Why are Evans & Sanchez always brought up by Blues, claiming the club work to a transfer limit. You passed on Evans for £25 Mill & bought Laporte for £57 Mill. Sanchez chose us over you so you bid £60 Mill for Mahrez. The Mahrez deal including transfer fee & wages would have been alot more than Sanchez would have cost had he been willing to join you.
Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
Interesting - what are City's for last six months?
Never mind the accuracy of the figures, but City have offloaded Jovetić, Caballero, Sagna, Zabaleta, Kolarov, Clichy, Navas, Fernando, Nasri, Nolito & Bony in the same timeframe as Rooney, Schweinsteiger, Depay and Schneiderlin. They have added Jesus, Bernardo, Ederson, Walker, Danilo, Mendy and Laporte to United's Lindelöf, Matić, Lukaku and Alexis. I wouldn't be certain that the wage gap has widened if there was one to begin with.
So we've spent around £200m less and Jose inherited a squad which was lower quality than City's (Pep inherited his 3 best player - Aguero, KDB and Silva) so we arguably needed to spend much more. Partly due to the clusterfeck of managerial changes pre-Jose.
As an indication of the relative squad quality. Our squad had only finished in the top 4 once since Fergie left. In comparison to City who had finished top 4 every season since 2013.
Don't know. United are unique I think in that they publish 1/4ly.
Would imagine City's have also gone up as well, given you've bought Silva, Laporte and all the full-backs - not to mention renewing KDB and bringing Jesus on board.
But tbf City's squad management is much better than I thought it was. There don't seem to be any big earners hanging around any more, fair play to Soriano and Tziki for getting rid of them all.
Don't think anyone's talking about the fans when they talk about deserving success mate. The idea that one person deserves to watch winning football more than another one is nonsense. City were getting 30,000 in Div 2 and the fans should be respected for that.
It's just that a lot of people find it unpalatable that a club is lifted from obscurity by a billionaire's largesse. As many have said, it's the equivalent of winning the lottery. United have been well run for years and have never needed a benefactor. We spent big money occasionally under Fergie but it all came from the club's own revenue and we were always financially prudent.
City were managed incredibly badly for all that time; I'm old enough to remember the ridiculous managerial changes, the ridiculously expensive Kippax redevelopment, the over-priced flops like Lee Badbuy and Terry Phelan. After all that mismanagement, it's galling to see City jump the queue through sheer fluke.
If it was Villa, Newcastle, Forest or anyone else in City's position, there would be criticism. It's just magnified because City are the team next door.
Have a read about Brewer J.J. Davies and 'moneybags United'.
A cosmic sense of justice is misguided in something so grand as the universe. To find it in football would be even stranger. Not to mention the absurdity of linking it to how good a football club's accountants are.
We support football team, not public companies. Cheering on your club securing a new advertising deal is pathetic.
I Just cant fully respect a Club like city or Paris because of the way they have bought their success and recent history. Ill be the first to say that City play the best football in England and are deserved champions but its just something about it that bothers me a lot especially when there fans say Manchester is Blue or other arrogant things . Maybe its just me trying to fly the United flag high but its something that bothers me. Im not one to say that United deserve success now because of who they are you have to earn it week in week out as do Liverpool and the others but I also cant sit here and be happy about a club like City and PSG winning a title ( I know there are more clubs who were nothing and got bought but I am using these as an example). In a few years or so especially with the new young fan just as with Chelsea they will just be seen as another "Top" club in England with history with ought knowing the backstory. Ok rant over.
Yeah I don't get why they say this either when it's clear Sanchez turned them down.
1. There's a big difference between 'justice' and a situation where one club is effectively buying the league with their lottery win. Basically they're opposite ends of the scale.
2. The difference between United and City's ownership models has nothing to do with accountancy. Are you saying United have the better accountants and they're hiding donations from our secret oil billionaire?
3. What happens in the boardroom has a clear effect on what happens on the pitch so you can't detach the two.
4. Who is cheering United for securing a new advertising deal?
5. Brewer JJ Davies invested in United over 100 years ago. Is that really the best example you've got of a 'United Mansour'?
However, it's not like it can be done so easily everywhere, there is a challenge for the investor and the traditionaly dominating clubs can take measure's to discourage such upstarts or potential usurpers of the throne.
By nature regardless of what sector investors would invest in they typically would make an assesment as to where the largest "hole in the market" can be found as to yield them an optimal return on investment. Investors being investors most of them still seem to be in it for the profit afterall and making a healthy bussiness. To a large degree their core bussiness is to "reek a good opportunity when it presents itself".
It must be that the EPL presented more of a hole in the market for it to be so inviting for such investors. Perhaps it's understandable that they would be less inclined to try to crack for ex. the dominance of BM in Germany, the revenue's in Germany are lower and the required capital to be able to challenge BM might be larger than what you need in the EPL as well as that the risk might be considered higher for an optimal return as BM is a rather consistent team taking in prices year by year.
If it proves however that one of the best league's in regards to return also has a sort of leadership vacuum at the top with post SAF era then it is perhaps understandable that for any investor in this sector the EPL might prove to be the most lucrative spot for investment.
