Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Manchester City - Guardiola confirmed

15791011

Comments

  • Could be a long night for Watford. City are a wounded animal following their disastrous draw against Palace and have arguably their best side out tonight having had a few missing for that game - and Watford are one nil down inside the first minute!
  • With the Ginger star starting, why all the noises coming from Citeh over the past few days about the seriousness of his injury at Palace. Watford are on the slide.
  • Fiiish said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Title race done before Christmas. What an exciting league the Premier is.......

    To be fair your still going back to 06/07 - 07/08 - 08/09 when a club won back to back Premier League titles

    (Man Utd won it three years on the trot on that occasion)
    And that... makes it exciting? Because last year it was won by a Russian oligarch?
    No it makes it unpredictable
    Four teams in eight (or eleven) seasons. And with the two richest owners winning it this season and last. That is stretching ‘unpredictable’ a little bit.
    Who's gonna win next year? Russian state-backed oil or Middle East state-backed oil.

    Don't understand the argument that 'at least they play entertaining football'. If you spend a billion quid how could the end result be anything other than entertaining football?
    Well you'd hope so but Chelsea never have, United barely did at the height of Ferguson's time.

    Struggling to think of a team when England had a better overall team than City do right now. Potentially Arsenal 2003-04 but I think even De Bruyne, Silva, Sane, Sterling etc. would tear them apart.

    Not saying the situation is ideal but at least one team is deciding to play high quality football that the Premier League has been sadly lacking the last few years.
    The Arsenal invincibles side were strong at the back, would potentially over power City in midfield and had Pires, Henry and Bergkamp going forward. I don't see how this City side would tear them apart. Sterling for example would get absolutely nothing out of Ashley Cole.
  • Fiiish said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Title race done before Christmas. What an exciting league the Premier is.......

    To be fair your still going back to 06/07 - 07/08 - 08/09 when a club won back to back Premier League titles

    (Man Utd won it three years on the trot on that occasion)
    And that... makes it exciting? Because last year it was won by a Russian oligarch?
    No it makes it unpredictable
    Four teams in eight (or eleven) seasons. And with the two richest owners winning it this season and last. That is stretching ‘unpredictable’ a little bit.
    Who's gonna win next year? Russian state-backed oil or Middle East state-backed oil.

    Don't understand the argument that 'at least they play entertaining football'. If you spend a billion quid how could the end result be anything other than entertaining football?
    Well you'd hope so but Chelsea never have, United barely did at the height of Ferguson's time.

    Struggling to think of a team when England had a better overall team than City do right now. Potentially Arsenal 2003-04 but I think even De Bruyne, Silva, Sane, Sterling etc. would tear them apart.

    Not saying the situation is ideal but at least one team is deciding to play high quality football that the Premier League has been sadly lacking the last few years.
    The Arsenal invincibles side were strong at the back, would potentially over power City in midfield and had Pires, Henry and Bergkamp going forward. I don't see how this City side would tear them apart. Sterling for example would get absolutely nothing out of Ashley Cole.
    I certainly wouldn't say that City would tear Arsenal apart but I think that City would beat them. Not sure about the argument that City would get overpowered in midfield simply because Pep's side defend from the front like no other seen in the PL. Equally, Sterling wouldn't be isolated that often in one v one situations because that isn't how City set themselves up.

    Equally, if we compare the records, the Invincibles actually drew 12 matches and on a pro rata basis would currently be 10 points behind City! The other remarkable fact about that Arsenal side is that Henry scored 30 of their 73 goals followed by Pires (14) and then no one got more than 4 goals. It's not as if they had goals from all areas which City do and they already netted 64 goals. City also have a better defensive record at this stage of the season.

