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

Manchester City - Guardiola confirmed

15681011

Comments

  • JiMMy 85 said:

    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.
    I don't think you've actually made one.
  • Currently getting torn a new one by Liverpool, 4 1 down.
  • Yep, Liverpool look very good.
  • You need to rememer 1 thing about liverpool.




    They have Salah
    Mane mane
    And Bobby Firmino
    But they sold Coutinho
  • Thank Heavens City are losing. Will stop Palarse supporters for ever going on about how they were one of only 2 teams to stop them winning!
  • 4-2 Can Liverpool throw it away?
  • Hang on...
  • 4-2 Can Liverpool throw it away?

    Quite possibly
  • Sponsored links:


  • Shiiiit!
  • Arsenal's achievement stands. Will probably never be matched in the Premier League era.
  • Fantastic game. Credit to City for nearly coming back but Liverpool the better team overall and worthy winners.
  • City were poor.

    Liverpool great going forward but look so poor at the back.
  • City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.
  • Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    I hear they may shift after the loss to shoring up their D.
  • Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    Don't blame them. Sanchez was close to signing in the summer and had supposedly given his word that he'd sign for them either this month or at the end of the season. Yet as soon as Man U come in and offer a higher salary, he changes his mind. Hardly suggests he's that fussed on City.

    If he wants to turn down a club who could dominate for the coming years, with an almost guaranteed premier league title medal plus potentially 1-2 cups this season just to sign for United on more money then it's no surprise City have said fuck off.
  • 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!
    I think you’re clinging to a simplistic point that I’ve dealt with at least twice - in fact, when I dealt with your points one by one, the best response you could muster was “agree to disagree” - and then waited a few days before bizarrely trying to imply the Sanchez deal somehow backed up everything you’re saying.

    I’ve never denied the qualities Pep brings - I just don’t jerk off over his presence because I detest the manner in which an Emirate state has paid for the best manager and players, and the reasoning behind that business plan. A point you seem to think is invalid, which is your perogative, you’ve just failed miserably to convince me otherwise. Not because I’m pigheaded, I’m all for being corrected in discussion. You just seem to rely on the brilliance of the players to justify the presence of Mansour and the spending of a billion quid. I’m willing to admit, quite how that’s digging a hole for myself truly is beyond me.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    Don't blame them. Sanchez was close to signing in the summer and had supposedly given his word that he'd sign for them either this month or at the end of the season. Yet as soon as Man U come in and offer a higher salary, he changes his mind. Hardly suggests he's that fussed on City.

    If he wants to turn down a club who could dominate for the coming years, with an almost guaranteed premier league title medal plus potentially 1-2 cups this season just to sign for United on more money then it's no surprise City have said fuck off.
    Think its money to Arsenal as well

    City only want to pay £20 million
    United happy to pay £35 million

    Whats funny is i saw a report saying pep spoke to the owner and they both agreed that £35 million is to much for someone they can get on a free in the summer,
    But if he goes United they cant get him on a free.

    Surely with all there money its worth an extra £15 million, not only do they get a top player but they stop a rival getting him
  • edited January 16

    Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    Don't blame them. Sanchez was close to signing in the summer and had supposedly given his word that he'd sign for them either this month or at the end of the season. Yet as soon as Man U come in and offer a higher salary, he changes his mind. Hardly suggests he's that fussed on City.

    If he wants to turn down a club who could dominate for the coming years, with an almost guaranteed premier league title medal plus potentially 1-2 cups this season just to sign for United on more money then it's no surprise City have said fuck off.
    Think its money to Arsenal as well

    City only want to pay £20 million
    United happy to pay £35 million

    Whats funny is i saw a report saying pep spoke to the owner and they both agreed that £35 million is to much for someone they can get on a free in the summer,
    But if he goes United they cant get him on a free.

    Surely with all there money its worth an extra £15 million, not only do they get a top player but they stop a rival getting him
    It's not about the money though. Obviously City could afford an extra 15m. It's the principle of the situation for them.

    A player gives his word he wants to sign for you and we're led to believe a deal was verbally agreed on the same terms as back in the summer, but then his agent comes back and says i want a 5m payment on top of the transfer fee and my client now wants an extra 100k+ a week.

    City's reaction was probably you either want to sign for us at the terms previously agreed and win trophies..........or you can go elsewhere and earn more money.

