They won't sign a CF as they have no money. Apparently. Pep the pauper.
Pep's spending is insane (£941m and counting at City)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Kane incoming
Hopefully with Fernandinho and KDB getting older we'll see them struggle to find proper replacements.
City for sure will be contesting again next year, all we can wish for is Bayern or some other club to step up if they do get Kane.
City for sure will be contesting again next year, all we can wish for is Bayern or some other club to step up if they do get Kane.
Apparently could easily win the league with Lindelof as his starting CB. 
Will be remembered as one of greatest coaches whose method could only work at big club supported by highly technical players. Yep, Pep is not a miracle maker, unlike SAF or Jurgen Klopp.
Will be remembered as one of greatest coaches whose method could only work at big club supported by highly technical players. Yep, Pep is not a miracle maker, unlike SAF or Jurgen Klopp.
Was hoping the same with Silva and kompany going, ha
Oblak 100m
Varane 70m
Nuno Mendes 60m
Tielemans 80m
Aouar 60m
Grealish 100m
Kane 150m
He needs major investment to ensure getting past the QFs this year wasn't a fluke.
Varane 70m
Nuno Mendes 60m
Tielemans 80m
Aouar 60m
Grealish 100m
Kane 150m
He needs major investment to ensure getting past the QFs this year wasn't a fluke.
Not gonna happen. In the last 9 years City have made it abundantly clear that they will never rest on their laurels in terms of spending. They may not be the top spenders every single summer, but over a 3 year period they will almost certainly be. They will never allow having a squad that's not at least comparable with the best team in the league. And under regular circumstances they will demand having the strongest team on paper.
That is the new reality the rest of the top teams in the PL have to deal with. Any club that wont match this have to settle for striking gold(Liverpool with Klopp) or sporadic successes(Chelsea).
Chelsea can match their spending though.
Maybe, but they haven't. It's not that there's a mountain of difference between their spending, but the difference is still there, even if it's slight. The thing about City is that they never really stop spending, even when they are the best. On top of this they've managed to find the perfect league manager in Pep, who thrives when he has the best team in the league. And to make matters worse, they feck up their transfers less frequently than their rivals.
Ultimately, it's not enough to match City's spending. That will only work if you have a better manager than Pep and even then it might only work for an isolated season. The way to beat City right now is frankly to outspend them. Over multiple summers. There's no better manager than Pep on the market and there is nothing we can do about their scouting.
Over the last few years Chelsea tend to sell big before spending big unlike City who buy big every summer irregardless of outgoings.
He won it with Stones, so I don't see why he couldn't win it with Lindelöf. Granted, Stones is barely a starter, but still.Apparently could easily win the league with Lindelof as his starting CB.
This is true. Probably earned more in transfers in last 5-10 years than any other club, including Europe. On top of that we don’t actually buy many overseas youth products anymore, most of our academy are British.
FFP rules are to be relaxed and ultimately totally reformed because of the Covid issue. From what I have read, it doesn’t mean City and Chelsea can go and spend £500m on players, although that hasn’t stopped them before. All the clubs are pleading poverty but I bet this window will be close to the highest spend ever. Guardiola has stated publicly that City have ‘only £100m’ to spend. Poor Guardiola, that will be a first for him. I still reckon there’s a lot of invisible money floating about between clubs and agents.
Chelsea haven't spent like they did when they burst on the scene in the mid 2000s.
People talk about last summer, but that was in effect the first time spending in 3 windows due to their transfer ban, and having the £100m Hazard fee in their pocket.
Similar to Liverpool going wild one summer having the Coutinho money.
Benfica, Juve, Barca, Atletico and Monaco have made more.
Chelsea are the second biggest spenders in the last ten years, behind only City. They have the 4th highest net spend. But almost every big club in Europe has spent a billion or over in the same period, Juve, Liverpool, Barca, Utd, City, PSG, Real they've all done it.
As for that, the transfer ban had a fair bit to do with it. All those rule breaches and it makes life easier to change the focus to local players. Less heat from the authorities about trafficking youngsters, in the next 5 years I'll be surprised if even one of them makes it at Chelsea. They'll just continue to wait a couple of years then sign them, like Ziyech, Pulisic or Havertz.
