Manchester City Champions League

[scout's dad]

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

The charges don’t actually relate to the current team though. Aren’t most through the period of 2010-2016?

City’s starting XI featured the likes of De Bruyne and Ake who Chelsea were happy to rid of.

Akanji was a bargain buy. Gundogan too. Grealish aside, I don’t think any City player out there cost more than £60m.

 

 

£60 mil my kind of bargain🤣

[Bris Vegas]

43 minutes ago, scout's dad said:

 

£60 mil my kind of bargain🤣

Akanji cost City £15m. To be into perspective, they bought him for less than what Forest paid for Neco Williams. Gundogan cost them £21m in 2016. Look what he has contributed in the past seven seasons. That same summer Man Utd spent £89m on Paul Pogba.

 

 

[Bris Vegas]

6 hours ago, Ambitious said:

A lot is made of the Grealish fee, of course, but every man, women and dog in the country said that he was absolutely not worth that money - he’d only been playing in the premier league a couple of season at that point after a lengthy spell in the Championship. Pep saw something and really wanted him, so did what it took - one of the biggest transfer gambles ever taken. He’s now an integral part of treble winning side. 

People should also be grateful that Pep buys/plays English players. With all due respect to the likes of Sterling, Stones, Walker, Foden, Grealish and Phillips, I’m sure City could have spent less on foreign players or could easily substitute these players for better foreigners.

Sterling’s best football in an England shirt came when Pep was playing him the most. Stones used to get ridiculed for overplaying it and was deemed a liability. Now he is one of the first names on the England team sheet. 

How many English players has Klopp signed for Liverpool? Milner, Henderson and TAA were all there before he arrived (albeit the latter was a kid). 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

11 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Akanji cost City £15m. To be into perspective, they bought him for less than what Forest paid for Neco Williams. Gundogan cost them £21m in 2016. Look what he has contributed in the past seven seasons. That same summer Man Utd spent £89m on Paul Pogba.

 

 

I believe all this started following information from a hacker sending a German newspaper information about brown envelopes of cash not being declared as payments to a manager.  This prompted a proper investigation resulting in a ban from  Europe overturned on an out of time technicality.  There's been 98 since then up to 2018. All unanswered.  They make us look like saints.  Transfer net spend is the tip of the iceberg.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Net spend is a hilariously basic metric by which to judge a clubs spending,and the source of that money.

But also one of the simplest financial comparisons between sides. 

They posted accounting profits in 2022, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

[Highgate]

21 hours ago, Henrycav81 said:

Yeah gets on my nerves when other fans call them a plastic club, they averaged over 28000 when in the third tier of English football. They are a proper football club who have been fortunate to have very rich owners take them over. As far as I’m aware they pay all their bills and don’t owe any money. 

Arguably they owe £2 billion to the people of UAE and their migrant workers, from whom Sheikh Mansour and his ilk extract their obscene wealth. 

It's depressing that the biggest prize in club football has been won by Man City, given the source of their financial backing. Depressing but almost inevitable given the state of the modern game. They are a wonderful football team, with an excellent manager, who has everyone giving 100% every match, and winning the Champions League is a considerable achievement no matter how much money they have (just look at PSG's inept efforts to do the same), but if people can't see a problem with the Man City model of ownership then I really don't know what to say to convince them. 

 

 

[Henrycav81]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Arguably they owe £2 billion to the people of UAE and their migrant workers, from whom Sheikh Mansour and his ilk extract their obscene wealth. 

It's depressing that the biggest prize in club football has been won by Man City, given the source of their financial backing. Depressing but almost inevitable given the state of the modern game. They are a wonderful football team, with an excellent manager, who has everyone giving 100% every match, and winning the Champions League is a considerable achievement no matter how much money they have (just look at PSG's inept efforts to do the same), but if people can't see a problem with the Man City model of ownership then I really don't know what to say to convince them. 

 

 

All of top level football as been ruined by money I find it obscene that clubs charge £70 for a replica shirt that’s been manufactured in an Asian sweatshop. Unfortunately you can’t compete without massive financial backers anymore Man United  may be next club with Middle Eastern backers unfortunately the horse as bolted regards controlling owners (probably a thoroughbred owned by sheikh Mansour)

[Van der MoodHoover]

Unless and until there is a mass uprising by people simply refusing to participate in buying shirts, tickets, tv subscriptions absolutely nothing will change.

And such a thing really isn't very likely.

[Leeds Ram]

13 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Over the last 5 years, Man City rank 10th for net transfer spend out of 22/23 PL teams. 

i wonder where they sit on the wages scale...  Personally, I find Man City and their story absolutely hideous. It's not so much the amount but the fact that so many have been happy to turn a blind eye as to where it has come from. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

i wonder where they sit on the wages scale...  Personally, I find Man City and their story absolutely hideous. It's not so much the amount but the fact that so many have been happy to turn a blind eye as to where it has come from. 