    Sanchez is obviously entitled to take the best deal financially for him, can't blame him for that, but the 250k a week at City would hardly have seen him struggling by in a bedsit eating pot noodles.
  • edited January 16

    Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    Don't blame them. Sanchez was close to signing in the summer and had supposedly given his word that he'd sign for them either this month or at the end of the season. Yet as soon as Man U come in and offer a higher salary, he changes his mind. Hardly suggests he's that fussed on City.

    If he wants to turn down a club who could dominate for the coming years, with an almost guaranteed premier league title medal plus potentially 1-2 cups this season just to sign for United on more money then it's no surprise City have said fuck off.
    Think its money to Arsenal as well

    City only want to pay £20 million
    United happy to pay £35 million

    Whats funny is i saw a report saying pep spoke to the owner and they both agreed that £35 million is to much for someone they can get on a free in the summer,
    But if he goes United they cant get him on a free.

    Surely with all there money its worth an extra £15 million, not only do they get a top player but they stop a rival getting him
    It's not about the money though. Obviously City could afford an extra 15m. It's the principle of the situation for them.

    A player gives his word he wants to sign for you and we're led to believe a deal was verbally agreed on the same terms as back in the summer, but then his agent comes back and says i want a 5m payment on top of the transfer fee and my client now wants an extra 100k+ a week.

    City's reaction was probably you either want to sign for us at the terms previously agreed and win trophies..........or you can go elsewhere and earn more money.
    I understand that,
    But even if they paid that he still wouldnt go there, because Arsenal wont accecpt £20 million and United will pay the £35 Arsenal want
  • United certainly need him more then City, they definitely need more invention and attacking flair in their team
  • Man u also prepared to give Arsenal Mkhitaryan
  • When it looked like he was going on a free this summer Juventus were interested...

    They soon changed their mind when they heard Man City had arranged a £30million signing on fee!!!!
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    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!
    I think you’re clinging to a simplistic point that I’ve dealt with at least twice - in fact, when I dealt with your points one by one, the best response you could muster was “agree to disagree” - and then waited a few days before bizarrely trying to imply the Sanchez deal somehow backed up everything you’re saying.

    I’ve never denied the qualities Pep brings - I just don’t jerk off over his presence because I detest the manner in which an Emirate state has paid for the best manager and players, and the reasoning behind that business plan. A point you seem to think is invalid, which is your perogative, you’ve just failed miserably to convince me otherwise. Not because I’m pigheaded, I’m all for being corrected in discussion. You just seem to rely on the brilliance of the players to justify the presence of Mansour and the spending of a billion quid. I’m willing to admit, quite how that’s digging a hole for myself truly is beyond me.
    Your point seems to be "they spent a lot of money and I don't like them spending a lot of money" but then lots of people have come back with evidence to show that a. their net spend on playing and coaching staff is no higher than their rivals and b. they won't sign anyone at any cost just because they can.

    The transfer market is f*cked and I hate it but the problem isn't just down to one team, it's the system as a whole.
  • edited January 16

    Riviera said:

    City have pulled out of the race to sign Sanchez.

    Don't blame them. Sanchez was close to signing in the summer and had supposedly given his word that he'd sign for them either this month or at the end of the season. Yet as soon as Man U come in and offer a higher salary, he changes his mind. Hardly suggests he's that fussed on City.

    If he wants to turn down a club who could dominate for the coming years, with an almost guaranteed premier league title medal plus potentially 1-2 cups this season just to sign for United on more money then it's no surprise City have said fuck off.
    Think its money to Arsenal as well

    City only want to pay £20 million
    United happy to pay £35 million

    Whats funny is i saw a report saying pep spoke to the owner and they both agreed that £35 million is to much for someone they can get on a free in the summer,
    But if he goes United they cant get him on a free.

    Surely with all there money its worth an extra £15 million, not only do they get a top player but they stop a rival getting him
    It's not about the money though. Obviously City could afford an extra 15m. It's the principle of the situation for them.

    A player gives his word he wants to sign for you and we're led to believe a deal was verbally agreed on the same terms as back in the summer, but then his agent comes back and says i want a 5m payment on top of the transfer fee and my client now wants an extra 100k+ a week.

    City's reaction was probably you either want to sign for us at the terms previously agreed and win trophies..........or you can go elsewhere and earn more money.
    I understand that,
    But even if they paid that he still wouldnt go there, because Arsenal wont accecpt £20 million and United will pay the £35 Arsenal want
    If Sanchez said to Arsenal 'i have no intention of signing for United' then it wouldn't matter if their offer was 100m. What use is the transfer offer if the player refuses to sign for you?
    So assuming that Arsenal didn't want to keep him until the summer and get nothing, then they'd have had to accept City's smaller offer (or likely agreed a compromise of around 25m).

