tenpoless
No 6-pack, just 2Pac
Comparable to what Ole did with Moldehttps://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.
Comparable to what Ole did with Moldehttps://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.
It's a unique situation at City. Chuck enough money at the problems and enough of it will work out for you to succeed given you're a competently coached football team. So you can spend a fortune in CBs and fullbacks buying a bad apple or two, as long as a few of them have a good season which is by the law of averages, pretty likely. Can't get the best out of Sterling? Mahrez or Gundogan who you couldn't get the best out of previously will eventually perform. Absolutely luxury to have as a manager.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.
I’m going to assume this is sarcasm. Hard to tell nowadays.Comparable to what Ole did with Molde
Ever heard Fergie's Aberdeen or Klopp's Dortmund?Guardiola will never work at a not big club because all big clubs want him, no coach has as much prestige.
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.
Stones can head the ball, Linda can't.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.
I hope someone pointed out SAF's Aberdeen career and also Klopp winning with Dortmund when they were average/midtable before Klopp.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.
Well when discussing Pep’s spending you clearly go back to when he joined the club.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.
Don't worry I'm not JonnoWhiteI’m going to assume this is sarcasm. Hard to tell nowadays.
I couldn't be bothered to check all those transfer fees so I just looked at the two players you've mentioned. That €10m fee for Denayer is the final number, with €3.5m being possible add-ons already included in that fee, so in reality it may even be a smaller figure.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.
That article backs up that Denayer was sold for initial £10m Euros and £3.5 further add ons..???I couldn't be bothered to check all those transfer fees so I just looked at the two players you've mentioned. That €10m fee for Denayer is the final number, with €3.5m being possible add-ons already included in that fee, so in reality it may even be a smaller figure.
https://www.ol.fr/fr-fr/contenus/ar...-sengage-avec-lol-pour-les-prochaines-saisons
So even if the rest of your calculations are correct, that measly 0.6m you present as a profit may not even exist.
In any case, it doesn't change the fact that City's net spend under Guardiola has been huge.
Point is, Pep has spent the money, in top of inheriting an already title winning squad. Just because he spent most of the money a couple of years ago doesn't matter.That article backs up that Denayer was sold for initial £10m Euros and £3.5 further add ons..???
As for your final sentence, I've never once stated otherwise, of course his net spend is huge.
My whole argument here is the fact a poster wrongly suggested City each summer spend well over £100m net when in fact the last three seasons have all been well under that figure. City 'could' go and spend similar to what they did in Pep's first two seasons, but it's highly unlikely. That's the problem with many on here, completely unable to grasp the actual debate and go off on tangents about historical spending etc. When in fact what I said was valid and factual.
Agree. Not to mention his net spend is insane. Other clubs, even giant ones have to sell players to balance books. City just keeps adding 40, 50 million players in reserve roles.Point is, Pep has spent the money, in top of inheriting an already title winning squad. Just because he spent most of the money a couple of years ago doesn't matter.
He has outspent every other club in the World and broken premiership spending records. Combined with inheriting Aguero, Kdb, Sterling, Kompany etc. Any top manager could've won the silverware he has at City. It is playing on cheat mode.
A good reason why 3 games in 6 days or similar is perfect for them and will hinder the rest. As the decrease from first 11 to reserves is probably the lowest at their teamAgree. Not to mention his net spend is insane. Other clubs, even giant ones have to sell players to balance books. City just keeps adding 40, 50 million players in reserve roles.
Not further add-ons. 10m is the total number, 6.5m is the initial fee plus 3.5m potential add-ons. That's the link from the official Lyon site.That article backs up that Denayer was sold for initial £10m Euros and £3.5 further add ons..???
As for your final sentence, I've never once stated otherwise, of course his net spend is huge.
My whole argument here is the fact a poster wrongly suggested City each summer spend well over £100m net when in fact the last three seasons have all been well under that figure. City 'could' go and spend similar to what they did in Pep's first two seasons, but it's highly unlikely. That's the problem with many on here, completely unable to grasp the actual debate and go off on tangents about historical spending etc. When in fact what I said was valid and factual.
He also said that 100 mil player is for next 10 years. And then he goes for 28y old player. What a hypocrite he isSo the billion pound man, who's somehow tried to persist with the absurd notion that city have financial limitations becomes the first PL manager to ever bid 100m for a player? How will he spin this one?
He would sell his wife for a CL at this point
Who actually gives a feckHe also said that 100 mil player is for next 10 years. And then he goes for 28y old player. What a hypocrite he is
You know it's possible to discuss the highest spending manager of all time without it having anything to do with United? The highest spending manager of all time looking to break the British transfer record for the first 100m pound player is something people might discuss on its own meritWho actually gives a feck
The amount of money Utd have spent over the years is mind boggling.
Because we don't hide behind silly excuses. We spend. Period.Who actually gives a feck
The amount of money Utd have spent over the years is mind boggling.
Yet still less than City. Probably why it's worth a discussion. On a United forum of all places.Who actually gives a feck
The amount of money Utd have spent over the years is mind boggling.
You want City to win the Champions League so their players are happy? Have you considered going to Blue Moon?I just feel sorry for Aguero, one of the greatest strikers of the Premier League and such a humble footballer who never get into any trouble...fails to win the biggest prize in club football. Perhaps he can win it with Barca but I doubt they can do it.
A lot of people as you do realise this is a thread dedicated to Pep's spending and it has over 1000 posts.Who actually gives a feck
The amount of money Utd have spent over the years is mind boggling.