    Difficult to compare eras but, as I say, I would back the current City side over the Invincibles.
  • Didn't the Chelsea team they year after The Invincibles have more wins, more table points and a higher goal differential?
  • I would expect the current City team to beat the Arsenal Invincibles although it would be close, as other then a few special in a generation players, footballers at the top level get better and better.
  • Great first half against Bristol City in the League Cup with the latter winning 1-0 thanks to a pen... Aden Flint just made one of the best goal line clearances with a header just on HT to stop a Sterling equaliser
  • Damn Man City equalise... KDB
  • How do they always do it
  • Sponsored links:


  • Very hard on Bristol City. they deserved a draw.
  • How do they always do it

    21 players in final 3rd of the pitch with 90 secs left.
  • So cruel yet just look at the way Aguero stays onside in the build up... Absolutely class and surely isnt difficult to do
  • How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
    And yet they've only actually been involved in one of the 20 most expensive purchases in the world - £55m (15th most expensive) for De Bruyne which is a "snip" given that Bacelona paid double that for Coutinho and PSG paid four times that for Neymar.

    This is a breakdown of that top 20:

    Barcelona - 5
    Real Madrid - 5
    Man United - 3
    PSG - 2
    Chelsea - 1
    Juventus - 1
    Liverpool - 1
    Man City - 1
    Shanghai SIPG - 1
  • edited January 10

    JiMMy 85 said:

    How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
    And yet they've only actually been involved in one of the 20 most expensive purchases in the world - £55m (15th most expensive) for De Bruyne which is a "snip" given that Bacelona paid double that for Coutinho and PSG paid four times that for Neymar.

    This is a breakdown of that top 20:

    Barcelona - 5
    Real Madrid - 5
    Man United - 3
    PSG - 2
    Chelsea - 1
    Juventus - 1
    Liverpool - 1
    Man City - 1
    Shanghai SIPG - 1
    That's not even remotely representative of the squad. Edit: just realised your point: How about underlining this bit?

    "of the best possible players".

    I seriously have no idea why you want to defend them so fervently. They spent £753m building that squad. That's obscene. While you're busy defending them and being romanced by their flashy football, competition is disappearing and, eventually in my opinion, the top flight of English football will most likely be broken up to appease the rich club owners.

    But hey, De Bruyne can pass like a magician so it's all good.

  • edited January 10
    That exposes the real issue. The amounts the top teams in this country spend pales in comparison to what the top teams are spending in other countries. The problem is the other countries seem happy to have a system where one or two teams dominate the domestic system in perpetuity, whereas here and arguably Italy we seem to want a more balanced domestic system, the cost of which is we fare worse in Europe.

    Maybe it is high time all these big spenders formed their own super league that they seem to desperately want anyway and let the domestic leagues return to normality.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
    And yet they've only actually been involved in one of the 20 most expensive purchases in the world - £55m (15th most expensive) for De Bruyne which is a "snip" given that Bacelona paid double that for Coutinho and PSG paid four times that for Neymar.

    This is a breakdown of that top 20:

    Barcelona - 5
    Real Madrid - 5
    Man United - 3
    PSG - 2
    Chelsea - 1
    Juventus - 1
    Liverpool - 1
    Man City - 1
    Shanghai SIPG - 1
    That's not even remotely representative of the squad. Edit: just realised your point: How about underlining this bit?

    "of the best possible players".

    I seriously have no idea why you want to defend them so fervently. They spent £753m building that squad. That's obscene. While you're busy defending them and being romanced by their flashy football, competition is disappearing and, eventually in my opinion, the top flight of English football will most likely be broken up to appease the rich club owners.

    But hey, De Bruyne can pass like a magician so it's all good.

    Emphasis on squad there though. That's an average of 30m per player, which yes seems a lot but given 30m these days doesn't even buy you Benteke then it's not so bad.

    PSG spent 360m on 2 players. Barca just spent 240m on 2 players.
  • .
    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
    And yet they've only actually been involved in one of the 20 most expensive purchases in the world - £55m (15th most expensive) for De Bruyne which is a "snip" given that Bacelona paid double that for Coutinho and PSG paid four times that for Neymar.

    This is a breakdown of that top 20:

    Barcelona - 5
    Real Madrid - 5
    Man United - 3
    PSG - 2
    Chelsea - 1
    Juventus - 1
    Liverpool - 1
    Man City - 1
    Shanghai SIPG - 1
    That's not even remotely representative of the squad. Edit: just realised your point: How about underlining this bit?

    "of the best possible players".

    I seriously have no idea why you want to defend them so fervently. They spent £753m building that squad. That's obscene. While you're busy defending them and being romanced by their flashy football, competition is disappearing and, eventually in my opinion, the top flight of English football will most likely be broken up to appease the rich club owners.