Well i can't fault the investors of city doing that, because they have exactly managed to do it all, make it a healthy club in value and return and attempting to take a dominant spot similar to that like BM in Germany or PSG in France. The ease by which even seems to dispense of the myth that the EPL would be so competitive to begin with.
And i think you can agree that money is just a part of the equasion to succes. You need more than that, good tactics, managers, trainers, morale, organisation etc. So it did require of the new city management to manage things well in all these aspects.
Manchester united was never forced to accept it all so easily and bend over to this though. Arguably they have just as much if not more money and/or attraction to be able to have dominating players/managers and overal organisation. However i think it's easy to argue that had united managed better to have much better overal performances and results in the last 5 years that it would have been much harder for any upstart to simply surpass it so easily.
It does surprise me that the oganisations of traditional teams which you'd think to be rather experienced can be so easily upset by the injection of a volume of money fairly similar to that of the top teams.
I guess regardless of other discussed matters that i'm rather impressed by the city investors abbilety to step into this market and seize it by the horns regardless of experience or history.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made about effecient management, also taking into account that the ROI that the investors achieved with city.
I guess you could say then that the city investor considered that United didn't spend its income effeciently enough to guarantee itself a dominant spot or resist the takeover by city.
Last edited:
City's wagebill is for 13 months, United's for 12. United's wagebill was higher than city's
Engaging in these arguments suggests we can come to a meaningful sense of legitimate success. Each of us has a set of criteria for footballing legitimacy that we have backwards rationalised from our own club's success.
http://www.skysports.com/football/n...n-could-man-city-win-the-premier-league-title
Fecking brilliant, so basically we're either going to have to give them a guard of honour or they win it by beating us, isn't it a coincidence how that's turned out
Fecking brilliant, so basically we're either going to have to give them a guard of honour or they win it by beating us, isn't it a coincidence how that's turned out
ManUtd's also complete club wage bill which includes 100s of other staff and also directors who get handsome money and ambassadors like SAF who earns 2 Million per year.
IIRC City pay their staff thorugh different company or something along that line.
that do which isn't uncommon, but it's a drop in the ocean. If you said it was another 500 staff averaging £40000 p/a (which is probably a high estimate) then that's only £20m
If it's a tea lady and a laundry person it won't make difference, if we are talking about so many directors, ambassadors getting very good pay then yeah it makes some difference.
Bernardo Silva has more minutes individually than Martial, Rashford or Lingard in all comps. Have they hardly played this season?
It's clear as day he's been eased in since his move, like Sane was last year. The idea that he's hardly played is completely false - he's been an incredibly important player for City in the second half of the season.
I don't know how many staff United have, but I reckon the majority of admin staff earn less than £25k, even most coaches aren't paid that well that's why I went with a high average to account for the directors etc, even so I'd doubt it would make £30m worth of difference, but who cares at the end of the day, it seems like it's just a bit of stick beating.
I also think City's players wages are heavily incentivised, so next season even getting rid of loads of old dead wood on big wages the wage bill will go up again if we win the league as well as the LC, and will probably rocket if we win the CL.
Rashford is widely regarded as having a disappointing season and there are murders on here every week because Martial doesn't play more!
Lingard is essentially a squad player so if you're comparing him to B Silva, a marquee signing, you're only backing up my point.
The thing with City you don't get mate, is there are no marquee signings, Bernardo is just one of many 40-55m players. City have built a squad of pretty even players around that value. Honestly, the only guaranteed play when fit players at City are Walker, Mendy and KDB, maybe Merlin too but he's missed a lot of games for personal reasons.
Bernardo is 12 on City's list for minutes played this season ahead of Gundogan, Kompany etc.. and he is 7th in the number of minutes played in the CL.
In total he has played 1527 minutes not including league or FA Cup, take Sane for example who has played just over 2000 minutes, that's less than 6 games, in the difference over those 2 competitions.
He's played almost the same amount of time as Stones and far more than Jesus.
The entire squad is rotatable.
Or to look at it another way, they're all marquee signings.
Well yes, if £43m is a marquee signing these or B.Silva a big enough player but I'd say not so. I think our last marquee signing was probably Sterling but that's imho. Regardless he's one of 18 or so similar players or similar value who are interchangeable in the first XI and given he's new and adapting plus in our around our top 10 minutes, I'd say he's played about as much as expected, certainly more than Sane had at this stage last season.
You would put any player who cost £40M + as a marquee signing. No club outside the top 6 would atm be able to pay this much for a player. Everton did sign Sigurdsson though this was down to the owner going on a splurge which won't be repeated. As clubs generate more income then the price of marquee signings will rise.
Yeah agreed. As of now, the 40-55m bracket is the price of a marquee signing.
Not really, Sanchez was £35m and he was a marquee signing and great value at that. Ibrahimovic was a marquee signing and he was free. Players like Bernardo aren't popular enough to be marquee signings imho... Cost is only one factor. For example, Matic is a great signing but I wouldn't call him a marquee signing either. A marquee signing for me in one who really stands out popularity wise compared to whats there and adds a shit load to global brand and popularity.
