Man City's Insane Spending

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[esmufc07]

 

[RVN1991]

Have not seen a massive increase of people wearing City tops in Manchester.

Support of a club is in the main passed through generations. A child supports who his father & Grandfather supported.

You will obviously see more City tops in the Blue areas of Manchester now than before the takeover. Many of these fans wouldn't have worn their colours on the streets before as it invited ridicule if they visited a Red area of Manchester.

The Blue areas of Manchester are very small though compared to the Red areas.

It would obviously concern me if I started seeing City tops being worn in traditional Utd areas. As it is I rarely see anyone in a City top while I'm out & about.

I'm not sure if the bit about children supporting whoever their father supported is necessarily true anymore. With social media most young people now either follow whomever their favorite player plays for or whoever is successful.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).

Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.

 

[justsomebloke]

Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).

Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.

This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.

That was the same story with United in our heyday too - we were not the biggest net spenders in the PL during the Ferguson area. That comes from being in the same sweet spot that City are in now. Catching up is more expensive than staying on top - and fraught with more uncertainty. More uncertainty means more misses, which again requires further investments, and on it goes.

 

[NinjaZombie]

At least they're spending money they've earned through their owners who happened to be fortunate enough to have ancestors born near oil rich land to be able to exploit and become the billionaires that they are today.

 

[tomaldinho1]

This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.

That was the same story with United in our heyday too - we were not the biggest net spenders in the PL during the Ferguson area. That comes from being in the same sweet spot that City are in now. Catching up is more expensive than staying on top - and fraught with more uncertainty. More uncertainty means more misses, which again requires further investments, and on it goes.

Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.

 

[Hughie77]

Nothing was done over 10yrs ago. If nobody could see this coming they were blind.
It's just going to get worse now, as the Newcastle takeover was allowed! So imo
City now have another free pass just like CAS gave them to do what and when they like. Utd and the others can try and chase to what degree.

When is enough enough. You can now put money on City at winning the league at least CL semi final a domestic final or Semi at least. Is that a fair playing field ?. And odds are not a lot. Bookies don't often get it wrong?
There maybe 1 team that could push them again but is that a good advert for the prem.
It's now going to be even easier for City with 5 subs. They can now change nearly half of there team in every game with there bench. Now there £100m man will get a game.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.

I’d imagine Chelsea would have breached the current FFP rules had they been introduced in 2003 rather than 2011.

Also it’s worth noting that the FFP rules were negotiated and agreed by the biggest clubs, who had an obvious vested interest in not allowing smaller clubs to reach their level. I seem to remember that Utd argued for existing club debt not to be included in the calculations, thus conveniently allowing their half billion (or whatever) debt not to affect their spending power. Let’s not pretend that these rules were designed to be morally right, they were designed to stop the ‘old money’ clubs from being outspent. If you can accept that all the ‘new money’ clubs have done all in their power to negate FFP you surely must also accept that all ‘old money’ clubs did everything in their power to make the rules only apply to others.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.

This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.

Chelsea spent £154m in 03/04, £150m in 04/05, £82m in 05/06, £80m in 06/07, all when FFP didn’t exist and £500m could buy you a lot more than it could today and you could pick up Drogba & Robben for £50m combined.

 

[NicolaSacco]

This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.

Chelsea spent £154m in 03/04, £150m in 04/05, £82m in 05/06, £80m in 06/07, all when FFP didn’t exist and £500m could buy you a lot more than it could today and you could pick up Drogba & Robben for £50m combined.

Things like inflation, and memory, make comparisons like these really tricky, but I certainly remember Chelsea’s spending at that time to appear to be absolutely huge compared to their rivals, more so than I remember after the City takeover.

 

[tomaldinho1]

This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.

Chelsea spent £154m in 03/04, £150m in 04/05, £82m in 05/06, £80m in 06/07, all when FFP didn’t exist and £500m could buy you a lot more than it could today and you could pick up Drogba & Robben for £50m combined.