    But hey, De Bruyne can pass like a magician so it's all good.

    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku. And they don't park the bus. That is why I admire what they do because plenty of other clubs spend big but don't get the results and even if they do then they don't play the sort of football doing it that City under Pep do.

    I hope that explains why I defend them. And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury. Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?
  • Sponsored links:


  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    How do they always do it

    By buying all of the best possible players they can cos they have unlimited funds.
    And yet they've only actually been involved in one of the 20 most expensive purchases in the world - £55m (15th most expensive) for De Bruyne which is a "snip" given that Bacelona paid double that for Coutinho and PSG paid four times that for Neymar.

    This is a breakdown of that top 20:

    Barcelona - 5
    Real Madrid - 5
    Man United - 3
    PSG - 2
    Chelsea - 1
    Juventus - 1
    Liverpool - 1
    Man City - 1
    Shanghai SIPG - 1
    That's not even remotely representative of the squad. Edit: just realised your point: How about underlining this bit?

    "of the best possible players".

    I seriously have no idea why you want to defend them so fervently. They spent £753m building that squad. That's obscene. While you're busy defending them and being romanced by their flashy football, competition is disappearing and, eventually in my opinion, the top flight of English football will most likely be broken up to appease the rich club owners.

    But hey, De Bruyne can pass like a magician so it's all good.

    Awful that, enjoying good football
  • edited January 10



    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    In my opinion that’s a bit disingenuous. ‘The best possible players they can’ means they clearly can't buy players who have just been bought (and 'best' is in the eye of the beholder anyway). They have bought the best manager on the planet, then asked him who he needs to make up his squad. Neymar and Messi weren’t possible options, apparently, but Pep has identified who he needed and it seems that, as far as we can tell, 99% of the time they got their man. Mostly by spending big on each player (it doesn’t need to be a world record fee for it to be a big sum).

    Those sums, along with the likes of PSG and United, have pushed the ever-increasing transfer market into a realm that is, frankly, astonishing, and is going to rapidly accelerate the ever-widening gap between the biggest clubs and the rest, resulting, I believe, in an inevitable breakaway. Particularly as clubs are getting fed up with the CL group stages.


    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    Well… I don’t have to. Because none of that detracts from my point.

    Whenever I cite any figure you come back with a whataboutism, whether that's money recouped (which I believe is misleading anyway, and takes us down a rabbit hole figuring out which owner paid for them, when they paid for them and so on), or you mention another club, as though City spending big is somehow not a bad thing, cos other clubs do it too.

    One stat you cannot counter is that Man City have spent more than any other club on the planet on players. In the history of football, adjusted for inflation or not. I really don't see why United spending big or City recouping 25% of their expenditure (potentially on players they have made a loss on, or were bought by a previous regime) changes that fact.


    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku.

    I don’t care if they have the world record for a player. I have a more expensive phone than my friends, but most of my friends spend more money than me. And I don’t know if my mate Alf stole his money from an old lady and locked her up in a small broom cupboard because she’s gay.


    And they don't park the bus.

    No shit! They spent 753m on players and bought Pep Guardiola.


    I hope that explains why I defend them.

    Not really, no. It still sounds like “They play nice football and others are dodgy too”, and none of that remotely convinces me I should be happy about the situation.


    And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury.

    No, I absolutely wouldn’t be comfortable. If we were owned by someone with dubious connections, I would not go. I've only been half a dozen times in the last two years to see a club owned by a twat. He’s not even an evil twat (relatively speaking, making microchips isn’t akin to locking someone up because they brushed past someone in a bar).

    Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?

    They are owned by a Chinese conglomerate. Fuck that, I would hate for that to happen to us. I don’t know much about the Chinese, but I know they are buying up an awesome amount of real estate here. And I would not want to ignore anything they’ve done wrong just because they hire Curbs as a director of football and build a lovely footballing team.
  • JiMMy 85 said:



    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    In my opinion that’s a bit disingenuous. ‘The best possible players they can’ means they clearly can't buy players who have just been bought (and 'best' is in the eye of the beholder anyway). They have bought the best manager on the planet, then asked him who he needs to make up his squad. Neymar and Messi weren’t possible options, apparently, but Pep has identified who he needed and it seems that, as far as we can tell, 99% of the time they got their man. Mostly by spending big on each player (it doesn’t need to be a world record fee for it to be a big sum).