Can they? Abramovich is very, very rich but a lot of his wealth is tied up in businesses, can he really come up with a few hundred million cash every summer? Plus, will he? He made the money himself and knows the value of it.
Our noisy neighbours have no concept of money whatsoever, in a way only an oil state could. I can only see PSG matching them until another one gets involved.
City won the league basically without KDB a couple of years ago. They’re not dependent on any player. Their system is built that way, which is the right way.
I think you're being to pessimistic, even with money is not easy to strike gold. Right now with a bottomless barrel of money who can they buy to replace KDB?
It's not only about money and spending, there has to be a player of similar characteristics or quality. Good players can always be bought but special players are a rare thing. KDB falls into that last category.
On a one-off basis it’s not easy to strike gold, but that’s not how they operate. They’ll consistently spend and hoover up talent year after year until they get their KdB replacement. No other club, bar PSG, can do that.
Money is not the solution to everything, but it certainly helps. And City is a good example of this.
If we take the 3 best players from City and United and compare them in isolation, then there's not much separating the two teams. The problem is that City have good players in practically every position and on the bench. This is a result of consistent high spending over many years. I've seen many people claim that KDB hasn't been City's best or even second best player this season, but it doesn't matter when they have so many others who can step up.
City have changed managers 2 or 3(?) times post Fergie, but I don't think any of the managers had to do a massive rebuild. If Pep left City tomorrow, then whoever takes over would have a very easy job. Even with no signings he'd have the strongest team in the league. This has generally been true for the last 8 years. You could have sacked the manager at any time and whoever comes in has a team that's at least comparable to the best team in the league and typically only needs a few signings to be back on track.
I think we are highly overrating City's scouting system, they went years and years throwing money to the dirt for CBs until they finally hit gold with Ruben Días. I get your point about them eventually hitting it because of repetition but that doesn't mean they won't struggle when they're on the process.
I think you are evaluating players after being coached by Pep, buy some of his latest signings have not been impressive but promising. Of course they have a great coach to develop and explode that talent but when was the last time City bought an all ready made superstar? Besides Mahrez and Cancelo I can't think of one.
I mean they are one hell of a team to beat but they're not perfect nor invincibles, they're going to enter a patch of renewing the squad soon and we could take advantage of that.
Outside of Aguero (who they'll likely replace with Kane anyway) and Fernandinho who they already bought a replacement for, which parts of their squad needs renewing?
Guardiola will never work at a not big club because all big clubs want him, no coach has as much prestige.Apparently could easily win the league with Lindelof as his starting CB.
Will be remembered as one of greatest coaches whose method could only work at big club supported by highly technical players. Yep, Pep is not a miracle maker, unlike SAF or Jurgen Klopp.
Guardiola ultimately makes teams reach their highest technical level possible, but to play the amazing football he makes his teams play, he still needs amazing players.
Also recommend this article of deep tactical analysis, explaining Guardiola's brilliance.
https://spielverlagerung.com/2021/03/22/how-guardiola-3-2-2-3-ultimately-solved-the-defending-meta/
When did Ferguson or Klopp do a miracle? Miracle for me is Leicester winning the PL in 2016. They won the UCL with surely great teams too.
@SAFMUTD
The definition of "superstar" is largely subjective. I actually don't think Mahrez and Cancelo necessarily fall under that category either, btw.
When Pep arrived he had: Kompany, Fernandinho, D.Silva, Toure, De Bruyne, Sterling and prime Aguero. On top of this, he immediately added Gundogan, Stones, Sane and Jesus. That's a superb team from the get-go(not that he could capitalize on it in his first season). And ever since then he kept pouring money into the defense on an annual basis, while getting the likes of B.Silva and Mahrez in the meantime.
Practically every player in the starting XI cost more than 50 million euros. The obvious exceptions are Foden(who doesn't always start), Gundogan(who's one of their best players anyways), and Jesus(who is probably gonna get replaced ASAP). They also got a heavy bench.
Compare that to us, the second highest spenders in the league(if we count from the Mourinho era at least): 4 academy players in the starting XI. A 33(?) year old free transfer up front. 2 players costing less than 40 million euros(Shaw and Lindelöf). That's 7 out of 11 players falling under the category "free" or "cheap".