More as @NicolaSacco says the rules weren't in place - that said Chelsea were more established, they were the perennial top 6 team, made the top 4 multiple times and weren't below 6th for 6+ years previous to the takeover.. assuming you're not super young (man I sound old) you must remember Gullit player manager and them attracting big names like Desailly, Zola, Vialli etc. I do agree though that I shouldn't have included them in the original post, I guess they 'technically' didn't break FFP but no doubt they would have.

I’d imagine Chelsea would have breached the current FFP rules had they been introduced in 2003 rather than 2011.

Also it’s worth noting that the FFP rules were negotiated and agreed by the biggest clubs, who had an obvious vested interest in not allowing smaller clubs to reach their level. I seem to remember that Utd argued for existing club debt not to be included in the calculations, thus conveniently allowing their half billion (or whatever) debt not to affect their spending power. Let’s not pretend that these rules were designed to be morally right, they were designed to stop the ‘old money’ clubs from being outspent. If you can accept that all the ‘new money’ clubs have done all in their power to negate FFP you surely must also accept that all ‘old money’ clubs did everything in their power to make the rules only apply to others.

I'm torn on this because you have to draw a line somewhere and it shouldn't count against whoever is in the ascendency when that line is drawn, which is easy to say as a United fan but I don't really see any counter argument. I do think FFP is misunderstood and it is a viable way for other clubs to compete, the issue is none of these minted owners have the patience to do it properly i.e. build world class infrastructure and long term plan. United arguing against debt being included is morally wrong because LBO's are immoral but unrealistic to think that wouldn't have happened regardless of United wanting it.
I have no doubt all clubs act in their own self interest but think of the PL pre Roman, you basically had United and Arsenal challenging for the league, United you don't need me to tell you about our issues regardless of our wealth and Arsenal used their success to finance a move to their stadium which then capped their ability to spend big anyway, Leicester even won the league in recent memory and they did so through excellent transfer work, a wealthy owner and bringing players through/selling for profit.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Things like inflation, and memory, make comparisons like these really tricky, but I certainly remember Chelsea’s spending at that time to appear to be absolutely huge compared to their rivals, more so than I remember after the City takeover.

Agreed. Chelsea were also a top side before the takeover and have ‘only’ won 5 PL titles since there takeover. City have already surpassed that and are much better placed to continue to win more. City have spent a lot of money without question, but have a lot to show for it in terms of domestic trophies and current squad compared to rivals.

 

[justsomebloke]

Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.

History suggests he can't. This is pretty much the position we were in ten years ago. Or at least twelve.

 

[Zen86]

Agreed. Chelsea were also a top side before the takeover and have ‘only’ won 5 PL titles since there takeover. City have already surpassed that and are much better placed to continue to win more. City have spent a lot of money without question, but have a lot to show for it in terms of domestic trophies and current squad compared to rivals.

You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests. You'll continue to steamroll the game for as long as Abu Dhabi want. It's not really about the football with City, it's all one big political venture which is far more high stakes than the classic ownership model.

 

[Manchester Dan]

You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests. You'll continue to steamroll the game for as long as Abu Dhabi want. It's not really about the football with City, it's all one big political venture which is far more high stakes than the classic ownership model.

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.

 

[justsomebloke]

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.

Or you could just drop that pointless combination of strawman argument and whataboutism.

I agree with you though that City have spent their resources well, and I don't think much of the line of thinking often espoused by my fellow United fans to the effect that the money more or less automatically has caused success. It's an absolute prerequisite for becoming a big club, but it's not enough in itself (a fact you wouldn't think United fans needed to be reminded of). You have to use it to build a top organisation, and City has done that.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).

Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.

All of City’s money spent gets on the pitch. The money that doesn’t make it, is recouped to a large extent through good sale values.

United piss away money on players that don’t make it, and we don’t sell them to mitigate those mistakes.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.

That was the same story with United in our heyday too - we were not the biggest net spenders in the PL during the Ferguson area. That comes from being in the same sweet spot that City are in now. Catching up is more expensive than staying on top - and fraught with more uncertainty. More uncertainty means more misses, which again requires further investments, and on it goes.

