Well theyre are certainly the favorites but they're not invincible. Like all teams they'll have their highs and lows even when their lows will be higher than most teams highs.
Pep's spending is insane (£941m and counting at City)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
They’re not invincible no. We’ll see sides rise up to challenge them on occasion, for example Liverpool, but they ultimately won’t be able to keep up over time.
I would wager City winning the majority of league titles over the next 10 years as things stand, regardless of who their manager is. That’s just the sorry state of football and the Premier League.
Looking only at transfer fees without looking at annual wages is not the right way. And the best Chelsea team is better than the best City team.
The difference is they can afford to be average repeatedly because if they sign a player for 60m who flops, they have no issues with trying again in the next window. Their overall depth just becomes staggering at a certain point and they never really have to struggle with a “bad” signing because they have unlimited funds to give it another go the next year.
I think Pep has some brilliant tactical insights especially within his broader system, but it’s undeniable that he’s gotten exposed repeatedly over the years when teams have weeks to prepare for matchups (UCL) and aren’t overmatched in talent. Essentially it feels like he’s done the opposite of someone like Klopp, who has tried to mold a system around what he’s given, while Pep decides on the system first and then throws money at players until it’s just right.
It’s interesting because I would like to actually see how successful he would be without these advantages, but as previously mentioned he’s too prestigious and sought after (and conscious of his legacy) to ever end up at a club with less resources that might require more tweaking from his side.
If Pep leaves the ground would be way more leveled. The thing is they have a world-class squad with a world-class manager and they're challenged by great managers but only good not world class squads (Chelsea and Liverpool).
Us, well we have a good squad with an average manager, I think it will be way harder for us than for Chelsea and Liverpool even if Pep leaves.
Facts say otherwise.
City's next spend in the summer was around £42m which includes £21m spent on 3 youth players! Season before it was around £75-80m. Season before it was a profit made in transfers.
But aye City net spend is £150-200m every season...
City have a net spend of £704m over the last five years to Chelsea's £314m. So that is £140.8m to £62.8m.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
City's net spend since 2016 (Pep) has been comparable to Chelsea's and PSG's combined. Their net spend per season since then was around €125m/season (620m overall), while Chelsea's was around 55m/season (286m overall).
2nd highest has been United with 553m (who were probably the worst managed club in those years), 3rd is PSG (389m). The difference betwen City - who arguably already had the best squad in the league back then - and every other club bar United is like night and day...
Source: transfermarkt.de
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22456162
If you're a United fan you should probably do more research into our most successful manager.
Yes you’re of course right that they have an impressive squad and that certainly helps when you’re without one of your best players.
The difference though is If you have a good foundation with a clear plan of how you want to play, and every player understand this, you decrease the big drop off in performances from the substitutes whenever they’re called up on.
Am I interpreting this right that City and United have same net spend over the last 5 years? I thought they were outspending us.
Peps second window was insane though. They got 5-6 first team players like Walker, Ederson, Bernardo Silva etc.
Since then they have only got one star player in Mahrez for attack and Dias for def.
I don't know where you get your facts, but you're wrong. City haven't made a profit in transfers since 2005/06.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281
That's irrelevant when discussing potential figures this summer.
City spent big in the first two seasons under Guardiola as they needed a complete rebuild. Chelsea also had a transfer ban in this 5 year spell.
How far back do you go, what's the net spend over the last 10, 15 or 20 years?
Fact is in the last three seasons City's net spend has not been anywhere as high as made out. Using spending from 5 years ago as some sort of evidence what they will spend this summer instead of recent windows is hilarious.
I understand what your’re saying and that’s true, but Pep have shown before that he’s a smart man and know how to change up his team whenever he needs it. I mean look at how he has replaced Silva, who has been arguably more important for City in his tenure there than KDB has ever been for them.
It’s quite laughable that people think City will fade if Pep were to leave. He might be the current face of City, but he didn’t make them. Mansour did.
When Pep leaves, City will simply hand over one of the best squads in Europe to a new manager and back him to the hilt.
I didn't say they would fade, but if Pep leaves can they really replace him with a better coach? At the moment they got the top of the notch managing wise, there's only downhill once you reach the top.
Better league manager? Probably not. Better cup manager? Possibly.
Transfermarkt is a site that gets figures wrong all the time. They don't even have Angelino or Matondo in the sales for that season which was a combined £15m
They have Sane down as £40m, when it was an intial £45m + add ons.
Last edited:
Even if they get some figures wrong on occasion, it's not by much and it goes both ways, it's not like they have anti-Pep agenda. By my calculations in five years Pep has had around £536m net spend. Even if transfermarkt added a few million to the incoming transfers and subtracted a few from the outgoing ones, it's still around £100m net spend per season.Transfermarkt is a site that gets figures wrong all the time. They don't even have Angelino or Matondo in the sales for that season which was a combined £15m
They have Sane down as £40m, when it was an intial £45m + add ons.
