for 42mil to the richest team in the league. Also a player going to Leeds for a small price in the separate deal so I'm sure nothing is going on with that.
I don’t care about net spending as that can be fiddled. I care about gross spend and it is gross.
The player going the other way eats into the price and lowers the net spend. Also they probably asked you for £40m but Ed and Arnold haggled the wrong direction.
The idea that selling youth players to balance the books is somehow gaming the system is deluded. If players don't make it at City should we let them go for free?
Problem here is that while they have money, they are also well run. Personally, I think with transfers you need to look at wages and fees. So, people tying themselves in knots over Häland should just agree he is like £200m-£300m for his contract. That is where there financial power comes in.
On the other hand, they do shift players for good money and it appears that the players they're selling aren't on much less (possibly more) than the ones they're buying.
As a result, I am a bit on the fence, yes, they have financial power, but they are also incredibly run. Utd tbh, don't have a real reason not to be in a similar position with their revenues. The only reason is the Glazers and the way the club is ru . I mean,let's be real, other clubs would've taken him on those terms; Utd (I reckon the Glazers would've done it if possible as they do lay out if if they could stop taking dividends) Real, Chelsea (if they didn't buy Lukaku), PSG etc.) So, it isn't only them and they are actually winning stuff and play good football, so it isn't that outrageous they got him.
However, people also need to understand how powerful being well run is and City are that (I do fecking hate saying this btw.)
On the other hand, they do shift players for good money and it appears that the players they're selling aren't on much less (possibly more) than the ones they're buying.
As a result, I am a bit on the fence, yes, they have financial power, but they are also incredibly run. Utd tbh, don't have a real reason not to be in a similar position with their revenues. The only reason is the Glazers and the way the club is ru . I mean,let's be real, other clubs would've taken him on those terms; Utd (I reckon the Glazers would've done it if possible as they do lay out if if they could stop taking dividends) Real, Chelsea (if they didn't buy Lukaku), PSG etc.) So, it isn't only them and they are actually winning stuff and play good football, so it isn't that outrageous they got him.
However, people also need to understand how powerful being well run is and City are that (I do fecking hate saying this btw.)
Referring to Haaland as just 51 million is really, really annoying.
I can agree with this if its reported the same for everyone so for example Pogba is reported as costing United £250m (or whatever for his 6 years).
I do agree total cost would be a fairer way to describe transfer, wages, fees, transfer cost, add ons etc.. as long as its all transfers.
Is referring to Bruno as £43m really annoying? Or Ronaldo as £15m?
They spending a lot, but let's face it, judging by this window they'll probably sell players for quite a bit of money too making the net spent low
Whereas, we are bloody shambles at selling anything for any worth. Just a terrible ran club, even if we had oil money.
Whereas, we are bloody shambles at selling anything for any worth. Just a terrible ran club, even if we had oil money.
They’re run on the basis that there are no consequences for getting it wrong. £100m on Grealish is a massive error but it doesn’t matter. They can just eat that loss and move on. Nobody else can do that apart from the other oil clubs.
Didn't Grealish just win the league? Are City looking to cut their losses and get rid?
Careful. Members on the cafe will tell you to calm down and give it a rest if you criticise the board.
Yes
And the poor running of our club, which filters to the players, their unrealistic wages and contacts and subsequent dissent and poor performances and effort on the pitch stems from our owners.
City’s murdering sportwashers want to make a good impression to the west by impressing them by good and impressive football. That will help them deflect attention from their human rights abuses.
Our owners want to make money off the back of an institution, which is loved and supported (financially) by millions of people. They don’t care about anything but the money that lines their pockets. Success on the field is nothing because they can cream dividends off our history.
Both approaches are wrong ethically.
But theirs is working better on the football field
It would help if we had any decent players to sell over that time but we don't and haven't.
Dude, no. Just no.
No because they are smarter than that - he was a poor signing and will be sold in a year or 2 for a fee closer to his actual value (50-60m)
I guess this is another thread about City's success is based on spending more money than other clubs in EPL. This is just not true.