This is not correct though. In the PL era United were rarely the biggest spenders per season, and the club never even won the PL in over 20 years until the PL started.

 

[Devil_forever]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Fergie overachieved given how much he spent. Klopp is the only one remotely comparable to Fergie in terms of performances to spending ratio.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).

Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.

Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.
The others are more backups even if Cucurella can be a starter over Walker.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Or you could just drop that pointless combination of strawman argument and whataboutism.

I agree with you though that City have spent their resources well, and I don't think much of the line of thinking often espoused by my fellow United fans to the effect that the money more or less automatically has caused success. It's an absolute prerequisite for becoming a big club, but it's not enough in itself (a fact you wouldn't think United fans needed to be reminded of). You have to use it to build a top organisation, and City has done that.

I tend to agree with the last bit. There seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that Newcastle will just replicate what City have done, but I think that’s far from certain.

 

[justsomebloke]

This is not correct though. In the PL era United were rarely the biggest spenders per season, and the club never even won the PL in over 20 years until the PL started.

Er, we seem to be saying the same thing? We were not the biggest (net) spender in the PL during the Ferguson era. Not before either, I would think. We were the biggest net spender during the OGS era though.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Er, we seem to be saying the same thing? We were not the biggest (net) spender in the PL during the Ferguson era. Not before either, I would think. We were the biggest net spender during the OGS era though.

But you said the only reason we weren't the biggest spenders is because we were already the best. City spent the most money to become the best, under SAF for the most part we never spent the most money to become the best. We were never the highest spenders at the start of the PL era when we started winning and we definitely didn't have the best squad just before the PL era began.

 

[justsomebloke]

Fergie overachieved given how much he spent. Klopp is the only one remotely comparable to Fergie in terms of performances to spending ratio.

91/92 through 12/13 (Source: Transfermarkt)

#	club	Expenditure	Arrivals	Income	Departures	Balance
1	Chelsea FC	€1.16bn	377	€351.61m	360	€-812.57m
2	Manchester City	€887.33m	455	€275.15m	448	€-612.19m
3	Liverpool FC	€843.36m	374	€457.26m	372	€-386.10m
4	Manchester United	€776.03m	360	€394.97m	360	€-381.06m
5	Tottenham Hotspur	€717.91m	491	€395.76m	482	€-322.14m
6	Aston Villa	€435.88m	337	€247.68m	334	€-188.20m
7	Sunderland AFC	€377.31m	473	€192.34m	469	€-184.97m
8	Newcastle United	€545.26m	373	€374.65m	365	€-170.61m
9	Fulham FC	€259.19m	424	€141.48m	425	€-117.72m
10	Middlesbrough FC	€293.18m	402	€182.93m	394	€-110.25m

Unsurprisingly, the period when City REALLY threw money around was between Mansours acquisition and the first couple of seasons into Pep's reign (08/09 through 18/19):

#	club	Expenditure	Arrivals	Income	Departures	Balance
1	Manchester City	€1.68bn	274	€466.44m	269	€-1,212.68m
2	Manchester United	€1.14bn	180	€423.90m	187	€-711.29m
3	Chelsea FC	€1.35bn	328	€816.84m	315	€-537.96m
4	Liverpool FC	€1.12bn	237	€763.37m	240	€-357.01m
5	Arsenal FC	€737.40m	193	€449.64m	190	€-287.76m
6	Stoke City	€351.41m	237	€112.76m	231	€-238.65m
7	Everton FC	€588.79m	194	€368.62m	181	€-220.17m
8	AFC Bournemouth	€231.52m	277	€53.78m	272	€-177.74m
9	Crystal Palace	€262.55m	281	€88.98m	283	€-173.57m
10	West Ham United	€444.71m	264	€277.56m	263	€-167.14m

Contrast this with 19/20 to the present, where their net spend was less than Villa's (though their expenditure was still the highest in the league):