    Those sums, along with the likes of PSG and United, have pushed the ever-increasing transfer market into a realm that is, frankly, astonishing, and is going to rapidly accelerate the ever-widening gap between the biggest clubs and the rest, resulting, I believe, in an inevitable breakaway. Particularly as clubs are getting fed up with the CL group stages.


    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    Well… I don’t have to. Because none of that detracts from my point.

    Whenever I cite any figure you come back with a whataboutism, whether that's money recouped (which I believe is misleading anyway, and takes us down a rabbit hole figuring out which owner paid for them, when they paid for them and so on), or you mention another club, as though City spending big is somehow not a bad thing, cos other clubs do it too.

    One stat you cannot counter is that Man City have spent more than any other club on the planet on players. In the history of football, adjusted for inflation or not. I really don't see why United spending big or City recouping 25% of their expenditure (potentially on players they have made a loss on, or were bought by a previous regime) changes that fact.


    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku.

    I don’t care if they have the world record for a player. I have a more expensive phone than my friends, but most of my friends spend more money than me. And I don’t know if my mate Alf stole his money from an old lady and locked her up in a small broom cupboard because she’s gay.


    And they don't park the bus.

    No shit! They spent 753m on players and bought Pep Guardiola.


    I hope that explains why I defend them.

    Not really, no. It still sounds like “They play nice football and others are dodgy too”, and none of that remotely convinces me I should be happy about the situation.


    And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury.

    No, I absolutely wouldn’t be comfortable. If we were owned by someone with dubious connections, I would not go. I've only been half a dozen times in the last two years to see a club owned by a twat. He’s not even an evil twat (relatively speaking, making microchips isn’t akin to locking someone up because they brushed past someone in a bar).

    Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?

    They are owned by a Chinese conglomerate. Fuck that, I would hate for that to happen to us. I don’t know much about the Chinese, but I know they are buying up an awesome amount of real estate here. And I would not want to ignore anything they’ve done wrong just because they hire Curbs as a director of football and build a lovely footballing team.
    We'll just have to beg to differ. My seat cost £28 on Saturday to watch the biggest load of dross I have ever seen. For £299 I can buy a season ticket at City and watch the best football on the planet. I wouldn't because Charlton is my club. But it doesn't stop me appreciating great football at a cost, pro rata, that is infinitely more value than I am ever likely to see my side play.
  • And that’s precisely what Sheikh Mansour wants to hear.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    And that’s precisely what Sheikh Mansour wants to hear.

    That his massive investment encourages people to come and watch his football team? Almost certainly. Why do you think football stadiums have seats?
  • JiMMy 85 said:



    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    In my opinion that’s a bit disingenuous. ‘The best possible players they can’ means they clearly can't buy players who have just been bought (and 'best' is in the eye of the beholder anyway). They have bought the best manager on the planet, then asked him who he needs to make up his squad. Neymar and Messi weren’t possible options, apparently, but Pep has identified who he needed and it seems that, as far as we can tell, 99% of the time they got their man. Mostly by spending big on each player (it doesn’t need to be a world record fee for it to be a big sum).

    Those sums, along with the likes of PSG and United, have pushed the ever-increasing transfer market into a realm that is, frankly, astonishing, and is going to rapidly accelerate the ever-widening gap between the biggest clubs and the rest, resulting, I believe, in an inevitable breakaway. Particularly as clubs are getting fed up with the CL group stages.


    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    Well… I don’t have to. Because none of that detracts from my point.

    Whenever I cite any figure you come back with a whataboutism, whether that's money recouped (which I believe is misleading anyway, and takes us down a rabbit hole figuring out which owner paid for them, when they paid for them and so on), or you mention another club, as though City spending big is somehow not a bad thing, cos other clubs do it too.