Not quite true. FFP aren’t standard business rules and debt doesn’t tell us anything. Even using your logic, it’d be a completely viable business and actually very lucrative…
City were bought for £210m in 2008, and they’ve since sold a 13% Stake to a Chinese consortium in 2015 for £265m, and then a 10% Stake to Silver Lake in 2019 for £390m. The latest valuation (let’s use Forbes May 2022) is £3.4bn so the owners remaining 77% stake is now worth £2.6bn.
When you add it all up the £210m investment has now returned a total of £3.25bn to date, Even if you discount all revenue that the club brings in and assume the £1bn transfer spend was entirely self-funding by the owners, it’s not been too bad for them has it... would certainly still exist.
No they came from rags to riches by using their own club money sources and spending smartly in the market - not because of the billion+ their owners put up.
The consequence for spending on Grealish instead of a striker is to play without a striker for an entire season
But they literally have spent more money than anyone else in the PL, by a considerable distance at that.
They literally had to change the loan rules so you and Chelsea had to stop doing it to the level you did. To suggest you stocking up on young players spending 100s of millions to do so to sell to say is deluded shows how City fans have no idea whats going on.
Life is good if you're pep.
Now watch him get knocked out by some French team in the quarter-finals.
Now watch him get knocked out by some French team in the quarter-finals.
You may have a point, but if henderson were at city, they'd sell him for a good price. And we didn't sell certain players at certain times we should like Martial/Lingard in my opinion, which would have been good sales, but that's another discussion entirely
I know anything can be edited to suit, but I remember watching their All Or Nothing and thinking that club is unbelievably well run.
And it’s played out that way in terms of the football and the recruitment.
And it’s played out that way in terms of the football and the recruitment.
Or Alexis Sanchez as a free transfer as many claimed?
Well there’s a reason you’re not running a football club then.
They are runned by a state central bank, they can print money and have unlimited funds, like psg
It’s really easy
It’s really easy
Juventus paid those. It was part of the deal when they signed him on a free from us (the first time!). And it was an obscene amount.
Anyway, your club is bankrolled by human rights abusing cnuts. Enjoy your success though. I'm sure you do.
Last edited:
state funded club. they’re pretty much an ad.
they’re not going to ease up nor let their domination slip.
they’re not going to ease up nor let their domination slip.
I don’t think any of us on a forum are running football clubs
The fact remains you have invested over a billion and can easily manipulate net spend in recent years as a resultSo you’re saying that net spend is easily manipulated but gross spend isn’t? I don’t really understand your logic here. Unless of course it’s to put United in a more favourable light when realistically your spending has been just as exorbitant and with far less success.I don’t think any of us on a forum are running football clubs
You can never convince anyone here. It is also good to point out that Newcastle seems really well run as well and does the right thing about not buy rejects from top 6 clubs so far.
How do they get so many internationals for 40 to 50 million. Richest club in the world and clubs aren't taking them to the cleaners in the same way they are us.
Dodgy as hell, absolutely no chance the fees are so low.
Dodgy as hell, absolutely no chance the fees are so low.
The fact that, as I predicted, Man City have already made another signing while we’re still chasing the same player we’ve been linked with since May. Is nothing to do with City’s spending power.
Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool are all doing business and leaving us behind. We are fundamentally an incompetent club. We have leeches as owners, but the main problem in regards to on the pitch success is the people between the owners and the manager are not very good at what they do. And despite the apparent reshuffle I don’t think anything has changed as we can see by the way this window is going.
Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool are all doing business and leaving us behind. We are fundamentally an incompetent club. We have leeches as owners, but the main problem in regards to on the pitch success is the people between the owners and the manager are not very good at what they do. And despite the apparent reshuffle I don’t think anything has changed as we can see by the way this window is going.
Last edited:
To be fair, I am counting Haaland's Dad as an agent, so the £60m includes the money paid to him.
And yes we don't count the agents fees on normal transfers, because they are not crazy. The only contract that comes close to Haaland in agency and signing-on fees is Mbappe, and that was effectively in lieu of a transfer fee. No shock that that also involves an oil club.