Of course, this is partly down to us having a good academy while fecking up a lot of transfers(particularly under Mourinho and Van Gaal). But the end result is clear, and it's not pretty when you compare us to City.
The definition of "superstar" is largely subjective. I actually don't think Mahrez and Cancelo necessarily fall under that category either, btw.
When Pep arrived he had: Kompany, Fernandinho, D.Silva, Toure, De Bruyne, Sterling and prime Aguero. On top of this, he immediately added Gundogan, Stones, Sane and Jesus. That's a superb team from the get-go(not that he could capitalize on it in his first season). And ever since then he kept pouring money into the defense on an annual basis, while getting the likes of B.Silva and Mahrez in the meantime.
Practically every player in the starting XI cost more than 50 million euros. The obvious exceptions are Foden(who doesn't always start), Gundogan(who's one of their best players anyways), and Jesus(who is probably gonna get replaced ASAP). They also got a heavy bench.
Compare that to us, the second highest spenders in the league(if we count from the Mourinho era at least): 4 academy players in the starting XI. A 33(?) year old free transfer up front. 2 players costing less than 40 million euros(Shaw and Lindelöf). That's 7 out of 11 players falling under the category "free" or "cheap".
Of course, this is partly down to us having a good academy while fecking up a lot of transfers(particularly under Mourinho and Van Gaal). But the end result is clear, and it's not pretty when you compare us to City.
Exactly. The biggest difference is no one in the media talks about the players that flop because they continue to be successful. They bought Ake for £41m, has anyone ever discussed what a waste of money he was?Chances are he will be sold for a massive loss and replaced within the next 18 months.
Compare to United and someone like Fred who cost £47m. Quoted price on Sky is always £52m plus and his price is constantly mentioned if he’s had a bad game.
Plus we can’t cycle players as quickly. If City buy a £50m flop they just sell and replace. We have to give these players a couple of seasons and that’s why we are so behind now. The likes of Fred, Lindelof, probably even Pogba would have been replaced by now if they were at City.
Yes, it doesn't mean they can't do it without him but it's undeniable that they're a stronger club with him. So we have a better chance to beat them if they're in the middle of replacing their most brilliant player. Anyway it's not happening soon, KDB still has at least 2-3 years of top quality in him which is a lot of time and anything can happen in that frame.
Not at the moment but they'll need a replacement for KDB, it wasn't a statement about their whole squad but rather their, or one of their, special player.
Just checked and they have not been spending that much money since they won it the first time. Although 60 M on Cancelo and Rodri is pretty insane.
I feel Peps coaching has been great, but in the market him and the scouts have been pretty average.
I feel Peps coaching has been great, but in the market him and the scouts have been pretty average.
Still I think you're grading the signings for the players they became and not for what they were when signed. Kompany was a promising player from Hamburg but was by no means a world-class player at that time, same for all the other players you mentioned besides Aguero, Gundogan and Toure.
Truth is at the time of the signings those players weren't as impressive as are now, obviously the main factor here is that they developed them into great top class players.
I don't know why you mention us, but I totally agree we were shit at signing players. I don't think there's a debate about that.
Exactly they can afford to avoid that criticism because they are successful. If rating VDB and Ake signings they are pretty much equally shit. Even buying Cancelo for 60M and him being a squad option has to be considered a failure. But no one talks about City because they keep winning. Which is fair of course, but I don't agree of the opinion that says their scouting system is great I don't think that's necessarily true.
Without meaning they're the worst at scouting but I think without Pep they would struggle a hell lot more than they do.
It's the other way around, people talk about last summers spending as if it was an anomaly, a necessity in the wake of the transfer ban. They spent £235m in 17/18, and £180m in 18/19.
Now, to be fair to them, Chelsea are good at getting paid for the players they sell. They managed to get £37.5m and £40m for Mata and Matic respectively. With Mata in particular, they took us to the cleaners over a player their manager didn't even fancy. They also have their model of bringing in youth, loaning them out for ages, then selling them for a nice profit.
You've got to factor in net spend.
Last year was a 170m net spend, so clearly stands out a lot versus the 2 years you mention (60m and 100m respectively).
But even then needs factoring against them having a minus net spend of 100m from 2019/20 when they had their ban and sold Hazard.
