Very interesting when Guardiola was asked had he gotten alternative payments from the City owners Ala Mancini he batted the question away rather than deny. The UAE have a poor reputation when it comes to human rights as well. Man City are basically owned by a country. Their achievement of the domestic treble is impressive. Unfortunately for them the question of their finances will not go away. At least when Liverpool did the treble in 2001 and United in 1999 there was no question of financial impropriety.
Varchester City 18/19 discussion
- Thread starter Bergman
- Start date
Bear in mind their record signing cost 60m i.e. Mahrez. United spent 75m on Lukaku and 90m on Pogba.
Don't get the big fuss about City spending all that money on full-backs, it's what they needed and it's a very important position in the modern game. Better than United's way of just buying budget players and converting old wingers.
Mahrez for £60m when they already had Sane and Sterling or the many creative midfielders would be more of an example of their spending overkill.
Mahrez for £60m when they already had Sane and Sterling or the many creative midfielders would be more of an example of their spending overkill.
That's because your club has being totally devoid of any coherent strategy or vision in the transfer market for the past several years. It's not as if you've not had the money like City to spend on full-backs, instead your club decided it wanted to continue with the likes of Young in defence while they went out and splashed huge sums on the likes of Pogba, Lukaku and di Maria.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Pep’s spent half a billion quid in his time at City. And they already had Aguero, De Bruyne, Silva, etc...
What a genius. What ingenuity.
What a genius. What ingenuity.
It probably is unlimited in that he can buy whom he wants seemingly. He spent heavily in his first two seasons. He used the first season to assess the squad and the incomings far exceeded the outgoings in numbers. This reversed itself in the second season. In his third season he had a very small net spend. They are using the sales of youth players very shrewdly. Selling them Ala commodities. Mind you selling Sancho may have been a mistake.
He has bought pretty shrewdly to be pair. Ederson, Stones, Walker, Laporte, Zinchenko, Gundogan, Sane, Jesus and B Silva have all been good signings. For the purposes of comparisons.
Since Club Spent (m) Received (m)
May 2016 Arsenal 265 128
Chelsea 535 300
Everton 341 185
Liverpool 414 279
MC 504 165
MU 359 88
Tottenham 177 142
They had no choice to sell Sancho because he wanted to leave. You cant guarantee a kid that has no first team experience he will e a starter. Good for all parties and hopefully we get him
Well they don't get who they want as theyve miised out on fred, sanchez, jorghino got rejected by Mbappe etc
Jorghino wanted to play under Sarri I imagine. With regards to Fred and Sanchez they probably dodged a bullet on both countsThey had no choice to sell Sancho because he wanted to leave. You cant guarantee a kid that has no first team experience he will e a starter. Good for all parties and hopefully we get him
Well they don't get who they want as theyve miised out on fred, sanchez, jorghino got rejected by Mbappe etc
I already stated in other thread, City is going to spend big again this summer to further improve their already brilliant squad. They also have very good football people in the board to plan for the signings. Most important of all, they have the best coach in the world now (To me all time best is still by far SAF).
I doubt UEFA and FA are going to do anything on the financial doping and all City dodgy accounts and finances. Their Sheikh must have given out lots of brown envelopes to cover up their blatant abuse of the system.
Having said that, fair play to them, credit must be given to them for brilliant strategy and planning in signing players and appointing managers. They already have a system and money in place to dominate the league with or without Pep.
I doubt UEFA and FA are going to do anything on the financial doping and all City dodgy accounts and finances. Their Sheikh must have given out lots of brown envelopes to cover up their blatant abuse of the system.
Having said that, fair play to them, credit must be given to them for brilliant strategy and planning in signing players and appointing managers. They already have a system and money in place to dominate the league with or without Pep.
Fair play to them, a unique domestic treble and they've come a long way since they were the laughing stock of English football. Yes, they won the lottery with the Mansoor takeover, but they've made the most of it and become a great team. I'm not angry about it; it's more a case of shrug the shoulders and ask what can you do against that kind of money? They are the current benchmark we need to reach, as being second fiddle isn't acceptable for us.
Bring on the Ole re-build. We will be back.
Bring on the Ole re-build. We will be back.