Assuming transfermarkt data is accurate, net spend since Pep arrival is €619.96mil for City and €553.30mil for Utd.Point is, Pep has spent the money, in top of inheriting an already title winning squad. Just because he spent most of the money a couple of years ago doesn't matter.
He has outspent every other club in the World and broken premiership spending records. Combined with inheriting Aguero, Kdb, Sterling, Kompany etc. Any top manager could've won the silverware he has at City. It is playing on cheat mode.
It is when you consider the players he inherited.Assuming transfermarkt data is accurate, net spend since Pep arrival is €619.96mil for City and €553.30mil for Utd.
So yeah they outspend anybody else, but 12% more than town rivals over 5 season doesn't feel like such a game-ending cheat.
It's not.Assuming transfermarkt data is accurate, net spend since Pep arrival is €619.96mil for City and €553.30mil for Utd.
So yeah they outspend anybody else, but 12% more than town rivals over 5 season doesn't feel like such a game-ending cheat.
What if they started with a way better squad, didn’t go through 3 managers, don’t actually generate the money they spend, get investigated for it and still continue to outspend everyone else, while at the same time, said manager acts like a pauper with some sort of restrictions on him.Assuming transfermarkt data is accurate, net spend since Pep arrival is €619.96mil for City and €553.30mil for Utd.
So yeah they outspend anybody else, but 12% more than town rivals over 5 season doesn't feel like such a game-ending cheat.
I've also thought about this and would agree actually. Would be very healthy for overall competition while clubs with endless money like City or traditional big clubs would still somehow have an advantage, albeit not as big as currently.It's not.
But again all the game needs to do is institute a transfer fee and wage cap.
Why net spend? Just because they made good money with the Nacho, Danilo and Sane deals?Assuming transfermarkt data is accurate, net spend since Pep arrival is €619.96mil for City and €553.30mil for Utd.
So yeah they outspend anybody else, but 12% more than town rivals over 5 season doesn't feel like such a game-ending cheat.
It's pretty much only de Bruyne and Sterling left from that squad that will play a big part next season. Fernandinho is still there, but he already didn't play that much this year and will play even less next year presumably. Meanwhile we have Shaw, Rashford and Martial left from before 2016. Not that big a difference at this point in time, if we're being honest. They have just bought that much better.It is when you consider the players he inherited.
Half a decade of success laterIt's pretty much only de Bruyne and Sterling left from that squad that will play a big part next season. Fernandinho is still there, but he already didn't play that much this year and will play even less next year presumably. Meanwhile we have Shaw, Rashford and Martial left from before 2016. Not that big a difference at this point in time, if we're being honest. They have just bought that much better.
That's true, but they're still going into the next season the clear cut favorite. Anyway, what they had when he came does not really matter for what they have now. A lot here would make it out that City has 22 world class players and so on and anyone would win that squad because he can spend so much more than anyone else. Yet here we are having spent a similar amount to Pep in the same time, having similar quality players left from before, yet we are no where near being conisdered favorites for next season, in fact we think that we will be in for a good top 4 fight.Half a decade of success later
Net is a load of nonsense in this debate, who has Pep sold that he wanted to keep? Same goes for Ole.That's true, but they're still going into the next season the clear cut favorite. Anyway, what they had when he came does not really matter for what they have now. A lot here would make it out that City has 22 world class players and so on and anyone would win that squad because he can spend so much more than anyone else. Yet here we are having spent a similar amount to Pep in the same time, having similar quality players left from before, yet we are no where near being conisdered favorites for next season, in fact we think that we will be in for a good top 4 fight.
Well, it's true it's a bit more of a difference with gross spend, but it's still not that much a difference. It's not like he outspent us twice, it's somewhere along the lines of twenty percent more gross spend. It's certainly not enough to make the supposed difference in quality between the squads.Net is a load of nonsense in this debate, who has Pep sold that he wanted to keep? Same goes for Ole.
Pep’s spent what? Almost a billion?
Ever heard Fergie's Aberdeen or Klopp's Dortmund?
[/QUOTE
Have genuinely debated with someone on here who thought United when SAF took over were in a comparable place to City when Pep arrived…time truly does erode everything. The fact a huge section of the fan base doesn’t know SAF won European trophies with Aberdeen is sad but not surprising.
He’s spent it all himself though, whereas our current incumbent has spent what? A third of that maybe?Well, it's true it's a bit more of a difference with gross spend, but it's still not that much a difference. It's not like he outspent us twice, it's somewhere along the lines of twenty percent more gross spend. It's certainly not enough to make the supposed difference in quality between the squads.
Previous five years have City at €394,73m and Utd at €390,2m...It is when you consider the players he inherited.
duh, no, just because if you want to talk about money... well that's how money works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Why net spend? Just because they made good money with the Nacho, Danilo and Sane deals?
Amen to that.But again all the game needs to do is institute a transfer fee and wage cap.
I won't deny that that is very different. Anyway, we had a pretty strong squad already when he came that finished second the year before, and he has spent quite some money as well.He’s spent it all himself though, whereas our current incumbent has spent what? A third of that maybe?
But that fact that he inherited a title winning squad with world class players doesn't mean anything now (or during the last season) when barely any of them are left. 20% is of course a sizeable amount, but again, it's clearly not the difference between having a squad of 22 world class players and our squad. It just isn't.So 20% is a feckload by the way but there’s you biggest difference, inherit a title winning squad with some absolutely World class players (KDB, Kompany, Silva, Aguero) and then spend almost a billion on your own signings. In fact, the likes of Sterling and KDB were actually bought for him by his Barca mate.