The boring Man City discussion

[rynny]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41146009

Quote

Uefa says it is not investigating Manchester City over its Financial Fair Play rules, despite the Spanish league calling for it to do so.

 

[Bris Vegas]

23 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Saw a stat the other day claiming that pep guardiola has spent more money than any other football manager in the prem over their entire managerial careers. Surely this can't be right, the worlds greatest coach ever needing to spend more money than that crap Jose bloke who has no idea how to coach and has to buy success?

Think that's a sign of the market. 

Pep has basically had to buy a new team, because he has replaced a bunch of players who needed to be shipped out.

2 goalkeepers, 3 fullbacks, 1 centre-back, 1 holding midfielder, 1 linking midfielder, 2 wide players and 1 striker.

How much does that cost you in today's market? Average players are costing £30m each.

City's net spend is so high because they didn't have many sellable assets. The average age of the player Pep has moved on is over 30.

 

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, David said:

Not surprised, in the last 5 years.....

13/14 - £116m spent, £11m sold
14/15 - £88m spent, £30m sold
15/16 - £213m spent, £67m sold
16/17 - £213m spent, £35m sold
17/18 - £244m spent, £96m sold

Total: £874m spent, £239 sold. £-635m net

For what? 1 Premier League title and 2 League Cups

Barca
17/18 - £192m spent, £226m sold
16/17 - £122m spent, £33m sold
15/16 - £51m spent, £38m sold
14/15 - £166m spent, £81m sold
13/14 - £101m spent, £28m sold

Total: £632 spent, £406m sold. £-226m net
 

Real
17/18 - £46m spent, £123m sold
16/17 - £30m spent, £37m sold
15/16 - £85m spent, £15m sold
14/15 - £131m spent, £112m sold
13/14 - £175m spent, £113m sold

Total: £467m spent, £400m sold, £-67m net

With Man City's net £-635m, not hard to see why La Liga might be frustrated watching on although they could look at selling themselves a little better like the Premier League does.

Real Madrid seemingly haven't spent much over the past 5 years, but I imagine the 5 years previous to that they did when they went through their second 'Galacticos' phase.

La Liga don't have the benefit of Sky money. While Barca and Real have their own TV deals, worldwide branding and state backing, the rest don't.

It's admirable how much success Atletico and Sevilla have had considering what they've been up against.

The PL's broadcasting figures are also so high due to the amount of foreigners in the league. Mexico had their own PL rights just so everyone could watch Chicharito at Man Utd. How much do you think the PL and Utd benefited from that? loads.

I read something like 70% of the PL is made upnof foreigners. It's a multicultural league, and one which is watched all over the world due to so many nationalities watching their sporting heroes.

La Liga isn't. 60% is Spanish I believe.

It will never attract the global audience if it's mostly made up of domestic players.

But there is your catch 22. La Liga, mostly made up of donestic players, will always have a better national team than England whose top-flight is mostly made up of foreigners.

The only way England will ever have a top national team is if more players are exposed to top-flight football. The only way to do that is limit the amount of foreigners in the PL, and risk losing its standing as 'the greatest league in the world'

Sky and the FA would never allow that... So the national team will forever suffer as a result.

Most don't care anymore anyway. Most openly say they prefer club football, and even the players have adopted the same atritude.

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

The average age of the player Pep has moved on is over 30.

No its not, its 25.7

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No its not, its 25.7

I've already gone over this with you. From the first-team squad it's above 30.

That figure your pulling includes the release of academy players, something that happens all the time regardless of what club.

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I've already gone over this with you. From the first-team squad it's above 30.

That figure your pulling includes the release of academy players, something that happens all the time regardless of what club.

The figure that I am pulling is the average age of the players moved on by Pep, which is what you stated. 

You cant just disregard players from your calculation just because Pep finds it easier to replace them with big money signings rather than trying to coach them.

[Bris Vegas]

8 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The figure that I am pulling is the average age of the players moved on by Pep, which is what you stated. 

You cant just disregard players from your calculation just because Pep finds it easier to replace them with big money signings rather than trying to coach them.

The average age of the first squad is what matters though. Less than 10% of each academy age group will go on to become a first-team squad player, so it's pointless even counting that figure.

Of course Pep will find it easier to replace them. Like I said, you can't coach a player past their prime, above 30, to play the way you want if they don't have the attributes to do so.

Likewise if an academy player is League Two standard, you can't coach him to be a world class player. It would be ludicrous to expect that or knock a coach for not being able to.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

The average age of the first squad is what matters though. Less than 10% of each academy age group will go on to become a first-team squad player, so it's pointless even counting that figure.

Of course Pep will find it easier to replace them. Like I said, you can't coach a player past their prime, above 30, to play the way you want if they don't have the attributes to do so.

Likewise if an academy player is League Two standard, you can't coach him to be a world class player. It would be ludicrous to expect that or knock a coach for not being able to.