We've spent a fortune yet gone backwards. Money isn't everything, though it certainly helps.
It was a treble, but, like City's, of the lesser variety.
Consider the huge amount of money we’ve spent, and the way we play and the position we end up with, I don’t find ourself particularly proud when pointing the finger at City. Yeh they’ve overspent and bought success, but we’ve overspent too but bought failure.
There's only one "treble" - league, fa cup and champions league.
City have won the "domestic treble".
In 2001 Liverpool won 3 trophies.
Fair point; I shall accept your definition!
They’ve outspent us by nearly double. And that’s just what’s above board.
They own multiple clubs and buy and loan players amongst them. And the authorities do nothing.
Manchester fecking City. You couldn’t make it up.
I think he's trying to point out that on the field of play, the £50m cash won't play the footy for you. Its a human being that plays so if expensive Mendy cannot get 12 games in 2 seasons, then credit to whoever it was that won inspite of the setback.Are you thick or what? How is that an argument in his favour? If Mendy and Danillo, who were very expensive buys, aren't playing, how is that excusing Guardiola/Coty from buying them? I seriously can't believe that is your argument.
So basically we can say that we are excused from buying Sanchez because he is barely playing.
They're a horrible club. The big laugh is that they used to claim United were bent with zero evidence to support it. Its quite clear and obvious that City have zero regard for the rules in their pursuit of laundering the dirty image of the corrupt oil state that owns them.
In the past few seasons
They've been banned from signing youth players domestically for offering illegal inducements to a young player's family. Their whole conduct in this regard is completely unethical.
They've been punished for doping violations.
They face a FIFA transfer ban - again for illegal conduct in signing young players.
They face a possible Champions League ban for flagrantly and arrogantly breaking financial conduct rules that they signed up to.
The sad news is that because of the disturbing level of power their owners have, they will be able to bully and/or bribe UEFA into dropping the CL ban they deserve.
They're a stain on the game but I'm certain there will be more to come out in the wash and the journos they're so good at buttering up with red carpet treatment won't be able to promote the hollow façade any longer.
In the past few seasons
They've been banned from signing youth players domestically for offering illegal inducements to a young player's family. Their whole conduct in this regard is completely unethical.
They've been punished for doping violations.
They face a FIFA transfer ban - again for illegal conduct in signing young players.
They face a possible Champions League ban for flagrantly and arrogantly breaking financial conduct rules that they signed up to.
The sad news is that because of the disturbing level of power their owners have, they will be able to bully and/or bribe UEFA into dropping the CL ban they deserve.
They're a stain on the game but I'm certain there will be more to come out in the wash and the journos they're so good at buttering up with red carpet treatment won't be able to promote the hollow façade any longer.
And?
I think he was sort of like nicely pointing out how stupid your post was.
Yes, the most influential coach of the modern era is not the greatest. Stupid right
Notice I didn't use the word 'manager' but 'coach'.
Concerning that it seems like City will be major players in this transfer window having brought in hardly any players over the last 12 months. Seems they'll be a lot of changes to their squad 
Domestic treble is overrated as hell. Juve, Bayern, Barça, Ajax, etc. probably have 8-10 of those "trebles".
Can’t stand them but can only look with envy at their outstanding operation as a football club. They’re doing absolutely everything right, and we’re proof that money doesn’t buy success if you don’t know what to do with it. The way they’re going they’ll be the dominant force in English football for the next 20 years.
City: The Host Organism. Good read here.
https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-me...coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06
https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-me...coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06
Everyone on their bench yesterday barring the goalkeeper would stroll into our starting eleven. Unbelievable strength in depth.
Christ. The drama. As soon as Pep leaves, they'll be regular Top4 contenders again.
And UEFA is keeping their eyes on them and their fecking corruption.
Journos like Rob Harris with the courage to confront them are a source of hope. Pep clearly does not like to be called out or challenged. A bit more of this and he might decide that (non money doped) football was more fun after all.
Sorry I don’t agree. Their structure is solid so they’ll have no problem lining up a replacement. They won’t win the league every season but they’re going to be up there.
