Man City's Insane Spending

[Vapor trail]

The thing with City is not just the money but the footballing infrastructure, they have all the right people in all the right places from ground level to senior staff / hierarchy. That's the difference between them and the rest, PSG and even United are good examples that you can't throw money at everything without having the right model to follow suit.

I think they'll lose their edge when Guardiola leaves but they were still competitive under the likes of Mancini beforehand it's likely a replacement will do well just not as well as Pep.

 

[tomaldinho1]

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.”

Please don't derail this thread with something so idiotic as this. It takes 2 seconds to know it's not true for starters.

 

[Rozay]

The thing with City is not just the money but the footballing infrastructure, they have all the right people in all the right places from ground level to senior staff / hierarchy. That's the difference between them and the rest, PSG and even United are good examples that you can't throw money at everything without having the right model to follow suit.

I think they'll lose their edge when Guardiola leaves but they were still competitive under the likes of Mancini beforehand it's likely a replacement will do well just not as well as Pep.

They’ve achieved no more than PSG with their money.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

They’ve achieved no more than PSG with their money.

Well they’ve had more time, yet achieved no more despite spending over half a billion more. That’s some achievement.

 

[justsomebloke]

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.”

I think there are lots of reasons why City isn't liked (although it's more or less a given on this particular forum, for obvious reasons). But if you'd been interested in discussing that, you would presumably have tried to discuss it.

Otherwise, this is too nuts to merit a response.

Reagan's idiotic old adage, which is a recipe for replacing discussion with shouting matches, may appeal to people who struggle to make an actual argument and would prefer to not have to. Which really says it all, doesn't it.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

They’ve achieved no more than PSG with their money.

I'll say winning the PL (especially with the way they've done it under Pep) is a much bigger achievement than winning the French league.
They have something that PSG (and most clubs) don't have... A defined and identifiable style of play, though that's mostly down to Pep.

 

[JB7]

I'll say winning the PL (especially with the way they've done it under Pep) is a much bigger achievement than winning the French league.
They have something that PSG (and most clubs) don't have... A defined and identifiable style of play, though that's mostly down to Pep.

In the interests of fairness it would be a fecking remarkable achievement if PSG did win the Premier League.

 

[ilrm]

Please don't derail this thread with something so idiotic as this. It takes 2 seconds to know it's not true for starters.

Never seen such a vehement protest against American investment after the disastrous Iraq war which killed a few hundred thousand and led to millions of refugees. Never seen any such thing against UK/US who have provided the weapons that have led to over a million starving Yemenis. What about Poland allowing Ukrainian refugees through but keeping out brown skinned Middle Easterners, impacted by a NATO led war? No banning of their players?
C’mon - we all know what’s what!

 

[tomaldinho1]

Never seen such a vehement protest against American investment after the disastrous Iraq war which killed a few hundred thousand and led to millions of refugees. Never seen any such thing against UK/US who have provided the weapons that have led to over a million starving Yemenis. What about Poland allowing Ukrainian refugees through but keeping out brown skinned Middle Easterners, impacted by a NATO led war? No banning of their players?
C’mon - we all know what’s what!

You are clearly aware Russia has invaded Ukraine but you think Putin isn’t white nor can his eternal presidency be called a regime judging by your first post?

Please think before posting. If you want to talk about this subject there are threads specifically for it.

 

[ilrm]

You are clearly aware Russia has invaded Ukraine but you think Putin isn’t white nor can his eternal presidency be called a regime judging by your first post?

Please think before posting. If you want to talk about this subject there are threads specifically for it.

If you have to be told that "Russians" have always been considered "outsiders" then I don't know how to continue to have this conversation. Infact Russia is a great example of what I'm talking about. Europe keeps begging the US to intervene and spend more US taxpayer money but at the same time purchases Russian oil & gas because it benefits their citizens. Wow!!! Even now Europe is purchasing Russian O&G through secondary markets while telling their citizens about how they have reduced dependence on Russians. Europe/US is also begging Qatar (of all places) and Saudi to increase production - are you kidding me?

 

[tomaldinho1]

If you have to be told that "Russians" have always been considered "outsiders" then I don't know how to continue to have this conversation. Infact Russia is a great example of what I'm talking about. Europe keeps begging the US to intervene and spend more US taxpayer money but at the same time purchases Russian oil & gas because it benefits their citizens. Wow!!! Even now Europe is purchasing Russian O&G through secondary markets while telling their citizens about how they have reduced dependence on Russians. Europe/US is also begging Qatar (of all places) and Saudi to increase production - are you kidding me?

Please do not. I have been asking you to stop.

 

[Noot]

This is the latest one today. A few seem to go to Southampton every summer too.

This is way off the mark to be honest. Sold two players to Southampton this summer and Gunn a few years ago but that's hardly a habit.

 

[CallyRed]

They may become net-spend champions 2022

 

[TheReligion]

Strange they are happy to let Sterling go for what looks to be under £60m. Especially to another PL team and rival.

What do our resident City fans make of this?

 

[Manchester Dan]

Strange they are happy to let Sterling go for what looks to be under £60m. Especially to another PL team and rival.

What do our resident City fans make of this?

He’s on the last year of his deal. If we get £100M for Jesus & Sterling in their last year which has already been well invested in to Haaland & Alvarez then it feels like smart business to me.. both would walk away for free in a years time.

 

[Acrobat7]

He’s on the last year of his deal. If we get £100M for Jesus & Sterling in their last year which has already been well invested in to Haaland & Alvarez then it feels like smart business to me.. both would walk away for free in a years time.

