Andicis Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: Robinho was 23 at the time City bought him. Hardly an outrageous fee for a player who had over 100 appearances for Real Madrid and was a regular for the Brazilian national team. Rio Ferdinand cost like £30m back in 2002. Andy Carroll joined Liverpool for £35m! Paying big money for players in their early 20s is fine, assuming they get a good 7-10 years out of them. And as for City's defenders... Mendy and Stones will be there for years. Walker at £45m was about £15m too much but that's not a big deal for a club of that size. Mangala at £32m was too much, but he's 26 so they could sell him off to somebody like Crystal Palace for around £22m quite easily I'd imagine. Who are the other defenders? Otamendi at £28m is fine considering he's one of the PL's best centre-backs. As for their other players? De Bruyne cost them £55m, he'd go for about £150m these days. Leroy Sane at £37m is a bargain considering his ability, age and potential. Sane looks a bargain now, but the reason he is so cheap is he was a total gamble, at 37 million. Otamendi one of the best centre backs? He's certainly below Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Van Dyke, Koscielny, Kompany, and Davinson Sanchez, I don't think he is at the very top, he's a steady player. Man City isn't exactly a healthy club for football, came from nowhere, bought a **** load of expensive players, so even if they spend less now (they haven't been) they're still unhealthy. Their owners don't care about running it as a business, don't care how much money they're wasting and just throw it about. I was clearly wrong about the age of Robinho upon signing. My opinion on both Man City and Chelsea is low, because they didn't do anything the hard way. They had the easy option of oil billionaires treating them as their play toys. To try say that Man City is honourable because they didn't splash out on Sanchez is a bit of a joke. You shouldn't compare them to Manchester United and Liverpool, they've always been big and popular clubs, as such they earned the money they spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Man City and good for football in the same sentence? ? Their owners and the club epitomise everything that has gone wrong with football and make die hard fans lose interest in football. Why do they epitomise everything that has gone wrong with football? Commerically they're one of the best run clubs in the world, and for the large part (well of their current squad) they've spent sensibly on players. Go through their squad list and they've probably overpaid for only three or four players. On the flip side, they've underpaid for just as many. They've pursued the best coach in world football and his presence here in the PL will benefit everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Thought I'd take a look at transfers since Man City were taken over compared to Man Utd and their outrageous transfer policy. Fair play to Man City keeping things real, round of applause ??? Man City 17/18 - Arrivals £222m / Departures £85m 16/17 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £32m 15/16 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £61m 14/15 - Arrivals £80m / Departures £27m 13/14 - Arrivals £104m / Departures £10m 12/13 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £40m 11/12 - Arrivals £78m / Departures £27m 10/11 - Arrivals £164m / Departures £33m 09/10 - Arrivals £133m / Departures £28m 08/09 - Arrivals £142m / Departures £24m Total Spent £1.36bn Total Received £367m Net £996m Man Utd 17/18 - Arrivals £148m / Departures £10m 16/17 - Arrivals £166m / Departures £42m 15/16 - Arrivals £140m / Departures £92m 14/15 - Arrivals £175m / Departures £44m 13/14 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £2m 12/13 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £10m 11/12 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £13m 10/11 - Arrivals £26m / Departures £16m 09/10 - Arrivals £25m / Departures £94m 08/09 - Arrivals £41m / Departures £7m Total Spent £915m Total Received £330m Net £585m *Figures from transfermarkt.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernow Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 All the best players in the history of world football must've played for City then if they have a net spend of just shy of £1billion without overspending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, Andicis said: Sane looks a bargain now, but the reason he is so cheap is he was a total gamble, at 37 million. Otamendi one of the best centre backs? He's certainly below Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Van Dyke, Koscielny, Kompany, and Davinson Sanchez, I don't think he is at the very top, he's a steady player. Man City isn't exactly a healthy club for football, came from nowhere, bought a **** load of expensive players, so even if they spend less now (they haven't been) they're still unhealthy. Their owners don't care about running it as a business, don't care how much money they're wasting and just throw it about. I was clearly wrong about the age of