So just to recap, the best coach in the universe ever cant coach young players to make them good enough for the first team and he cant adapt his system to get the best out of the older players.

He can coach the worlds best and most expensive players to fit into his team though.

 

[Bris Vegas]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So just to recap, the best coach in the universe ever cant coach young players to make them good enough for the first team and he cant adapt his system to get the best out of the older players.

He can coach the worlds best and most expensive players to fit into his team though.

 

You're being ridiculous.

Of course you can't coach a player like Callum Ball to be Robert Lewandowski.

Pep is a football coach, not God.

And he wasn't brought in to adapt to the players that were already there. 

He was brought in to create a dynasty at City. In order to create the best team in the world, you have to have players who fit the profile.

You can't just coach a random squad of players to become the best team in the world. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

You're being ridiculous.

Of course you can't coach a player like Callum Ball to be Robert Lewandowski.

Pep is a football coach, not God.

And he wasn't brought in to adapt to the players that were already there. 

He was brought in to create a dynasty at City. In order to create the best team in the world, you have to have players who fit the profile.

You can't just coach a random squad of players to become the best team in the world. 

But Man City would not tend to have many players like Callum Ball in their academy at a guess.

Basically your second paragraph says to me that he has been hired to buy success. 

And your last one seems to suggest that Pellegrini just left behind a squad of random players, which he didnt.

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

But Man City would not tend to have many players like Callum Ball in their academy at a guess.

Basically your second paragraph says to me that he has been hired to buy success. 

And your last one seems to suggest that Pellegrini just left behind a squad of random players, which he didnt.

In response to your first point, it's a mixed bag. Arguably the best player they opted to let go was Aaron Mooy, joining Huddersfield Town. Does he really have that much potential to break into City's first-team squad in the next few years? I doubt it.

Other such as Zackarias Faour, Joe Coveney, Ellis Plummer, Billy O'Brien and James Horsfield have joined IK Sirius, Nottingham Forest, Motherwell, Macclesfield Town and NAC Breda respectively. If these players were any good or had great potential, they would have had far better clubs after them.

Like I said, most academy players don't receive full contracts at the club. How many have come through at Derby over the years? One on average every two years? Now imagine our level compared to City. They will only retain potential first-team stars, ie. world class players.

He wasn't hired to 'buy success'. He was hired to create the best team on the planet, to do so you have to spend money. Name me another manager in history who has created the best team in the world without spending big.

I've never denied Pep hasn't spent money. I've never claimed he's such a magnificent coach that he could turn an average player into a world beater. I don't know where you've got this from or why you keep bringing it up as a reason to knock his coaching ability. It's bizarre. Which world class manager/coach hasn't spent money? Clough, Ferguson, Wenger, Klopp, Ancelotti, Heynckes, Capello... They've all managed fabulous sides, all have been funded.

Even Pep when he took over Barcelona. He had to rid the club of the bad apples and bought the likes of Pique, Dani Alves, Keita, David Villa, Mascherano, Adriano, Alexis Sanchez. 

He couldn't just turn a random squad player or a youth player into David Villa.

Pellegrini left behind an ageing first-team squad who finished on 66 points the previous season, and miles behind Chelsea the year before that. That entire squad needed massively freshening up. It had ran its course, which had never really got close to winning the Champions League which I assume was the owner's goal when they decided to back Pellegrini.

Incidentally Pellegrini spent £300m while in charge of City. Only De Bruyne, Otamendi, Fernandinho and Sterling are close to the first-team from that amount spent. £40m on Mangala, £25m on Bony, £15m on Fernando, £20m on Negredo, £15m on Jesus Navas, £22m on Jovetic, £8m on Delph... He wasted big bucks on some right rubbish and that was before the latest boom of transfer fee absurdity.

 

[RiddingsRam]

Watching the match yesterday and obviously some outstanding players on show , the obvious and the flair players, but others one player that caught my eye in particular and that was Benjamin Mendy , didn't know an awful lot about him as I don't watch a lot of European football these days since sky lost the champions league contract. His shhwr work rate, power and quality if delivery are fantastic and he will be as key to them this season as players such as Agureo, de Bruyne and Silva.

[RadioactiveWaste]

So is pep back at god like Status or is he still little more than a Paul Clement who got lucky with the teams he had?

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

So is pep back at god like Status or is he still little more than a Paul Clement who got lucky with the teams he had?

Hard to read anything into Saturday's result. 

The game was very even up to the sending off, against a Liverpool team with their star player missing.

[Bris Vegas]

City were phenonemal 11 vs 10. Liverpool didn't even muster a shot for Bravo to save.

Some huge plusses already. Mendy looks fantastic, Gabriel Jesus will be a superstar and Ederson looks to be a cracking GK.

They're still a CB or two short. They need more cover there, while I'm not convinced Otamendi is really good enough. Kompany is getting on a bit too.

