We were never getting anywhere near what we paid for martial back.
Lingard we could've probably got 20-25 million from west ham when he was with them but then useless Ole pulled one of his absolute masterclasses by not getting rid of him.
Man City's Insane Spending
- Thread starter marktan
- Start date
We were never getting anywhere near what we paid for martial back.
Lingard we could've probably got 20-25 million from west ham when he was with them but then useless Ole pulled one of his absolute masterclasses by not getting rid of him.
Probably helps that they can offer the players and their agents an extra 30% under the table, as has been widely reported to be the case with City. It's very easy to look like you're great at recruitment when you have literally limitless funds and are well-known for cooking the books. City's finances are completely opaque, and they lie through their teeth when reporting the numbers of anything from sponsorship deals to stadium attendance figures. If they say they paid £50m for a player, they probably paid like £70 in reality when you count the free penthouse in Abu Dhabi or whatever it is they throw in to "persuade" the player and his agent. It's a completely corrupt enterprise. Don't praise them for it.
Last edited:
Like Di Maria at United?
And what about Zack Steffen, Danilo, Bravo, Nolito, and then if we were to include the players you bought from 1 to 15/20 million that have never played for you that would add another 7/8 and remember your fan base slaughter Chelsea for doing the same.
PS: I fixed the bolded bit for you.
Thing is, most of their signings do work out. Ours don't.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make?
Such rubbish, all owners are in it for profit. All!
As opposed to out own insane spending. Higher wage bill, higher spend on players and 0 to show for it in the last decade. Feels like we are turning into Liverpool
Any other examples where we've paid a huge fee and got most of it back?
He's trying to be smart.
Failing, but trying.
Why not. We did the same to Liverpool. Now, we are miles off winning any trophy, much less the league title.
Because we've won the league 20 times, not 13..
Bravo struggled in his first season but proved to be a fine backup goalkeeper. Danilo was not a flop in any sense of the word and was involved in possibly one of our best bits of business in the Cancelo swap deal, going the other way for 35m. You'll see that I mentioned Nolito in my original comment, and Zack Steffen? Sure, why not. But he's a prime example of the type of players that you're trying to discredit us for purchasing. Most of these players that we sign for a relatively low fee we end up selling for a considerable profit. Steffen cost us 6 million, you can guarantee he will go for more than that this summer. I don't see that as poor business in the slightest.
Just have a glance at this and tell me that this isn't good business:
Enes Unal; purchased for 4m in 2015/16, sold for 12.6m in 2017/18 -- 8.6m profit
Ruben Sobrino; purchased for 500k in 2015/16, sold for 1.8m in 2017/18 -- 1.3m profit
Florian Lejeune; purchased for 270k in 2015/16, sold for 1.4m in 2016/17 -- 1.1m profit
Pablo Mari; purchased for 180k in 2016/17, sold for 1.8m in 2019/20 -- 1.6m profit
Aaron Mooy; free transfer in 2016/17, sold for 8.2m in 2017/18 -- 8.2m profit
Geronimo Rulli; purchased for 4.2m in 2016/17, sold for 6.3m in 2016/17 -- 2.1m profit
Douglas Luiz; purchased for 10.8m in 2017/18, sold for 15.1m in 2019/20 -- 4.3m profit
Jack Harrison; purchased for 3.6m in 2017/18, sold for 11.5m in 2021/22 -- 7.9m profit
Angelino; purchased for 10.8m in 2019/20, sold for 18m in 2021/22 (incl initial loan fee) -- 7.2m profit
Of course, there are also examples where we didn't make a profit. But the majority of these signings we do end up selling for more, and, in that context, you cannot call them failed transfers when that was the primary reason they were purchased in the first place.
I find it a bit pointless to worry about City, it is like crying over spilt milk. Until the footballing infrastructure changes substantially and starts to think about prioritising sport, we will have to deal with the fact these types of owner exist. With things like salary caps and transfer caps it would realign football. That would require some balls from the authorities but also the larger clubs who would be intimidated by the competition this would create. Too many vested interests. I doubt United would even buy into it ourselves.
Comparing City’s wage bill to any other club is a bit pointless. The wage bill for every other club covers the wages for every employee at the club. The wage bill for City only covers the coaching and playing staff. All the other staff are officially paid by City’s parent company and not included in the above figures.
That’s not even including any additional “under the table” payments and arrangements, such as Mancini’s tourism ambassadorship.
Apart from Lukaku no… but that’s the point we also pay huge fees but for the most part we can’t get the money back. So we can’t criticise City for being good at what we’re rubbish at.
My guess this summer Man Utd's summer transfer net spending will be higher than Man City.
God you are such a reasonable fecker it is infuriating
I just discount City most of the time - it's impossible to compete with that in a league setting.
The problem is that for the Glazers there really is no business case for trying to win the league. It's simply uneconomic to do so.
The problem is that for the Glazers there really is no business case for trying to win the league. It's simply uneconomic to do so.
Plus there are all the other "benefits" from City. Likely paid through shell companies or like Mancini, conveniently getting a job with Abu Dhabi after leaving City.
Football club ownership is a legitimate issue in this country.
Sports washing murderous regimes should not be able to own our clubs and distort the footballing economy by circumventing rules and financial doping (literally to change opinions of awful human rights abuses).
Similarly, the acts of the Glazers, taking down and debilitating a national institution, for personal greed and thereby weakening a cultural cornerstone of the country, and our no. 1 sport and a key export, culturally (and economically, although that should always be secondary), should not be allowed to happen either.