    One stat you cannot counter is that Man City have spent more than any other club on the planet on players. In the history of football, adjusted for inflation or not. I really don't see why United spending big or City recouping 25% of their expenditure (potentially on players they have made a loss on, or were bought by a previous regime) changes that fact.


    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku.

    I don’t care if they have the world record for a player. I have a more expensive phone than my friends, but most of my friends spend more money than me. And I don’t know if my mate Alf stole his money from an old lady and locked her up in a small broom cupboard because she’s gay.


    And they don't park the bus.

    No shit! They spent 753m on players and bought Pep Guardiola.


    I hope that explains why I defend them.

    Not really, no. It still sounds like “They play nice football and others are dodgy too”, and none of that remotely convinces me I should be happy about the situation.


    And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury.

    No, I absolutely wouldn’t be comfortable. If we were owned by someone with dubious connections, I would not go. I've only been half a dozen times in the last two years to see a club owned by a twat. He’s not even an evil twat (relatively speaking, making microchips isn’t akin to locking someone up because they brushed past someone in a bar).

    Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?

    They are owned by a Chinese conglomerate. Fuck that, I would hate for that to happen to us. I don’t know much about the Chinese, but I know they are buying up an awesome amount of real estate here. And I would not want to ignore anything they’ve done wrong just because they hire Curbs as a director of football and build a lovely footballing team.
    And yet City aren't prepared to pay £35m for Sanchez even if they can afford to do so and he wants to go there. Perhaps they don't just buy all the best possible players whatever the cost.
  • JiMMy 85 said:



    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    In my opinion that’s a bit disingenuous. ‘The best possible players they can’ means they clearly can't buy players who have just been bought (and 'best' is in the eye of the beholder anyway). They have bought the best manager on the planet, then asked him who he needs to make up his squad. Neymar and Messi weren’t possible options, apparently, but Pep has identified who he needed and it seems that, as far as we can tell, 99% of the time they got their man. Mostly by spending big on each player (it doesn’t need to be a world record fee for it to be a big sum).

    Those sums, along with the likes of PSG and United, have pushed the ever-increasing transfer market into a realm that is, frankly, astonishing, and is going to rapidly accelerate the ever-widening gap between the biggest clubs and the rest, resulting, I believe, in an inevitable breakaway. Particularly as clubs are getting fed up with the CL group stages.


    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    Well… I don’t have to. Because none of that detracts from my point.

    Whenever I cite any figure you come back with a whataboutism, whether that's money recouped (which I believe is misleading anyway, and takes us down a rabbit hole figuring out which owner paid for them, when they paid for them and so on), or you mention another club, as though City spending big is somehow not a bad thing, cos other clubs do it too.

    One stat you cannot counter is that Man City have spent more than any other club on the planet on players. In the history of football, adjusted for inflation or not. I really don't see why United spending big or City recouping 25% of their expenditure (potentially on players they have made a loss on, or were bought by a previous regime) changes that fact.


    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku.

    I don’t care if they have the world record for a player. I have a more expensive phone than my friends, but most of my friends spend more money than me. And I don’t know if my mate Alf stole his money from an old lady and locked her up in a small broom cupboard because she’s gay.


    And they don't park the bus.

    No shit! They spent 753m on players and bought Pep Guardiola.


    I hope that explains why I defend them.

    Not really, no. It still sounds like “They play nice football and others are dodgy too”, and none of that remotely convinces me I should be happy about the situation.


    And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury.

    No, I absolutely wouldn’t be comfortable. If we were owned by someone with dubious connections, I would not go. I've only been half a dozen times in the last two years to see a club owned by a twat. He’s not even an evil twat (relatively speaking, making microchips isn’t akin to locking someone up because they brushed past someone in a bar).

    Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?

    They are owned by a Chinese conglomerate. Fuck that, I would hate for that to happen to us. I don’t know much about the Chinese, but I know they are buying up an awesome amount of real estate here. And I would not want to ignore anything they’ve done wrong just because they hire Curbs as a director of football and build a lovely footballing team.
    And yet City aren't prepared to pay £35m for Sanchez even if they can afford to do so and he wants to go there. Perhaps they don't just buy all the best possible players whatever the cost.
    You’re really clinging onto that one.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    And that’s precisely what Sheikh Mansour wants to hear.