Robinho upon signing. My opinion on both Man City and Chelsea is low, because they didn't do anything the hard way. They had the easy option of oil billionaires treating them as their play toys. To try say that Man City is honourable because they didn't splash out on Sanchez is a bit of a joke. You shouldn't compare them to Manchester United and Liverpool, they've always been big and popular clubs, as such they earned the money they spend. Clearly they do care. They've become one the best in the world commercially. They wouldn't put so much effort into that side if they weren't interested in running it as a business. They put loads into the women's team too to attract new supporters. They've spent bucketloads on providing the best facilities for all teams associated with City. Clearly they see that as a long-term investment. City are heavily backed by money. But they're doing great things with the infrastructure of the club. Their youth teams are brilliant, and of the recent England U17 World Cup win a good number were City youth players. Bodes well. Sane was recognised as one of the best youngsters in the Bundesliga. Hardly a gamble considering Guardiola would have known all about him from his time at Bayern. As for Otamendi, he's been brilliant this season - better than Vertonghen, Koscielny and Kompany. Also how did United earn the money they spent? In the 80s and early 90s they bankrolled Alex Ferguson when they hadn't won the title for years before that. They then took advantage of the PL boom to strengthen their position. How is that any different? Without City and Chelsea's money United wouldn't have had any competition. The PL would be an absolute shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, David said: Thought I'd take a look at transfers since Man City were taken over compared to Man Utd and their outrageous transfer policy. Fair play to Man City keeping things real, round of applause ??? Man City 17/18 - Arrivals £222m / Departures £85m 16/17 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £32m 15/16 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £61m 14/15 - Arrivals £80m / Departures £27m 13/14 - Arrivals £104m / Departures £10m 12/13 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £40m 11/12 - Arrivals £78m / Departures £27m 10/11 - Arrivals £164m / Departures £33m 09/10 - Arrivals £133m / Departures £28m 08/09 - Arrivals £142m / Departures £24m Total Spent £1.36bn Total Received £367m Net £996m Man Utd 17/18 - Arrivals £148m / Departures £10m 16/17 - Arrivals £166m / Departures £42m 15/16 - Arrivals £140m / Departures £92m 14/15 - Arrivals £175m / Departures £44m 13/14 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £2m 12/13 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £10m 11/12 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £13m 10/11 - Arrivals £26m / Departures £16m 09/10 - Arrivals £25m / Departures £94m 08/09 - Arrivals £41m / Departures £7m Total Spent £915m Total Received £330m Net £585m *Figures from transfermarkt.co.uk Oh, just for fun.... Man Utd 3x Premier League, 3x League Cups, 1x Europa League, 1x FA Cup Man City 2x Premier League, 2x League Cups, 1x FA Cup Money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Just now, Bris Vegas said: Clearly they do care. They've become one the best in the world commercially. They wouldn't put so much effort into that side if they weren't interested in running it as a business. They put loads into the women's team too to attract new supporters. They've spent bucketloads on providing the best facilities for all teams associated with City. Clearly they see that as a long-term investment. City are heavily backed by money. But they're doing great things with the infrastructure of the club. Their youth teams are brilliant, and of the recent England U17 World Cup win a good number were City youth players. Bodes well. Sane was recognised as one of the best youngsters in the Bundesliga. Hardly a bargain considering Guardiola would have known all about him from his time at Bayern. As for Otamendi, he's been brilliant this season - better than Vertonghen, Koscielny and Kompany. Also how did United earn the money they spent? In the 80s and early 90s they bankrolled Alex Ferguson when they hadn't won the title for years before that. They then took advantage of the PL boom to strengthen their position. How is that any different? Without City and Chelsea's money United wouldn't have had any competition. The PL would be an absolute shambles. It's easy to be a defender in a winning side. And how is that true? Where have United finished in the previous seasons? Last year, Tottenham would have won, the year before wasn't won by either sides listed. In fact, of the last 5 seasons, United won once (Fergie), and since finished 7th, 4th, 5th and 6th. So tell me exactly how United haven't had any competition? It's easy to have good facilities if you pump over 1 billion pounds into a club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, David said: Thought I'd take a look at transfers since Man City were taken over compared to Man Utd and their outrageous transfer