Chelsea got their corrupt owner forcibly removed and there was even an ‘anti-Glazer clause’ inserted into the agreement. Where was the intervention with us?
It really all needs to be looked at at a government level, and reformed.
Sports washing murderous regimes should not be able to own our clubs and distort the footballing economy by circumventing rules and financial doping (literally to change opinions of awful human rights abuses).
Similarly, the acts of the Glazers, taking down and debilitating a national institution, for personal greed and thereby weakening a cultural cornerstone of the country, and our no. 1 sport and a key export, culturally (and economically, although that should always be secondary), should not be allowed to happen either.
Chelsea got their corrupt owner forcibly removed and there was even an ‘anti-Glazer clause’ inserted into the agreement. Where was the intervention with us?
It really all needs to be looked at at a government level, and reformed.
Sports washing and ruining real competition. Historically we have had big spending power but all money generated from football and associated commercial success. Just ruined this league imo. Much as I hate the pool, I feel sorry for Liverpool fans who should be experiencing a period of domination but can’t because of a state funded football team.
I mean, you were getting somewhere on Wan Bissaka, that was a mistake and high. But after that you're heading into exactly the point. Telles, Dalot, Bailly, Shaw, Varane - all of them cost less than City's least expense 2nd string CB. And we're stuck with them, despite being largely awful.
Not a single person on this forum would argue Manchester United isn't run by a f*cking clownshow. I'm not measuring City against our idiocy. Think of being a well run club like Spurs, or Arsenal or probably the best run in Liverpool. You're f*cking competing against City. They have spent the most on backroom staff, the most on training facilities, the most invested in building a system around the best manager in world football, the most on a playing squad and the most on wages. Liverpool have a generational manager, a generational head of recruitment, have still invested heavily and will likely now fade having onyl managed one league title. Any season City don't win the league is a failure imo.
And the only reason City have the best of everytihng and are able to spend the most on everything is because its run at a huge operational loss that would have bankrupted everyone else, because its a sportswashing exercise at worst or a billionaire's plaything at best.
I just refer to wages presented by
and
Are they wrong?
Chelsea bought Kepa and dumped him on the bench
Bought Lukaku for 100m dumped him on the bench and loaned him out
Bought Harvetz for 80m to rotate him
Last edited:
Arsenal is as bad as Man Utd, if not worse for transfer dealing for the past 10 years. I would not use "well run" to describe Arsenal at all. We have been buying player without zero resell value, overpaid players like Pepe, or let players run down their contract and left for free. Arsenal can't sell their "unwanted" players either.
Last edited:
I've been saying for ages that SAF was brought in to copy Liverpool. We did that bu have now forgotten to switch the "off" button: 30 years of chasing our tails and winning very little...
True
Yeah that looks like absolute bollocks to me. Foden on 600k a yearI just refer to wages presented by
and
Are they wrong?
you improve while you're already on top. then you win another title and have even more money to spend, again. back in day we'd actually won the league in more dominant way than them and simply add Hargo, Tevez, Anderson and Nani. much different prices obviously in those days, but the club still spend A LOT these days regardless of the market. not much sense in pointing at City when almost every United's transfer turn to disaster and unlike City - United is ridiculously bad at selling. every manager is unsuccessful and every 2 or 3 years the club seem to have a rebuilding phase, of course you can't expect to compete that way. City spending wouldn't be an issue if Pep was at United.
This. Same with Chelsea last year, they spent 100m on Lukaku but recouped the entire amount. We have not came out of any summer with profits from sales. We are poorly run and unfortunately the oil clubs have the money plus the right people making the football decisions.
If what we have been told is correct and they got them both for about £100m, that is a fantastic piece of transfer business by any standards.
And if United had done that, most of us would be rather pleased I would say.
And if United had done that, most of us would be rather pleased I would say.
He hasn’t signed a contract extension since December 2018. At which point he had played 136 minutes of premier league football. I know it sounds insanely low, but in this context it’s completely plausible.
To be fair, Sterling, Jesus & Bernardo were all bought for big fees and none of them are home grown.
What gets lost in these discussions about how Chelsea and City are "self sustaining" and making a net profit in the transfer market these days are the summers of overspending it took both clubs to get to this point. Without City's owners they wouldn't have been able to buy any of those three players or create the environment for them to thrive to the point where they've maintained their value or increased it.
These discussions usually ignore how City and Chelsea increased the prices of players for everyone and then every club had to start spending more on fees & wages to attract and keep their players.
I probably shouldn't ignore PSG in these discussions, but the point remains. Even if City are sustainable now, they weren't for years and the only reason they got to this point is because of unsustainable spending funded by a nation state.
This is nothing how ugly it will get when Newcastle enter the CL and start to compete with City.All other teams will be left in dust.
How did Chelsea recoup the Lukaku 100m by loaning him?
100%
Unfortunately I think this will fall on deaf ears as the sportwashing is 85% complete. Not long left before we are lauding Newcastle on their fantastic sustainability and league titles.
My workmate is Manchester born and bred.
The City success is mentally killing him. He says you see more kids running about wearing City tops than Utd now.
I really think this is a commentary we try to promote to lessen the pain of our failings.
Is that such a big deal in Manchester anymore?
Uhm, yeah?I just refer to wages presented by
and
Are they wrong?