They certainly are a 'well rub club' in terms if their management/ownership structure. They have a manager, director of football (or similar) and owners who all work in tandem with each other. An identified system on the pitch and footballing people who can identify the correct players to fit that system and owners who will pay the money. Obviously they're backed by a state and it goes without saying that their success is all a bit meaningless, but in terms of how they operate, it's pretty much bang on for achieving success. The blueprint for Pep started long before he even arrived. It's seamless, and the total opposite to what we've being doing over the past 10 years. Hence the fact that we've spent very similar amounts of money, but whilst we have a mid table squad and win feck all, they have the best squad in Europe and win trophies season after season.
Man City's Insane Spending
- Thread starter marktan
- Start date
For most clubs that would eat into the following years budget. City have shown that doesn’t matter to them.
You're forgetting that Abu Dhabi is artificially inflating the commercial income by about £150m a year. Without that illegal support, the club would have collapsed into insolvency long ago.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.
That's not even including all the illegal activity that has come to light in the leaks about how the club has moved costs off the balance sheet (such as selling worthless image rights to a connected company for tens of millions or employing the manager as a "tourism ambassador" without requiring him to do anything just so you can bung him an extra few million a year that is not caught by FFP).
Without the illegal support of Abu Dhabi, City would have done a "Leeds" - imploded, and spent a decade in the championship.
Did it have anything to do with Jack Grealish? When you needed three goals to win the league, Grealish was left to sit and watch.
They'll win it eventually. It's like watching a bad darts player struggle to checkout. Eventually they'll hit that double 1.
Agreed. Like completing a game on the easiest mode with cheats available. Liverpools two big trophies under Klopp were actual achievements which bothers me to say.
City and PSG have really affected my love and interest for football. Not that the system was ideal before but now it's FUBAR
Just to highlight Man City, and something people don’t pay attention about. Already they’ve received £7.5m for Pedro Porro, a player whose never played for them. While we can’t get a fee for Henderson.
Last summer they spent £121m, but sold £84m.
The year before they spent £155m but sold around £69m.
A lot of it does come down to competence and getting top prices for players they sell. Whether it’s £50m for Torres or £7m for a guy most of us have never heard of.
Last summer they spent £121m, but sold £84m.
The year before they spent £155m but sold around £69m.
A lot of it does come down to competence and getting top prices for players they sell. Whether it’s £50m for Torres or £7m for a guy most of us have never heard of.
Success is success. It's PL version of Galacticos. In a decade all people will remember are the records.
comment of the dayHere come the resident Tranmere and Deportivo supporters telling us it’s only what United did in the 90s
Tbf, they paid £11m for Porro three years ago. Buying Bazunu for £420,000 and selling him for £15m to Southampton would have been a better example.
Possibly the worst post I have ever seen on here.I refuse to accept that they dont inflate their players pay packages with off shore dealings. They can quite literally field 2 PL teams and none of their players or agents go around mouthing how its their dream to play for Madrid or Barca or BS other teams including us have heard over and over again.
Is it ? Theyve won 6 titles in 10 years and dont look like slowing down. Another decade of dominance while we continue to find our next SAF and its doable
We have 20 titles not 13, so yes it is.
He probably meant 13 PL titles
Relax, City just made £45m from Arsenal
I'm afraid it's yet another Redcafe post. And as the young posters grow in here it's only going to get worse. You oldies pushing the 92 PL narrative take some of the blame.
If anyone seriously believes City aren’t cooking the books with what they actually pay players and staff, they are in cloud cuckoo land.
It’ll all come out eventually, once gagging orders have expired. The Mancini one slipped out already.
Times that by all the staff and you are talking billions more than has been stated.
It’ll all come out eventually, once gagging orders have expired. The Mancini one slipped out already.
Times that by all the staff and you are talking billions more than has been stated.
They do things right. We have been able to spend more than them but we've done it poorly.
One example. We had Pogba for 6 years. We didn't play him in the left of a 3 man midfield alongside a CDM and an 8. We could have done, we had Herrera and Matic. We even signed Fred for didn't get a CDM when his legs went.
That was the only system our single world class (albeit limited) outfield player worked best in. We didn't build around him and we didn't get rid of him.
We signed Lukaku and we didn't build around him or play to a style that suited him.
We've been missing a proper right back and right winger since the LVG era. Young and Valencia did a job. We made do with Mata, Lingard, Rashford at times...
Why do we mess up in the market so often? A new CB every summer. To what purpose? Why did we sign Sanchez?
Why did we sign Mikhitaryan when we had Mata and Lingard? Why did we play counter attacking hoofball when we had Pogba, Mata, Mikhi and Herrera in midfield?
City had a plan. They executed it. We seem to be in a new panic every year.
One example. We had Pogba for 6 years. We didn't play him in the left of a 3 man midfield alongside a CDM and an 8. We could have done, we had Herrera and Matic. We even signed Fred for didn't get a CDM when his legs went.