policy. Fair play to Man City keeping things real, round of applause ??? Man City 17/18 - Arrivals £222m / Departures £85m 16/17 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £32m 15/16 - Arrivals £192m / Departures £61m 14/15 - Arrivals £80m / Departures £27m 13/14 - Arrivals £104m / Departures £10m 12/13 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £40m 11/12 - Arrivals £78m / Departures £27m 10/11 - Arrivals £164m / Departures £33m 09/10 - Arrivals £133m / Departures £28m 08/09 - Arrivals £142m / Departures £24m Total Spent £1.36bn Total Received £367m Net £996m Man Utd 17/18 - Arrivals £148m / Departures £10m 16/17 - Arrivals £166m / Departures £42m 15/16 - Arrivals £140m / Departures £92m 14/15 - Arrivals £175m / Departures £44m 13/14 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £2m 12/13 - Arrivals £69m / Departures £10m 11/12 - Arrivals £56m / Departures £13m 10/11 - Arrivals £26m / Departures £16m 09/10 - Arrivals £25m / Departures £94m 08/09 - Arrivals £41m / Departures £7m Total Spent £915m Total Received £330m Net £585m *Figures from transfermarkt.co.uk What am I looking at here? When the owners took over at City, they took over a team who had finished just four points above the relegation zone the season before on 42 points. So basically the equivalent of a Crystal Palace or West Ham. To breach what was the renowned top four (United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool) it was obviously going to requite some heavy backing, just as it would for Palace to breach the top four these days. In 2009, United had a front four of Tevez, Ronaldo, Berbatov and Rooney. What sort of figures do you think they were worth? Ronaldo went that summer for £90m, 2/3's of City's outlay in the summer on a team who survived the drop by 4 points. City were obviosuly going to spend big. They were obviously going to acquire up to 15-20 new players who were top four standard. If Crystal Palace were taken over now, who of their squad are top four standard? Zaha at an absolute push. So if they had to go out and spend on 20 new players, of that required quality, they'd be spending £40m-50m on a player - £800m-£1bn (and that's assuming all of their players turn out to be the required standard - doubtful!). City have made mistakes in the transfer market. Pellegrini wasted loads of money on average players or players not at the required standard like Bony, Negredo, Fernando, Navas, Mangala etc. City's spend to reach where they currently are doesn't surprise me at all. But of the past two seasons under Guardiola, despite having a big outlay, they've spent really well considering and I'd hazard a guess they won't spend anywhere near as much over the next 3 seasons because they simply won't have to (except when replacing Fernandinho, Silva and Aguero who are all in their 30s and will need replacing over the next few years for players of similar ability). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: To breach what was the renowned top four (United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool) it was obviously going to requite some heavy backing, just as it would for Palace to breach the top four these days. And in doing so played a major part in sky rocketing the transfer market and don't looking like slowing down either, yet you come looking for us all to applaud the club for pulling out on Sanchez. Good luck with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, David said: And in doing so played a major part in sky rocketing the transfer market and don't looking like slowing down either, yet you come looking for us all to applaud the club for pulling out on Sanchez. Good luck with that one. The sky rocketing transfer market has reached crazy levels due to the figures being paid for players, not the quantity of players being brought in by the clubs. City have played their role, no doubt, but no more so than a numer of other clubs. Who have they bought which you'd sit back and say 'that's an absolutely ridiculous fee'? I challenge you to name one, and I'll give you another one even more absurd than that from another club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: The sky rocketing transfer market has reached crazy levels due to the figures being paid for players, not the quantity of players being brought in by the clubs. City have played their role, no doubt, but no more so than a numer of other clubs. Who have they bought which you'd sit back and say 'that's an absolutely ridiculous fee'? I challenge you to name one, and I'll give you another one even more absurd than that from another club. Bris, in the last 10 years they have spent 1.3 BILLION, £400m of which from your Pep in the last 2 years, how many other clubs even come close to that? Played their role? They are a major reason why the market is whacked out. You can sit here and try and defend that as much as you like but it's an obscene amount of money which has had a knock on effect down the league and into the Championship, I'm sure next summer they will blow another £200m+ that you will defend once again. In needs to stop for the sake of English