    That his massive investment encourages people to come and watch his football team? Almost certainly. Why do you think football stadiums have seats?
    I can’t tell if you’re intentionally or inadvertently missing the point.
  • Their net spend is comparable to their competitors (as it has been the last few years now) yet this season, they're blowing the competition away. That's why they deserve praise.
  • edited January 13
    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:



    I'm sorry but you clearly stated "by buying all of the best possible players they can". I've just demonstrated that they have only bought one of the 20 most expensive players - and their most expensive player is the 15th in terms of cost!

    In my opinion that’s a bit disingenuous. ‘The best possible players they can’ means they clearly can't buy players who have just been bought (and 'best' is in the eye of the beholder anyway). They have bought the best manager on the planet, then asked him who he needs to make up his squad. Neymar and Messi weren’t possible options, apparently, but Pep has identified who he needed and it seems that, as far as we can tell, 99% of the time they got their man. Mostly by spending big on each player (it doesn’t need to be a world record fee for it to be a big sum).

    Those sums, along with the likes of PSG and United, have pushed the ever-increasing transfer market into a realm that is, frankly, astonishing, and is going to rapidly accelerate the ever-widening gap between the biggest clubs and the rest, resulting, I believe, in an inevitable breakaway. Particularly as clubs are getting fed up with the CL group stages.


    You have come back with a figure of £753m but haven't mentioned that they have re-couped £250m of that so have actually spent £500m net. They would get that for Aguero, Sane, De Bruyne and Sterling alone in the current market. So not quite as "obscene" as you make out.

    Well… I don’t have to. Because none of that detracts from my point.

    Whenever I cite any figure you come back with a whataboutism, whether that's money recouped (which I believe is misleading anyway, and takes us down a rabbit hole figuring out which owner paid for them, when they paid for them and so on), or you mention another club, as though City spending big is somehow not a bad thing, cos other clubs do it too.

    One stat you cannot counter is that Man City have spent more than any other club on the planet on players. In the history of football, adjusted for inflation or not. I really don't see why United spending big or City recouping 25% of their expenditure (potentially on players they have made a loss on, or were bought by a previous regime) changes that fact.


    What they haven't done is pay £89m for Pogba or £75m for Lukaku.

    I don’t care if they have the world record for a player. I have a more expensive phone than my friends, but most of my friends spend more money than me. And I don’t know if my mate Alf stole his money from an old lady and locked her up in a small broom cupboard because she’s gay.


    And they don't park the bus.

    No shit! They spent 753m on players and bought Pep Guardiola.


    I hope that explains why I defend them.

    Not really, no. It still sounds like “They play nice football and others are dodgy too”, and none of that remotely convinces me I should be happy about the situation.


    And why I have previously brought up the issue that if we get taken over and buy our way out of the division we would be no different - I cannot see how you would feel, using your argument, comfortable when other clubs that won't have that luxury.

    No, I absolutely wouldn’t be comfortable. If we were owned by someone with dubious connections, I would not go. I've only been half a dozen times in the last two years to see a club owned by a twat. He’s not even an evil twat (relatively speaking, making microchips isn’t akin to locking someone up because they brushed past someone in a bar).

    Presumably you feel the same way about Wolves and the Championship too?

    They are owned by a Chinese conglomerate. Fuck that, I would hate for that to happen to us. I don’t know much about the Chinese, but I know they are buying up an awesome amount of real estate here. And I would not want to ignore anything they’ve done wrong just because they hire Curbs as a director of football and build a lovely footballing team.
    And yet City aren't prepared to pay £35m for Sanchez even if they can afford to do so and he wants to go there. Perhaps they don't just buy all the best possible players whatever the cost.
    You’re really clinging onto that one.
    I'm not "clinging onto" anything. It's just that you seem to have a steadfast refusal to accept anything I say - from net spend, to changing the face of the football played in this country, to not just buying the best players at any cost, to improving the footballers under Pep, to plenty of other clubs spending more money than anyone else in their respective divisions and to value for money for fans watching them.

    In fact, rarely have I witnessed anyone dig quite as big a hole as you have on this thread!
Sign In or Register to comment.