That was the only system our single world class (albeit limited) outfield player worked best in. We didn't build around him and we didn't get rid of him.
We signed Lukaku and we didn't build around him or play to a style that suited him.
We've been missing a proper right back and right winger since the LVG era. Young and Valencia did a job. We made do with Mata, Lingard, Rashford at times...
Why do we mess up in the market so often? A new CB every summer. To what purpose? Why did we sign Sanchez?
Why did we sign Mikhitaryan when we had Mata and Lingard? Why did we play counter attacking hoofball when we had Pogba, Mata, Mikhi and Herrera in midfield?
City had a plan. They executed it. We seem to be in a new panic every year.
The difference between City and the non oil clubs is they not only have ridiculous financial backing but their failures in the tranafer market just simply don't matter, it does not effect them. Not only that but their investment is seemingly never ending and uncapped.
Other clubs do not have this benefit. It's easy to run a club well with such advantages.
Other clubs do not have this benefit. It's easy to run a club well with such advantages.
Didn’t know that. Assumed he was bought cheap and sold higher. Like the Bazunu guy you mentioned (another I’ve never heard of) but even the £7m.. would United get a similar fee?
Knock off £2.1bn for your £150m a year even since 2008 and it’s still lucrative.. we might have invested big but the value and quality of the squad today absolutely represents that. What’s your excuse?
Man City transfer in past 5 years:
22-23
In: 99m?
Out: 52m?
Net spending: 47m?
21-22
In: 121m
Out: 84m
Net spending: 37m
20-21
In: 155m
Out: 69m
Net spending: 78m
19-20
In: 143m
Out: 64m
Net Spending: 79m
18-19
In: 70m
Out: 51m
Net Spending: 19m
Total transfer spending in 5 years: 588m (avg 117m per season)
Total transfer income in 5 years: 320m (avg 64m per season)
Total net spending in 5 years: 260m (average 52m per season)
Man Utd transfer in past 5 years:
22-23
In: 0m?
Out: 0m?
Net spending: 0m?
21-22
In: 126m
Out: 27m
Net spending: 99m
20-21
In: 75m
Out: 17m
Net spending: 58m
19-20
In: 211m
Out: 73m
Net Spending: 138m
18-19
In: 74m
Out: 27m
Net Spending: 47m
Total transfer spending in 4 years: 486m (avg 121m per season)
Total transfer income in 4 years: 144m (avg 34m per season)
Total net spending in 4 years: 342m (average 85m per season)
So actually we have probably been even bigger spender than City over past 5 years. I think the biggest difference is, they have always managed to raise back some profits from players sales, while we don't.
22-23
In: 99m?
Out: 52m?
Net spending: 47m?
21-22
In: 121m
Out: 84m
Net spending: 37m
20-21
In: 155m
Out: 69m
Net spending: 78m
19-20
In: 143m
Out: 64m
Net Spending: 79m
18-19
In: 70m
Out: 51m
Net Spending: 19m
Total transfer spending in 5 years: 588m (avg 117m per season)
Total transfer income in 5 years: 320m (avg 64m per season)
Total net spending in 5 years: 260m (average 52m per season)
Man Utd transfer in past 5 years:
22-23
In: 0m?
Out: 0m?
Net spending: 0m?
21-22
In: 126m
Out: 27m
Net spending: 99m
20-21
In: 75m
Out: 17m
Net spending: 58m
19-20
In: 211m
Out: 73m
Net Spending: 138m
18-19
In: 74m
Out: 27m
Net Spending: 47m
Total transfer spending in 4 years: 486m (avg 121m per season)
Total transfer income in 4 years: 144m (avg 34m per season)
Total net spending in 4 years: 342m (average 85m per season)
So actually we have probably been even bigger spender than City over past 5 years. I think the biggest difference is, they have always managed to raise back some profits from players sales, while we don't.
Same. Is anyone deluded enough to think that if City were in our position they'd be haggling over the last €10m for De Jong? City spunked and spunked and spunked until something stuck and then they took advantage by throwing limitless gold at Pep and his backroom staff. It's all but competition in name. It really is farcical and anyone with half a brain is able to recognise it as such.
I highly doubt that.
What is this nonsense about net spend? If I earn a shatload of money from my job, with plenty of money on my savings account and buy a new car worth 100.000 pounds, but only sell my old one for a mere 1000 pounds, some would say it was a net spend of 99.000 pounds.
If someone without an income bought a similar car but sold his current one for 50.000, it makes for a net spend of 50.000. According to that fecked up logic, the latter is the the better financially.
if you want to include net spend, you must include all variables. What you bought them for, wages, club’s other incomes, sales incomes, sponsorships etc.
United would never be able to buy Phillips for 45 mill though. At least 60. Why?