I really like the way they can play 3 at the back, but it's clearly a way of trying to get Aguero and Jesus in the same team.

I think they look more balanced with one up top and two natural wingers, say Sane and Sterling, but if they improve their control and get Aguero working hard they will take some stopping.

[SKRam]

Kompany married a local lass,he's an adopted son ,he's adored by Blue Mooners. But just imagine what he'd be like for us. I can but dream 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

City were phenonemal 11 vs 10. Liverpool didn't even muster a shot for Bravo to save.

Some huge plusses already. Mendy looks fantastic, Gabriel Jesus will be a superstar and Ederson looks to be a cracking GK.

They're still a CB or two short. They need more cover there, while I'm not convinced Otamendi is really good enough. Kompany is getting on a bit too.

I really like the way they can play 3 at the back, but it's clearly a way of trying to get Aguero and Jesus in the same team.

I think they look more balanced with one up top and two natural wingers, say Sane and Sterling, but if they improve their control and get Aguero working hard they will take some stopping.

The costliest squad in the world and they need more cover?

Really would have been cheaper for them to just ask the Premier League if they would consider selling the trophy for say £500m

[SKRam]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The costliest squad in the world and they need more cover?

Really would have been cheaper for them to just ask the Premier League if they would consider selling the trophy for say £500m

Think Man Utd and Chelsea have already covered that 

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The costliest squad in the world and they need more cover?

Really would have been cheaper for them to just ask the Premier League if they would consider selling the trophy for say £500m

They need more cover because they basically started from zero.

Against Liverpool only Otamendi (£30m), De Bruyne (£50m), David Silva (£24m), Fernandinho (£30m), Aguero, (£40m), Delph (£8m), Mangala (£40m) and Foden (youth) made the 18-man squad who were at City before Guardiola.

That's £220m on 8 players.

How much do you think it would cost to buy another 10 players? And in the latest transfer boom. Of course they're going to have the most expensively assembled squad, because they needed to go out and buy half a squad to compete at the top.

I don't know what you're obsession is with Guardiola or City spending money. You keep bringing it up as a suggestion that he can't be the best coach in the world because he has needed to spend.

So has every other world class manager. 

Manchester United's best squad of players was probably around 2008/2009 when they made consecutive CL finals. Do you think SAF just assembled that on a shoe-string budget or something?

Like Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Berbatov, Ferndinand, Carrick, Evra, Nani, Anderson, Vidic didn't cost anything? They ploughed about £300m into that squad too and that was almost 10 years ago when transfers weren't anywhere near as crazy.

Another thing about City is they haven't had the luxury of developing quality players from within. The best player they've produced in the past 15 years is Daniel Sturridge. Hardly the base for a world class team.

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

25 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

They need more cover because they basically started from zero.

Against Liverpool only Otamendi (£30m), De Bruyne (£50m), David Silva (£24m), Fernandinho (£30m), Aguero, (£40m), Delph (£8m), Mangala (£40m) and Foden (youth) made the 18-man squad who were at City before Guardiola.

That's £220m on 8 players.

How much do you think it would cost to buy another 10 players? And in the latest transfer boom. Of course they're going to have the most expensively assembled squad, because they needed to go out and buy half a squad to compete at the top.

I don't know what you're obsession is with Guardiola or City spending money. You keep bringing it up as a suggestion that he can't be the best coach in the world because he has needed to spend.

So has every other world class manager. 

Manchester United's best squad of players was probably around 2008/2009 when they made consecutive CL finals. Do you think SAF just assembled that on a shoe-string budget or something?

Like Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Berbatov, Ferndinand, Carrick, Evra, Nani, Anderson, Vidic didn't cost anything? They ploughed about £300m into that squad too and that was almost 10 years ago when transfers weren't anywhere near as crazy.

Another thing about City is they haven't had the luxury of developing quality players from within. The best player they've produced in the past 15 years is Daniel Sturridge. Hardly the base for a world class team.

We will never agree.

Not sure how he will ever prove to be the best coach ever when all he ever has to work with the best players in the world who he buys for ridiculous sums.

When he starts bringing through youth or hidden gems I will be a lot more impressed.

To say they started from nothing is ridiculous. 7 of them players you mentioned would walk into 15 Premier League teams.

My supposed obsession with his spending is no different to your obsession with him supposedly having one offload the oldest squad ever (despite the evidence showing the contrary).

Alex Ferguson built the Man United club up from nothing.  When he took over from Ron Atkinson (I think) theye were awful. 

He turned them around won things and rightfully invested the riches this brought. His best squad included the Nevilles, Scholes, Butt and Beckham all through the youth system.

As well as spending huge sums he also brought huge sums in with the players he sold. 

Guardiola has walked into Man City and spent £500m because he can not because he has earned the right too. 

So there's my hand, you know under what circumstances I would need to see him as the magician many think he is. Under what circumstances would you say that he is not as good as you thought he was?