football. Theres a reason why some take enjoyment in seeing them lose, and Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 1 minute ago, David said: Bris, in the last 10 years they have spent 1.3 BILLION, £400m of which from your Pep in the last 2 years, how many other clubs even come close to that? Played their role? They are a major reason why the market is whacked out. You can sit here and try and defend that as much as you like but it's an obscene amount of money which has had a knock on effect down the league and into the Championship, I'm sure next summer they will blow another £200m+ that you will defend once again. In needs to stop for the sake of English football. Theres a reason why some take enjoyment in seeing them lose, and Chelsea. Like I said, the quantity of players has nothing to do with it. It's the figures being splashed out which caused the market to stir. Who have City bought for an absurd transfer fee? Is it any surprise to see them spend that much, considering where they started from and their targets. Don't get me wrong, Mark Hughes, Mancini and Pellegrini all wasted money on players. But any more so than Liverpool spending £100m on Southampton players or the likes of Andy Carroll or Jordan Henderson? Since Pep has come in, City have moved on Demichelis (35), Dzeko (31), Jovetic (28), Zabaleta (33), Sagna (34), Clichy (32), Caballero (36), Nasri (30), Fernando (30), Kolorov (32), Bony (29), Navas (32) and Iheanacho (21). 13 first-team players. The only one worth any sort of money was Iheanacho who went for £25m. Pep has had to spend money. He's had to buy half a first-team squad for crying out loud. How much do you think decent players are worth these days? So he's spent £400m, to replace those 13 players that's £31m a pop. Actually doesn't sound too unreasonable now considering the likes of Mendy (23), Stones (23), Bernardo Silva (23), Sane (22), Gabriel Jesus (20), Zinchenko (21), Ederson (24), Danilo (26), Gundogan (27) and Walker (27) have years ahead of them. Consider the likes of Sigurdsson (28) and Matic (30) going for £40m each and how can you blame City for the stupid inflated prices? City's record buy is Kevin De Bruyne at £55m. That's 2.5x less than Coutinho. Kevin De Bruyne would cost £150m these days. The alternative to City and Chelsea's spending would be United having a monopoly at the top of the PL. It would be even worse than La Liga. They would be utterly dominant like PSG are in France or Bayern in Germany. And that would have all come off the back of their very own lavish spending some 25-30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Yea but they only have short careers, i've been working almost 50 years and still working on my first million. Poor souls, pay em what they want, i say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 @Bris Vegas Think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, you appear to see no problem with a club spending £1.3bn in 10 years on players, I do. Those numbers are even harder to take when you have clubs that are on the verge of going out of business over 200k, it's sickening. Rome wasn't built in a day, but Man City are trying to build that. Enjoy Rome, I'll just sit here hope that one day the FA, PL and Fifa step in and end this madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, David said: @Bris Vegas Think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, you appear to see no problem with a club spending £1.3bn in 10 years on players, I do. Those numbers are even harder to take when you have clubs that are on the verge of going out of business over 200k, it's sickening. Rome wasn't built in a day, but Man City are trying to build that. Enjoy Rome, I'll just sit here hope that one day the FA, PL and Fifa step in and end this madness. The only way the absurd spending stops, or at least controlled, is when clubs put their foot down and refuse to pay, such as what City are doing with Alexis Sanchez. The more teams pay their players obscene amounts of money, the more they are going to demand in the future. Sanchez getting £350k at United will only push Pogba to demand a new deal on like £400k in another two years. City putting limits says that no matter how good the player may be, there is a club limit and that is good for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: The only way the absurd spending stops, or at least controlled, is when clubs put their foot down and refuse to pay, such as what City are doing with Alexis Sanchez. The more teams pay their players obscene amounts of money, the more they are going to demand in the future. Sanchez getting £350k at United will only push Pogba to demand a new deal on like £400k in another two years. City putting limits says that no matter how good the player may be, there is a club limit and that is good for football. True but at the same time as per Gary Neville's tweet, the deal isn't costing United anymore than it would City 6 months ago, the only difference is now the player pockets more. You could argue which was is better, the bigger transfer fee or players wages but either way isn't good for