You are annoyingly good at selling

 

[Manchester Dan]

You are annoyingly good at selling

Just like any other brand isn’t it. We couldn’t sell for toffee a few years ago, but now people know even most of our bench has been trained by Pep for 6 years, and that seems to count. Even the academy players seem to go for good money now on a similar basis that other clubs seem to trust the club to be producing talent, even if they’re not all that well known.

 

[TheReligion]

He’s on the last year of his deal. If we get £100M for Jesus & Sterling in their last year which has already been well invested in to Haaland & Alvarez then it feels like smart business to me.. both would walk away for free in a years time.

Wasn’t aware of their contract situation. That explains it. In that case I’m surprised you didn’t have more interest in either player.

 

[Rozay]

This is way off the mark to be honest. Sold two players to Southampton this summer and Gunn a few years ago but that's hardly a habit.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[yumtum]

And we sold Levitt for less than 300k

 

[1950]

And here's the reason for the madness:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[kaiser1]

Sterling for 47.5
Jesus for 45
Ake for 45

Won't be a bad return

 

[Tyrion]

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.”

I always find the "you dislike Citys owners because they're not white" argument to be very amusing. I assumed you were a City fan.

 

[Hoof the ball]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Red00012]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

We could have done this with Lingard and Pogba last season

 

[Ish]

We could have done this with Lingard and Pogba last season

Yep! If we werent completely crap at selling due to inflated wages and the team not performing for the last decade (sort of). Frustrating.

 

[Beachryan]

I just don't understand why anyone would pay anywhere near 45m for Ake. He's proven absolutely nothing imo.

Even Sterling for 50m is kinda crazy. But this is Chelsea we're talking about. If they're don't spend 50m on a wide attacking player each window, they're not really trying.

 

[allen7]

I just don't understand why anyone would pay anywhere near 45m for Ake. He's proven absolutely nothing imo.

Even Sterling for 50m is kinda crazy. But this is Chelsea we're talking about. If they're don't spend 50m on a wide attacking player each window, they're not really trying.

For Ake, its City (the title winners) tax. He’s not worth more than 20 million tbh.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

City so far:

Outs
Torres = 46m (Jan 2022).
Porro - 7m
Lavia - 10m
Bazunu - 15m
Jesus - 45
Sterling - 47m
Ake - 41m

Total: 211m

Ins

Haaland - 50m*
Philips - 45m

Total: 95m


211m from sales is excellent business by City, the can also spend and get someone like Cucurella for 50m or more if they have to.

* They paid a lot in agent fees and signing on fees in Haaland's transfer, but their sales covers for it so far.

 

[GazTheLegend]

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.

 

[Idxomer]

And here's the reason for the madness:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Nothing suspicious here.

 

[yumtum]

City so far:

Outs
Torres = 46m (Jan 2022).
Porro - 7m
Lavia - 10m
Bazunu - 15m
Jesus - 45
Sterling - 47m
Ake - 41m

Total: 211m

Ins

Haaland - 50m*
Philips - 45m

Total: 95m


211m from sales is excellent business by City, the can also spend and get someone like Cucurella for 50m or more if they have to.

* They paid a lot in agent fees and signing on fees in Haaland's transfer, but their sales covers for it so far.

They also sold Gyabi to Leeds for £5m - a youth player who has 11 u23s games for City.

 

[Chief123]

City so far:

Outs
Torres = 46m (Jan 2022).
Porro - 7m
Lavia - 10m
Bazunu - 15m
Jesus - 45
Sterling - 47m
Ake - 41m

Total: 211m

Ins

Haaland - 50m*
Philips - 45m

Total: 95m


211m from sales is excellent business by City, the can also spend and get someone like Cucurella for 50m or more if they have to.

* They paid a lot in agent fees and signing on fees in Haaland's transfer, but their sales covers for it so far.

I know they signed Alvarez in January who is joining them now, but the fact they’ve bought him for £14m is quite simply ridiculous. He’s one of the brightest prospects around and they’ve basically got him for nothing.

 

[cyberman]

So how many clubs have numerous sister clubs?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...yments-329-players-alleged-tax-avoidance.html

 

[yumtum]

So how many clubs have numerous sister clubs?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...yments-329-players-alleged-tax-avoidance.html

Considering premier league teams consist of about 25 players each, that pretty much means 2/3s of the players are taking part in this scheme.

Though I suppose considering the UKs former chancellor of exchequer has a wife who claims Non-Dom status, why wouldn't all rich people avoid as much tax as possible? Pot kettle black.

 

[Lentwood]

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.

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.

 

[TheReligion]

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.”

They get hate on the forum as they are Man City and it’s a United forum.

Not the brightest star in the sky are you?

 

[tenpoless]

ManCity can afford to spend hundreds of millions on players and get rid of them when they didnt work out even in a short term.

United can afford to spend less than that and then decide they will get stuck with the players even if they didnt live up to expectations.

The power of daddy daddy want want. They have enough money to keep on trying even if they failed.

 

[Karel Podolsky]

City so far:

Outs
Torres = 46m (Jan 2022).
Porro - 7m
Lavia - 10m
Bazunu - 15m
Jesus - 45
Sterling - 47m
Ake - 41m

Total: 211m

Ins

Haaland - 50m*
Philips - 45m

Total: 95m


211m from sales is excellent business by City, the can also spend and get someone like Cucurella for 50m or more if they have to.

* They paid a lot in agent fees and signing on fees in Haaland's transfer, but their sales covers for it so far.

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

 

[MongeySpangle]

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.

20 plus? Is that a wind up?