#	club	Expenditure	Arrivals	Income	Departures	Balance
1	Arsenal FC	€459.08m	57	€118.40m	59	€-340.68m
2	Manchester United	€458.60m	44	€131.38m	43	€-327.22m
3	Tottenham Hotspur	€442.10m	50	€118.92m	48	€-323.18m
4	Aston Villa	€445.17m	68	€150.27m	66	€-294.90m
5	Manchester City	€526.32m	83	€249.95m	74	€-276.37m
6	Newcastle United	€309.40m	41	€35.92m	39	€-273.49m
7	Leeds United	€223.54m	59	€30.40m	57	€-193.14m
8	West Ham United	€293.30m	38	€105.13m	48	€-188.18m
9	Liverpool FC	€265.84m	48	€147.25m	47	€-118.59m
10	Wolverhampton Wanderers	€258.80m	80	€145.10m	73	€-113.70m

Link to Transfermarkt page where you can set your own parameters: Premier League - Transfer income and expenditures | Transfermarkt

 

[DannyCAFC]

Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.
The others are more backups even if Cucurella can be a starter over Walker.

I think they're unarguably improved at this point.

Jesus is good but Haaland is a big upgrade for sure.
Phillips at this point is an upgrade over Fernandinho.
Cucurella at this point is pure upgrade a LB - though they might end up selling Zinchenko. If that's a like-for-like swap it's a still a net positive for sure for them.
The only question mark would be essentially swapping out Sterling for Alvarez - however I've a feeling he's going to quickly prove to be a quality player.

It remains to be seen what other business they'll do though. Losing Bernardo Silva would hurt them for sure if that ends up happening.

 

[justsomebloke]

Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.
The others are more backups even if Cucurella can be a starter over Walker.

Haaland is a massive upgrade on Jesus as striker. Sterling was already more or less surplus to requirements due to the acquisition of Grealish and Foden's development. Phillips replaces Fernandinho.

 

[justsomebloke]

But you said the only reason we weren't the biggest spenders is because we were already the best. City spent the most money to become the best, under SAF for the most part we never spent the most money to become the best. We were never the highest spenders at the start of the PL era when we started winning and we definitely didn't have the best squad just before the PL era began.

No, I said we weren't the biggest spenders in the whole period where Ferguson was manager (which is true) and I also said that one reason for that was that we were for most of that period in a position where we could focus on maintaining a dominant squad, similar to where City is now. I did not say that we went through a phase of outspending everyone in order to become the dominant team under Ferguson. Although in actual fact, we did (except for Blackburn):

86/87-92/92

#	club	Expenditure	Arrivals	Income	Departures	Balance
1	Blackburn Rovers	€18.20m	69	€3.53m	59	€-14.67m
2	Manchester United	€23.66m	63	€9.15m	63	€-14.51m
3	Liverpool FC	€28.20m	51	€19.53m	45	€-8.67m
4	Leeds United	€15.28m	87	€6.88m	78	€-8.40m
5	Arsenal FC	€17.71m	61	€12.02m	60	€-5.69m
6	Sheffield Wednesday	€14.75m	74	€10.04m	75	€-4.70m
7	Crystal Palace	€12.78m	68	€10.20m	51	€-2.59m
8	Sheffield United	€4.92m	78	€2.73m	67	€-2.18m
9	Tottenham Hotspur	€27.67m	94	€25.55m	89	€-2.12m
10	Everton FC	€21.87m	65	€20.01m	64	€-1.86m

Fantastic sums, aren't they. The biggest net spend in England over six seasons is less than we're paying for Malacia.

I think the tendency holds - trying to get from "big and good" to "big and great" tends to put you among the biggest spenders more than "big and trying to stay great" does.

 

[matt10000]

Nothing was done over 10yrs ago. If nobody could see this coming they were blind.
It's just going to get worse now, as the Newcastle takeover was allowed! So imo
City now have another free pass just like CAS gave them to do what and when they like. Utd and the others can try and chase to what degree.