Compare some of Man City's net spends...
17/18 Over 200m (!)
16/17 Over 160m
15/16 127m
A few others over 100m as well.
Chelsea probably net spend around £70m a year. City spend a lot more than that.
Where Chelsea are able to go beyond that £70m figure is because of their ability to churn players. I mean, this summer they'll probably get something like the following:
Tomori - £25m
Zouma - £30m
Abraham - £35m
Moses - £4m (read this one is done as Spartak had to buy if they finished top 2.)
I mean that is the best part of £90m, so with their £70m, you're looking at £150m. That is also before you get to any of the more difficult players they have to shift or the loan fees they pick up.
Only issue they have is their 2016-18 windows where dire and they aren't going to get much money back for any of those players.
Where Chelsea are able to go beyond that £70m figure is because of their ability to churn players. I mean, this summer they'll probably get something like the following:
Tomori - £25m
Zouma - £30m
Abraham - £35m
Moses - £4m (read this one is done as Spartak had to buy if they finished top 2.)
I mean that is the best part of £90m, so with their £70m, you're looking at £150m. That is also before you get to any of the more difficult players they have to shift or the loan fees they pick up.
Only issue they have is their 2016-18 windows where dire and they aren't going to get much money back for any of those players.
Their system is dependent on having 22 brilliant players and a few more besides. Yes that’s the right way if you can afford it; let’s not pretend they can win without having the best group of players, it’s not true and certainly can’t be shown to be true because they do have the best players.
Take KDB out and you weaken them slightly until he is replaced with another brilliant player.
A slightly weakened City can indeed win the league but every chink in the armour gives the rest more hope.
We can disagree on the exact level of all these players, but the fact of the matter is that City had the best squad in the league after that summer. And quite comfortably so, imo. They still barely finished 4th, though. I have to admit, I thought this would mark the beginning of Pep's first failure as a manager. But of course the players he signed adapted(plus he signed many more). The rest is history.
I mention us because we finished 2nd and are the second 2nd highest spenders as well. We should at the very least be in contention to eventually overtake them.
Things have dramatically improved under Ole, though. Bruno, Maguire, AWB and Cavani are all successful signings. Telles serves his purpose just fine and Amad is still very young. James looks like a failure, but at least he was of the cheap kind. VDB is the only complete failure, but to be fair he's only been around for one season.
We still suck at selling, though.
You have to factor in that When Pep joined City they had one of the oldest teams in the league while Chelseas team was fairly young
It goes without saying that you are likely to get a sale value from a young player like Sane, Danilo than from a Kompany, Hart Zabaleta, Sagna, Clichy Toure D.Silva, Aguero. Most who went to retirement or semi-retirement
You cannot discuss net spend without considering the age of the squad inherited. Chelsea loaded up on a lot of young players just before Pep arrived just like they did last summer
An example is A new coach gets to Madrid today and has to replace Modric, Benz, Ramos, Kroos Bale Varane Marcelo etc great players who currently have no sell on value in the next few years vs a coach who is inheriting current Bayern with a younger team
Over the next 5yrs, Madrid will have a higher net spend than Bayern as a matter of necessity not because the coach is wasteful
I think we need more signings and a little bit of luck, I don't think our signings have been particularly great besides obviously Bruno. But I don't think our squad is as far some posters claim, were obviously not in the Bayern/City bracket but besides them I think we can match pretty much anybody.
As I said, Chelsea are great at getting good fees, both for transfers and loans, for players they've no intention of keeping or using. We, on the other hand, have only in the last few years started to realise the value of actually asking for money for our players. The worst example of this is selling Michael Keane to Burnley for whatever their chairman had in his pocket at the time, only for them to sell him on for £25m a couple of years down the line. On top of that, he's better than any CB that's featured for us since then, bar Maguire.
They won’t ever struggle, not really. As the other poster said, they consistently spend large sums of money over time to the point where their squad is always stocked with quality, there are always plenty of players to fall back on. It’s not necessarily the result of being shrewd in the market or having a great scouting network, it’s just relentless spend.
If they carry on doing what they’re doing, they will more or less always have the strongest squad in the league. That won’t change unless they rein in their spend. However I don’t see that happening anytime soon, what with them being a political and economic tool for a very wealthy nation state.