    In the summer Bonnucci signed for Milan for about 40m because he wanted to stay in Italy and they were the only club he was prepared to sign for. City, United, chelsea would've all happily offered 60-70m for him but Juve had to accept the lesser deal.
  • edited January 16

    JiMMy 85 said:

    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!
    I think you’re clinging to a simplistic point that I’ve dealt with at least twice - in fact, when I dealt with your points one by one, the best response you could muster was “agree to disagree” - and then waited a few days before bizarrely trying to imply the Sanchez deal somehow backed up everything you’re saying.

    I’ve never denied the qualities Pep brings - I just don’t jerk off over his presence because I detest the manner in which an Emirate state has paid for the best manager and players, and the reasoning behind that business plan. A point you seem to think is invalid, which is your perogative, you’ve just failed miserably to convince me otherwise. Not because I’m pigheaded, I’m all for being corrected in discussion. You just seem to rely on the brilliance of the players to justify the presence of Mansour and the spending of a billion quid. I’m willing to admit, quite how that’s digging a hole for myself truly is beyond me.
    Your point seems to be "they spent a lot of money and I don't like them spending a lot of money" but then lots of people have come back with evidence to show that a. their net spend on playing and coaching staff is no higher than their rivals and b. they won't sign anyone at any cost just because they can.

    The transfer market is f*cked and I hate it but the problem isn't just down to one team, it's the system as a whole.
    I've covered all of this in previous posts, Callum. I really have. It's not as simple as "I don't like them spending money" - I am, to put it as simply as possible, unwilling to ignore the reasons why that money is being spent, in the name of pretty football, and I don't give much respect to the richest team on the planet winning everything. I don't know why people are surprised or impressed by that success, no matter how pretty the football is.

    The net spend thing - again, I responded to that quite clearly. Their net spend is still half a billion quid. And other teams spending big (mainly Man Utd) doesn't remotely change my feeling towards what the Mansours are up to, and I don't honestly see why it should.

    "they won't sign anyone at any cost just because they can."

    They spent 750m on their current squad. The most expensive squad on the planet. I don't know why you think this. Surely not just because they didn't complete the Sanchez deal?
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    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!
    I think you’re clinging to a simplistic point that I’ve dealt with at least twice - in fact, when I dealt with your points one by one, the best response you could muster was “agree to disagree” - and then waited a few days before bizarrely trying to imply the Sanchez deal somehow backed up everything you’re saying.

    I’ve never denied the qualities Pep brings - I just don’t jerk off over his presence because I detest the manner in which an Emirate state has paid for the best manager and players, and the reasoning behind that business plan. A point you seem to think is invalid, which is your perogative, you’ve just failed miserably to convince me otherwise. Not because I’m pigheaded, I’m all for being corrected in discussion. You just seem to rely on the brilliance of the players to justify the presence of Mansour and the spending of a billion quid. I’m willing to admit, quite how that’s digging a hole for myself truly is beyond me.
    I have dealt with the point about City's spending time and time again - net spend £500m is nothing compared to the current worth of their squad. I also pointed out that the most that they have spent is £55m on a player which, once again, is nowhere near the top end. The refusal to sign Sanchez is just further evidence to refute your suggestion that they will buy all the best players at any cost.

    What City do is buy players that they believe will be the future of the club (and usually under 25) and if those players don't stay they will hope to make a profit. No club will get it right every time but City haven't done a bad job with their current squad:

    Player - Transfer Fee - Age At Time Of Signing

    Kompany - 6m - 22
    David Silva - 26m - 24
    Aguero - 38m - 23
    Stones - 47.5m - 22
    Walker - 45m - 27
    Mendy - 53m - 23
    Delph - 8m - 25
    Mangala - 32m - 23
    Danilo - 26.5m - 26
    Sane - 37m - 20
    Bravo - 15.4m - 33
    Gundogan - 20m - 25
    Otamendi - 25m - 27
    Ederson - 35m - 23
    Fernandinho - 30m - 28
    Toure - 24m - 27
    Bernardo Silva - 43m - 23
    Sterling - 44m - 21
    De Bruyne - 55m - 24
    Jesus - 27m - 19

    As for the "Emirate state has paid for the best manager and players, and the reasoning behind that business plan" I would say this - there are very few owners nowadays who buy a football club for purely altruistic reasons. They aren't ripping off fans with extortionately expensive season tickets and are providing the best football around.
Sign In or Register to comment.