When is enough enough. You can now put money on City at winning the league at least CL semi final a domestic final or Semi at least. Is that a fair playing field ?. And odds are not a lot. Bookies don't often get it wrong?
There maybe 1 team that could push them again but is that a good advert for the prem.
It's now going to be even easier for City with 5 subs. They can now change nearly half of there team in every game with there bench. Now there £100m man will get a game.

Maybe the Competition and Markets Authority should intervene and break City up into smaller clubs.....

 

[tomaldinho1]

History suggests he can't. This is pretty much the position we were in ten years ago. Or at least twelve.

I don't know, difference between then and now is we would just pay the high agent fees now, previously if you recall we lost out on Hazard, Aguero and others partly du to SAF's reported hatred of agents but also because it was a business decision. Now it's just the norm and it was Chelsea/City who drove the fees up to stupid levels in my opinion because of that, plus an honourable mention to PSG for fecking up the market completely with Neymar.

 

[matt10000]

I don't know, difference between then and now is we would just pay the high agent fees now, previously if you recall we lost out on Hazard, Aguero and others partly du to SAF's reported hatred of agents but also because it was a business decision. Now it's just the norm and it was Chelsea/City who drove the fees up to stupid levels in my opinion because of that, plus an honourable mention to PSG for fecking up the market completely with Neymar.

and fecking up his career

 

[ilrm]

Also it’s worth noting that the FFP rules were negotiated and agreed by the biggest clubs, who had an obvious vested interest in not allowing smaller clubs to reach their level. I seem to remember that Utd argued for existing club debt not to be included in the calculations, thus conveniently allowing their half billion (or whatever) debt not to affect their spending power.

Brilliantly put ... How do you expect Southampton to ever challenge for CL if all their top players are immediately taken away after they come 6th-7th in the league? How do you expect Sunderland to ever attract quality players if players would rather live in London (Spurs/Fulham/Crystal P/Brentford/West Ham) rather than the North East? It's all about money, its always been about money.

 

[AltiUn]

I think they're unarguably improved at this point.

Jesus is good but Haaland is a big upgrade for sure.
Phillips at this point is an upgrade over Fernandinho.
Cucurella at this point is pure upgrade a LB - though they might end up selling Zinchenko. If that's a like-for-like swap it's a still a net positive for sure for them.
The only question mark would be essentially swapping out Sterling for Alvarez - however I've a feeling he's going to quickly prove to be a quality player.

It remains to be seen what other business they'll do though. Losing Bernardo Silva would hurt them for sure if that ends up happening.

Annoyingly I think you're correct.

 

[Moriarty]

I really think the governing authorities should introduce a scheme so that clubs are competing (financially) on a level playing filed. They could call it Financial Fair Play. I'm sure it would catch on.

 

[Zen86]

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.

The typical bollocks response then yeah

 

[NicolaSacco]

I think they're unarguably improved at this point.

Jesus is good but Haaland is a big upgrade for sure.
Phillips at this point is an upgrade over Fernandinho.
Cucurella at this point is pure upgrade a LB - though they might end up selling Zinchenko. If that's a like-for-like swap it's a still a net positive for sure for them.
The only question mark would be essentially swapping out Sterling for Alvarez - however I've a feeling he's going to quickly prove to be a quality player.

It remains to be seen what other business they'll do though. Losing Bernardo Silva would hurt them for sure if that ends up happening.

Agree re Haaland, it’d fairly undeniable that it’s a major improvement. Not so sure on Cucurella but I’ve not seen lots of him. Zinchenko is a fantastic player in my opinion so any upgrade would be minor. I’ll be interested to see how Philips changes them, he’s a good player but to me not really a Pep player.

 

[ilrm]

LBO's are immoral

That's like saying taking a mortgage to own a home or start a business is immoral. Almost all large acquisitions are funded with 70-80% Debt (unless you are a cash rich software company like Amazon/Microsoft/Apple). There is no concept of morality in this. United's owners took a risk of accepting Debt while betting that they could increase cash flows enough to pay off the Debt. Every large corporation you've worked for has done this.