Pep has done a good job there. Yes he inherited Silva D, Aguero, Sterling, DeBruyne, Kompany and Fernandinho but he has added shrewdly to those core group of players. I think the Guardian article is a little unfair on City. They have bought shrewdly, they are well run and they play an exciting brand of football. They are along with Liverpool comfortable ahead of every other side in the EPL. Even the next four sides down are in a mini league of their own. The minute the Premier League was formed football became a business.
In 1991 record fee 2.9m Saunders Derby-Liverpool
In 1992 record fee 3.6m Shearer Southampton-Blackburn
1n 1993 record fee 3.75m Keane Notts Forest-Man Utd
In 1994 record fee 5m Sutton Norwich-Blackburn
In 1994 record fee 7m Cole Newcastle-Man Utd
In 1995 record fee 8.5m Collymore Notts Forest-Liverpool
In 1996 record fee 15m Shearer Blackburn-Newcastle
In 5 years the record fee trebled. With the exception of Leicester the EPL is competitively contested by Liverpool, MC, MU, Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea.
4 sides have won 25/27 of the EPL seasons contested since its inception in 1992. Only Leicester and Blackburn have won it outside of MC, MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.
In 1991 record fee 2.9m Saunders Derby-Liverpool
In 1992 record fee 3.6m Shearer Southampton-Blackburn
1n 1993 record fee 3.75m Keane Notts Forest-Man Utd
In 1994 record fee 5m Sutton Norwich-Blackburn
In 1994 record fee 7m Cole Newcastle-Man Utd
In 1995 record fee 8.5m Collymore Notts Forest-Liverpool
In 1996 record fee 15m Shearer Blackburn-Newcastle
In 5 years the record fee trebled. With the exception of Leicester the EPL is competitively contested by Liverpool, MC, MU, Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea.
4 sides have won 25/27 of the EPL seasons contested since its inception in 1992. Only Leicester and Blackburn have won it outside of MC, MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Last edited:
Absolutely brilliant article. Encapsulates every argument I have made about city In recent years. You can’t deny the quality, nor can you deny any of this. Deserves its own thread.
At the very least deserves more readers
You have missed the point though. It's not about City but about a global tendency in European football which makes it impossible for lesser teams like Watford to compete. The point is also about United, Real, Barca, Bayern, Juventus. It's only because the likes of Woody are clueless that Watford can come to Old Trafford and look the better team.
I haven’t missed the point, of course united are complicit. They’ve spent massively but have wasted it all by themselves. But they didn’t spend like that pre city. When they have the resources, or liverpool or other clubs do, they have no choice but to keep up. Been saying for ages that due to likes of city the gap between the top teams and everybody else is just endlessly growing. There was 43 points between first and relegation in 99.this year that was almost the gap between city and united. They’ve accelerated and driven the utter ruin of the game and beating teams like Watford three times a season should be absolute formality. That united have managed to feck it up is not evidence of city not ruining the game. Liverpool showed the distance between England’s top and German league. City demolished schalke what was it 7-0? Shakhtar 6-0. Pointless to even try compete.
Even post Ferguson I think city have spent close to 200m more than united. These are not small figures and united are not the barometer for pretty much every other club in Europe and certainly not England where if things were fair city wouldn’t even be near the league. And post Ferguson spurs, Leicester and Liverpool would all have titles.
Generally, I agree with what Wilson says. The playing field should be more even, the current tendency, especially after those massive Arab investments, isn't healthy.
I wonder if football was also broken when United won 8/11 of the first PL titles, which would have been 9 had it not been for the sugar daddy investment in Blackburn, and would have been even more in the long-term without the investment in City and Chelsea. The excerpt you quote ironically and spectacularly misses the point.
"it’s that without major structural changes in the finances of the game, or the arrival at Vicarage Road of a sheik, oligarch or nation state looking to enhance its global reputation, there is no prospect of them being able to challenge over any sort of sustained period"
...this is exactly how it has become possible for City to challenge over a sustained period. So evidently football was broken prior to City's takeover, yet this is being presented as though this is a problem that City have caused, when the reality is City's success is a symptom of how the system was broken.
The article even states: "The gulf between the elite and the rest has never been as defined as this."
One can only assume the author only started watching English football at the beginning of last season.
I merely posted it. I find Wilson to be a poor writer, generally.