If someone without an income bought a similar car but sold his current one for 50.000, it makes for a net spend of 50.000. According to that fecked up logic, the latter is the the better financially.
if you want to include net spend, you must include all variables. What you bought them for, wages, club’s other incomes, sales incomes, sponsorships etc.
United would never be able to buy Phillips for 45 mill though. At least 60. Why?
Bingo. Also they learnt from their early mistakes. When they first started they wasted a whole load of money on the likes of Robinho, Adenbayo, Nasri, etc etc that quickly ended.
City may have spend huge amount of money initially but they are in a position now where they don't have to overspend. They are well run and compared to PSG, probably have a much better image.
Utd is run by morons. Glazers only recruit yes man and that is the only reason behind the horrible waste of money.
The players they are selling were also bought for a small fortune. Of course they are talented and valuable players that equally sell for a fortune. The net spend argument simply doesn’t work with financially doped teams.
Not to mention City have also bought well, where as in united
It is mental. Mind you all clubs are spending big. Even we (Arsenal) are spending big. Liverpool will likely make the biggest purchase this summer. But City are on another level backed by sovereign wealth. Despite this they are 6 years into Pep and whilst I think Pep is a genuine cheque book manager, he does know how to get a team playing world class football. He has always managed the leagues rolls royce, inheriting Messi, Iniesta, Xavi and co at Barcelona, then going to Bayern, and now City. He has never 'had it tough', but despite all that he does have high standards and when backed his football teams will be high quality
The risk Man City face is similar to Chelsea and Newcastle - dodgy owners who live on the wrong side of basic things taken for granted in the UK, human rights, gay rights, democracy ect. Roman got sandbagged being a member of Putins inner circle, Newcastle owners killed that journalist before taking over the club, but you can be sure if they did it whilst owning Newcastle there would have been massive backlash and possibly forced out. Thats the risk City face, that their owners in their capacity as dictators of the UAE stray to far. They have political prisoners and homosexuality can be punished by death. Man City are certainly a sports washing enterprise
Ive always thought away fans should bring banners into the Etihad highlighting the abuses in the UAE. Your telling me away fans shouldn't bring a giant picture of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi when visiting St James Park?
The risk Man City face is similar to Chelsea and Newcastle - dodgy owners who live on the wrong side of basic things taken for granted in the UK, human rights, gay rights, democracy ect. Roman got sandbagged being a member of Putins inner circle, Newcastle owners killed that journalist before taking over the club, but you can be sure if they did it whilst owning Newcastle there would have been massive backlash and possibly forced out. Thats the risk City face, that their owners in their capacity as dictators of the UAE stray to far. They have political prisoners and homosexuality can be punished by death. Man City are certainly a sports washing enterprise
Ive always thought away fans should bring banners into the Etihad highlighting the abuses in the UAE. Your telling me away fans shouldn't bring a giant picture of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi when visiting St James Park?
I'm not that impressed by their transfer dealings. What did Grealish really add to their team? I think that was a big mistake and that 100M should have gone elsewhere.
Don't state facts, it'll ruin the purpose of this thread
100% this. So very true. I would say they most definitely pay the agents to keep them quiet. Sane was the only player I remember who wanted to leave.
Man City's owners essentially have a bottomless pit of cash. Money is really no object to them.
They already do this to the club with dodgy sponsorship etc so I have no doubt it is as you have said.
One thing that i do envy them for is for their player sales, it's excellent way to recycle previous money spent and sometimes increase it. We missed out on an extra 100m by keeping hold of Pog and Martial beyond thir use by date at this club.
It’s not just about what money is spent and how much you’ve spent. It’s a mixture of getting a quality squad aswell as being managed correctly. We’ve done none of them. We’ve not had the correct type of manager since fergie left. It was always going to make us go down hill after having a manager for so long and then keep changing managers. All the managers we’ve been getting have been signing crap players. We need players with the right mentality and attitude. Hopefully we’ve got the right manager now but it’s just the spending now that’s letting us down… why do we always get so many leaks about transfers aswell, that’s why we always lose targets. City signed Kalvin Phillips nice and smoothly.
City can sign players for 60/70 million (or 100m in the case of Jack the lad) and if they don't work out, it's not a big deal they'll go spunk money on other players the following season. Not many PL clubs can do that, except for Newcastle now. Sadly this is the PL now. City's dominance will carry on for many, many years.
I'll whine about this when they are stopping us from winning league titles.
For the moment, I am quietly content with them cockblocking the scousers while they are at their strongest. Without our local oil rivals performing necessary services to football, Liverpool would be on 21 titles by now.
For the moment, I am quietly content with them cockblocking the scousers while they are at their strongest. Without our local oil rivals performing necessary services to football, Liverpool would be on 21 titles by now.
This has to be a troll, right? I mean I get that there are loads of younger fans but no united fan can possibly think of us having 13 league titles instead of 20.