Same true for all fans of all owners isn't it?

[Leeds Ram]

Just now, Van der MoodHoover said:

Same true for all fans of all owners isn't it?

I don't think so no. I think there are limits to the areas you should use a blind eye in matters such as football club ownership. If the Kim's bought us I'd stop paying to go watch games and wouldn't buy anything in the club shop either. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

5 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't think so no. I think there are limits to the areas you should use a blind eye in matters such as football club ownership. If the Kim's bought us I'd stop paying to go watch games and wouldn't buy anything in the club shop either. 

I'd have taken Satan and his consortium of demons 12 months ago to be honest.  

[Highgate]

38 minutes ago, Henrycav81 said:

All of top level football as been ruined by money I find it obscene that clubs charge £70 for a replica shirt that’s been manufactured in an Asian sweatshop. Unfortunately you can’t compete without massive financial backers anymore Man United  may be next club with Middle Eastern backers unfortunately the horse as bolted regards controlling owners (probably a thoroughbred owned by sheikh Mansour)

Yes, but Man City, PSG and previously Chelsea were probably the most egregious examples unscrupulous owners buying football clubs for reasons other than the love of the sport. Impossible to celebrate any of their victories really.  Conversely the Glazers at Man Utd have been heroically enriching themselves at Man.Utd's expensive for years now.  Legends really. 

 Given the state of club football, and how it's rapidly becoming a competition between who has the wealthiest owner, international football looks better and better by comparison. On the other hand...FIFA 😣

[Van der MoodHoover]

27 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't think so no. I think there are limits to the areas you should use a blind eye in matters such as football club ownership. If the Kim's bought us I'd stop paying to go watch games and wouldn't buy anything in the club shop either. 

So where are these "limits"?

Qataris with human rights issues.

Saudis who's gender politics are in the stone age?

Russian dodgy cash was ok until recently.

Individual Greek bakers with allegedly faulty sandwich toasters?

Betting firms preying on human weakness and misery?

[Bris Vegas]

10 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I believe all this started following information from a hacker sending a German newspaper information about brown envelopes of cash not being declared as payments to a manager.  This prompted a proper investigation resulting in a ban from  Europe overturned on an out of time technicality.  There's been 98 since then up to 2018. All unanswered.  They make us look like saints.  Transfer net spend is the tip of the iceberg.

It’s possible City breached FFP in the early stages and found ways around that. You could call that cheating.

But how many other clubs have done the same? Leicester, Bournemouth, Villa, Leeds, Wolves to name a few breached the rules too.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. But there is a reason City potentially breached FFP. It wouldn’t be to gain an advantage on their nearest competitors, it would be to compete with them.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Bris Vegas

[Leeds Ram]

7 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

So where are these "limits"?

Qataris with human rights issues.

Saudis who's gender politics are in the stone age?

Russian dodgy cash was ok until recently.

Individual Greek bakers with allegedly faulty sandwich toasters?

Betting firms preying on human weakness and misery?

The limits are, to some extent, individual, but they exist and can be interpreted via 'common good' values. As football clubs represent a vital institutional link to the community, the idea that rogue states or criminal enterprises buy them off as a way to buy respectability necessarily undermines such an institution and its role morally, if nothing else. That's my view on it. 

Betting firms don't necessarily meet the criteria, but the revelations about Bet 365, for example, are very grim. At best, it's very poor enforcement to stop problem gambler's at worst, it is actively encouraging the ruining of lives for excessive profit. Personally, and again this is just my own view, I'd like to see a much stronger statutory system on who can own and operate such institutions as they are pillars of the community. 

 

[richinspain]

19 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Innocent until proven guilty

Or in Derby and the EFL's case, guilty until (not) proven innocent.

[kevinhectoring]

On 11/06/2023 at 09:36, Bris Vegas said:

he charges don’t actually relate to the current team though. Aren’t most through the period of 2010-2016?

to 2018 according to 5L this morning  But many of the charges relate to inflated  sponsorship deals with cronies, which have continued  

[Ramekin]

On 11/06/2023 at 09:54, Bris Vegas said:

There is no doubt there was a significant initial investment. But that was only to accelerate the process and was kind of expected. I mean, grab any midtable side and you’re going to need to pump £500m+ into it over say 3 seasons to ge them consistently challenging just in the top four.

Newcastle will be a further example of this. They’ve already spent £200m. They’re going to need to spend another £150m this summer just to try and get 4th again with Liverpool likely to improve. They are still way off City and United.

City’s process started in 2008. That’s 15 years ago now.

I don’t envisage them needing to outspend their rivals anymore. All the foundations are in place for them to just keep ticking over now as illustrated by their moderate net spend.

Ultimately, City’s recruitment has been the key to their success. Some will say it’s easy with a bottomless pit. But if that was the case, why aren’t United or Chelsea enjoying similar success? City have just simply been smarter.

Summed up beautifully.