Pogba, for example, brings tons of new fans to United who simply follow Pogba (he has more followers than a lot of clubs). The same with Ibrahimovic etc... I wouldn't put Bernardo in that group but I suppose it depends on your definition of marquee signings.
Was for example Mangala a marquee signing?
Or even Mkhitaryan (who cost almost £40m) when he was completely overshadowed by Zlatan. Imho, it was the Zlatan deal that really stood out at United that summer. He was the big marquee signing, the one where the club could really beat its chest and say "We just signed Zlatan".
To me, it's the one who makes a statement, a signing of intent by bringing in someone who elevates the club, the big names. The KDB's, Pogbas, Neymars, Mbappes etc..
I guess we'll have to agree that we have different definitions of a marquee signing.
In that case none of your players are marquee signings mate
High praise from Henry on Pep and you can see why Guaridola's teams are so hungry for success when he drills that mentality into them
Henry on Pep "I learned how to play football again at 30 years old"
Henry on Pep "I learned how to play football again at 30 years old"
If the widely reported 26-30m fee is nearly 40, or transfer fees just aren’t worth keeping track of past a certain point. Guardian, mirror, bbc and multiple other sources also reported this figure.
http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-manchester-united-transfer-on-four-year-deal
I'm just going off transfermarkt mate which is what most people use here for discussing fees. It lists Mkhi at £37.8m.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/man...85/plus/0?saison_id=2016&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=
Sterling to an extent because he arrived with a huge reputation and was and I suppose still is huge news, before him Aguero and before that probably Robinho. Those are the 3 that were major names and major publicity. Maybe KDB to an extent but yeah, most our big signings haven't been huge marquee signings.In that case none of your players are marquee signings mate
Don’t think he’d go to PSG - what would be the point?
The City move was about seeing if he could conquer English football and the unique opportunity to craft a side exactly how he wants it with an unlimited budget.
Repeating the trick in the French league would be a bit redundant. I think he’ll go back to Barca or manage an international side next.
I think Bernardo Silva will become a decisive player for them. He was vital in Monaco's run to the semi's.
Yeah that'd really be a sideways move, one oil club to another.
Reckon he'll go back to Barcelona, either to work for the football club or become a political figure.
I reckon you're wrong.
Do you have any idea about how Barcelona is run and why a return is very unlikely without many other events occurring first?
No but I do live in Barcelona mate, so have got a fair idea about his connection to the area.
He's already stood for election in Catalonia so he's clearly got ambitions in this area.
https://www.infobae.com/2015/07/21/...sumo-criticas-ser-candidato-politico-catalan/
What do you think? That he wants to remain the frontman for an oil investment project the rest of his working life? That he's forged a lasting bond with the people of Stockport and wants to dedicate his talent to them?
Nobody is deluded enough to think that he has any affinity to Manchester as an area or City as a club. The reason he's here is for the money, the chance to work with his old mates and be backed to indulge his professional experiments without interference.
You, as one who has lived in the Barcelona area, should know that.
Guardiola to PSG in my honest opinion is impossible move. Why? Because Pep even when decide to leave City (i think he will stay about 5 or 6 years total there) will stay loyal to the club that gave him the chance to work in England. As we all know the owners of PSG and the owners of City are in some kind of a ''cold war'' so it will be some kind of betrayal to his current bosses to go to Paris.
I still think that his next destination after City would be to manage one of the top teams in Italy. AC Milan because of the history of this team (Guardiola always speaks with a lot of praise about Sacchi's Milan) or Inter Milano to try to surpass the achievements of Mourinho there?! May be Napoli to try to finish what is Sarri building there?! Or even Roma, where he played only 2-3 games as a player lol The only team where he will not go in my opinion is surprisingly or not - Juventus. Over the years i got the impression that there are some bad feelings between Pep and this club i dunno why..
I still think that his next destination after City would be to manage one of the top teams in Italy. AC Milan because of the history of this team (Guardiola always speaks with a lot of praise about Sacchi's Milan) or Inter Milano to try to surpass the achievements of Mourinho there?! May be Napoli to try to finish what is Sarri building there?! Or even Roma, where he played only 2-3 games as a player lol The only team where he will not go in my opinion is surprisingly or not - Juventus. Over the years i got the impression that there are some bad feelings between Pep and this club i dunno why..
Honestly most of what you said is based solely on conjecture. Assuming City’s best players will all leave is wishful thinking. What if they win the treble this season and continue to have success? If Man City continue on their current trajectory and win multiple titles, especially CL, its much more probable that not only will their best players want to stay but other top players will be enticed to join them. That’s without mentioning if they keep hold of Pep who is considered by most the best manager out there and he literally has everything he could want at City. He manages in the league with the highest profile and exposure while having a yearly transfer budget that’s probably second to only PSG. City will do absolutely everything in their power to keep him happy so unless for some reason he wanted to manage Barca again its most likely he is in Manchester for the long hall, as are his best players.