Top 3 salaries City vs Real compared

[MUFC OK]

Change thread title to: Top 3 *reported* Salaries

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

City had the highest revenue despite being nowhere near as big a brand as United/Liverpool/Real/Barca etc due to Abu Dhabi owned sponsors (non existent and newly created).

City also buy players for less than their market value through undeclared payments to players and agents. Haaland us a prime example. When United or Liverpool signed relatively unknowns for £86M and £80M, City signed an overhyped player for £51M.

City also have a lower wage bill than United/Liverpool/PSG/Real/Barca despite having the strongest squad of all these teams.

Guardiola stayed 4 seasons at Barca, 3 at Bayern. Once his contract was over, he moved. City somehow managed to make him sign an extension twice. Given the history with Mancini, I strongly suspect some big undeclared payments to keep him there.

It's all down to their amazing structure. That seems to be the new buzzword on the caf to explain their success, nothing to do with money apparently.

Brighton and Brentford also have good structures, but you don't see either of them turning the league into a procession. I wonder why.

 

[jm99]

Zero evidence City is 'cooking the books' when it comes to players salaries. Fan jealousy.

Real have always had players on insane wages

I'm sure there was definitely proof that they paid mancini a second salary off the books. But you're probably right, while they might pay managers off the book, they would never consider doing the exact same thing for players

 

[mshnsh]

They don't buy players for under their market value. They bought Haaland through the clause in his contract. I'm sure Haaland made sure there was a reasonable buy out clause so that he could leave when it was time. Otherwise he would likely still be at Dortmund because no one would actually want to pay the actual market value. City usually pay above market value for their players, because they can.

About the wage bill, that goes back to being able to be able to win stuff. United can't get players because of the promise of titles anymore, they can however get players buy paying them handsomely. Anyway, City has a higher wage bill than Liverpool by quite a margin. It's quite common knowledge that United pay their players way too much. For example, why do you think Alexis Sanchez chose United over City? It sure wasn't that he thought he'd win more at Old Trafford.

I'm also not surprised Real has higher wage bill. For all the quality City have, I'd still say Real has bigger names.

I got it wrong about Haaland but I am as sure as anything that City are doping financially. All my other points have no explanation. I hope the evidence comes out although, with City being an asset to the Premier league, my hopes don't run high.

 

[Andersonson]

I'm sure there was definitely proof that they paid mancini a second salary off the books. But you're probably right, while they might pay managers off the book, they would never consider doing the exact same thing for players

Its much easier to do so with managers, as its one person. Doing it with one players is a different ball game. Nevertheless, why would they jeopardize it? That have nothing to gain. They would be under investigation immediately. Hence why they are against finical fairplay. They think it's bollocks. They want the owners to pay for it. And it ain't illegal, it's UEFA/FIFA who's against it. And they ain't the law. There is zero evidence of fraud. Maybe evidence of going again financial fairplay, which might be an illegal system in itself