football and both will have a further negative impact on the game. Problem now is that when clubs see Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd coming the price is inflated because they will pay it, you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me John Stones and Kyle Walker are £50m players, you know yourself you can go into Europe and find better for half the money, it's only the market price now in this country because they have paid it. And people wonder why none of our top talent moves to Europe, could you see Real, Barca or Bayern paying £50m for John Stones? £50m bought Bayern Niklas Süle and Mat Hummels, who's £50m was better spent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: Why do they epitomise everything that has gone wrong with football? Commerically they're one of the best run clubs in the world, and for the large part (well of their current squad) they've spent sensibly on players. Go through their squad list and they've probably overpaid for only three or four players. On the flip side, they've underpaid for just as many. They've pursued the best coach in world football and his presence here in the PL will benefit everybody. They have owners with no attachment to the club who bought it as a train set and to boost their ego. They have been a major part of seeing transfer fees reaching ridiculous levels. They have been a major part of seeing wage levels reaching ridiculous levels. Now of course all of this does not matter to them because they are an endless pot of money but the knock on effect really hurts the lower league clubs. They are far from being the only ones but seeing them referred to as 'good for football' made me sick in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: They have owners with no attachment to the club who bought it as a train set and to boost their ego. They have been a major part of seeing transfer fees reaching ridiculous levels. They have been a major part of seeing wage levels reaching ridiculous levels. Now of course all of this does not matter to them because they are an endless pot of money but the knock on effect really hurts the lower league clubs. They are far from being the only ones but seeing them referred to as 'good for football' made me sick in my mouth. How many owners these days have any attatchment to the club? Only Spurs arguably of the top 7? How have they been any more of a part of seeing transfer fees reach ridiculous levels than say Everton? Liverpool, Chelsea and United have all spent more on one player as have Barca and Real Madrid. They have a bigger wage budget due to larger income... Yes that's true, but they've capped it at less than £300k per week. So again, they don't have the largest wages in the league let alone Europe. The best players naturally are going to cost money. I'd face far greater blame on the middle clubs overpaying for average players. You can justify City spending £45m on John Stones if he is there for 10 years, helping the club win numerous trophies. What you can't justify is Everton spending £40m on a 28-year-old Sigurdsson to maintain their 7th place finish or £30m on England's 7th best goalkeeper Jordan Pickford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: How many owners these days have any attatchment to the club? Only Spurs arguably of the top 7? How have they been any more of a part of seeing transfer fees reach ridiculous levels than say Everton? Liverpool, Chelsea and United have all spent more on one player as have Barca and Real Madrid. They have a bigger wage budget due to larger income... Yes that's true, but they've capped it at less than £300k per week. So again, they don't have the largest wages in the league let alone Europe. The best players naturally are going to cost money. I'd face far greater blame on the middle clubs overpaying for average players. You can justify City spending £45m on John Stones if he is there for 10 years, helping the club win numerous trophies. What you can't justify is Everton spending £40m on a 28-year-old Sigurdsson to maintain their 7th place finish or £30m on England's 7th best goalkeeper Jordan Pickford. They have a bigger wage budget due to larger income? Isn't a large chunk of their income from their owners other business interests? No club can justify spending £45m on players whilst their fans are charged ridiculous prices for tickets and merchandise. And also whilst other teams in the league pyramid are going bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 On 1/17/2018 at 13:37, Bris Vegas said: The sky rocketing transfer market has reached crazy levels due to the figures being paid for players, not the quantity of players being brought in by the clubs. City have played their role, no doubt, but no more so than a numer of other clubs. Who have they bought which you'd sit back and say 'that's an absolutely ridiculous fee'? I challenge you to name one, and I'll give you another one even more absurd than that from another club. I present Kyle Walker. A very average full back with half as many England caps as Phil Neville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.