Chelsea were more established

Because they are a London-based team ... they have an intrinsic advantage that a player would rather live in a big city like London rather than Vigo, Lens and Cagliari. How can any of these 'small' teams ever grow if they have such a huge disadvantage?

Leicester even won the league in recent memory

Yes outliers exist. After their victory, how many times have they been considered a challenger for a top-4 position at the start of the season? Is it because they lost Mahrez & Kante in succession? Why do they lose key players like Maguire and now Tielemens? Do you think they will challenge for top-4 this season?

You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests.

So United/Pool/Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal owners don't have business interests? They run it as a non-profit? City owners have invested more into Manchester's revitalization than Glazers have.
Also lets be real here - the problem is that WHITE Europeans subconsciously seem to view anyone from a different system (non-democratic, brown majority) as a bigger threat than they really are, and end up holding them to a higher standard. Not that it stops them from preserving their self interests. Few examples:
In 2008 - during the global credit crisis - Citibank UK was completely f-ed. The only person to provide Citibank funds at a favorable equity stake was a Saudi prince ($600 million all liquid and given immediately). Without his help, the crisis would have made even more people homeless in the UK than what happened. Why did you take this money?
Why does BP still have operating interest in Saudi & IRAN refineries/fields?
Why do you take any kind of American investment in the UK - even Donald Trump (a person who portrays himself as a tough all-American patriot) has said numerous times that America should not have been in Iraq. What was America doing in Iraq that they should not have been there? Are you sure any other country, for example Russia, would be allowed to get away with accusing a country of harboring Nazis and attacking the country with dubious evidence (still waiting on the WMDs)?

 

[Zen86]

United/Pool/Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal owners don't have business interests? They run it as a non-profit? City owners have invested more into Manchester's revitalization than Glazers have.
Also lets be real here - the problem is that WHITE Europeans subconsciously seem to view anyone from a different system (non-democratic, brown majority) as a bigger threat than they really are, and end up holding them to a higher standard. Not that it stops them from preserving their self interests. Few examples:
In 2008 - during the global credit crisis - Citibank UK was completely f-ed. The only person to provide Citibank funds at a favorable equity stake was a Saudi prince ($600 million all liquid and given immediately). Without his help, the crisis would have made even more people homeless in the UK than what happened. Why did you take this money?
Why does BP still have operating interest in Saudi & IRAN refineries/fields?
Why do you take any kind of American investment in the UK - even Donald Trump (a person who portrays himself as a tough all-American patriot) has said numerous times that America should not have been in Iraq. What was America doing in Iraq that they should not have been there? Are you sure any other country, for example Russia, would be allowed to get away with accusing a country of harboring Nazis and attacking the country with dubious evidence (still waiting on the WMDs)?

What on Earth are you talking about?

The fact is a wealthy nation state with a history of human rights abuse is backing a football team far beyond the reach of any other, with the exception of the other couple of teams who are backed by nation states with histories of human rights abuse. If you think that’s all part and parcel of what sport is about then you’re full of shit I’m afraid.

 

[ilrm]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The fact is a wealthy nation state with a history of human rights abuse is backing a football team far beyond the reach of any other, with the exception of the other couple of teams who are backed by nation states with histories of human rights abuse. If you think that’s all part and parcel of what sport is about then you’re full of shit I’m afraid.

I don't think that this should be a part of sport at all ... I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of working with unsavory organizations when it suits you and demonizing the same set of organizations when it doesn't suit you.

EDIT: Refer the highlighted part - I think you have said the quiet part loud - you don't have a problem with Leicester's/Pool's/Spurs' wealthy owners because they can't spend enough to challenge United's ability to purchase players. Your real problem is that not only have City's owners spent well (especially last 5-6 seasons), they have a lot of money to spend.

On a side note - my experience in working with Arabia-based (entire peninsula) companies is that the Arabian elites don't have a lot of knowledge on how to run technically complex businesses or global-best practices. However they are really good at hiring the right people and 'secure' enough to give their senior managers decentralized decision making powers.

 

[Manchester Dan]

The typical bollocks response then yeah

I figured it would end there..