Angelino was (correctly) counted as next season's transfer (21/22 for 18m Euros). Transfermarkt generally uses conservative (German) sources for transfer sums, but of course they do that to all the transfers, not just City's. For instance, the Dias sale was reported to be 68m Euros in Germany (and transfermarkt), whereas in Britain it was 65m GBP, which is 76m Euros.Transfermarkt is a site that gets figures wrong all the time. They don't even have Angelino or Matondo in the sales for that season which was a combined £15m
They have Sane down as £40m, when it was an intial £45m + add ons.
Can you provide any source to back up your claims? I can hardly imagine City's spending looking much better even when using the highest reported fees for sales and lowest for buys. Their spending has been simply on another level to every other club in world football. They have arguably the best squad in the world because of that though, money was at least better spent than United did (which was not hard to do tbf).
Last edited:
Think you will find that was when Angelino went to Leipzig, which has no relevance to my post. I was talking about when he signed for PSV and the 18/19 season!
My point is more that they can just keep chucking at “need” positions every summer without needing to give players any time. It would be like if we bought Douglas costa, and then Coman, and then went in for Sancho this summer
Angelino came from PSV though (signed for 12m according to the link from @Bob Rivers ), not sure what you mean tbh. Matondo was counted as a City U23 transfer and therefore was not included in the City sales, but unless you think that City is the club who makes any significant money from selling their youth players compared to the other clubs, I don't think it has any relevance tbh.
Still I'm actually interested in where you'd get your sources that City has made money in the last years from. I've always been of the opinion that transfermarkt is one of the most credible sources out there but I won't have any issues to be proven wrong though.
They already had Sterling, Kompany, Aguero, Silva, Fernandinho, De Bruyne, Otamendi, Yaya.
Who all went on to be pivotal in his league campaigns. Not exactly a complete rebuild when 5 players already at the club were 5 of the best 11 for Pep from 2016 up until Silva leaving last season. But we can also include Kompany who was the captain and a clear leader in the dressing room.
He inheriting some vital players already before spending nearly a billion quid in 5 years.
Not if the subs are shit. But I follow your point.
Did Bayern go downhill? Did they feck @SAFMUTD
Bayern won the treble just before Pep arrived and again after Pep left, so no, there really isn’t “only downhill”.
Pep is superb, but he’s not the reason City are becoming more dominant, that’s due to the Sheikh.
Last edited:
Keeping in mind that both Mancini and Pellegrini won the league for city before Pep came, maybe a better cup manager is what they need.
The bottom line might be that you can buy the league, because if you have the best players, overwhelmingly, you will win more than the rest, but in the cups you can always have a bad day, or get beat on penalties (or 1-0) by some bus parkers.
Man City sold Angelino to PSV in the 2018/2019 season for £5m. They signed him back the year after which again has no relevance for the previous season.
Your post about Matondo just backs me up further about using transfermarkt, they don't include that in City's transfer income, yet they include them signing players at 18 such as Palaserva who was signed for the under 23s.
2018-2019 this was City transfers.
In
Mahrez - £60m
Knight - £700K
Sandler - £2.6m
Bazunu - £420K
Arzani - £800K
Itakura - £900K
Palaversa - £7m
Total = £72.42m
Out
Angelino - £5m
Maffeo - £8.8m
Kayode - £3m
Gunn - £13.5m
Matondo - £11m
Diaz - £15.5m
Hart - £3.5m
Celina - £3m
Kongolo - £750K
Denayer - £9m
Total = £73.05m
Also Diaz/Denayer deals had add ons so total figures were actually higher. Not to mention City sold a further 13 players for undisclosed fees and sent out 40 players on loan with loan fees. Chelsea get praised for income from youth players on loan deals/selling them but when it comes to City this is ignored in their finances, why? So yes my original point about City having a positive net spend in 18-19 was accurate unlike transfermarkt.
Since succeeding Manuel Pellegrini in 2016, Guardiola has spent in excess of £750m ($1bn) on new players, starting with Ilkay Gundogan, who arrived for around £20m ($28m).
Spin it all you like Mark, his spending has been fecking outrageous.
Spin it all you like Mark, his spending has been fecking outrageous.
Their record in Europe can certainly be improved. As for the league, well, Pep isn’t the be all and end all of football management. There will always be another manager to come along. If not, throwing enough money at the problem will generally solve it.
Both Bayern & Barca have won trebles post Pep.
Ex fecking actly
And even those trebles are attributed to Pep by some people. There’s a bit of an obsessive cult around the guy to say the least.
Is this really true? They always seem to be spending £50m+ to rectify a previous mistake, especially on their defence.
Guardiola needs the best players to win. His first season and subsequent spending spree at City (breaking premiership spending records) shows this.
Ferguson won the Scottish league with Aberdeen. Also completely turned around Uniteds fortunes when he arrived, after many years of us not winning the league. Don't know about Klopp, but your first example is so wrong I switched off.
You have a point there, but still lets say Pep goes away right now who can City possibly get that is on the same bracket as him? Its hard to say really.
Well I guess we'll see...hopefully they go down hill I dont know what so many of you are so excited about them being so good and hope they continue to do so.
Reported spending is outrageous. But then the numbers city report are bullshit so its probably worse.
He's had Mahrez and Sane sitting on the bench for years, they weren't even flops or underperforming. Whatever the number is, its beyond any other team in europe.
Conte is the only one who can match his league record. However, he isn't great in Europe either.