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

Manchester City - Guardiola confirmed

1567911

Comments

  • There is absolutely no way Man City is turning a profit on its own, and talking about transfer spend in isolation ignores wages and other inducements which no doubt send their total squad spend above the nominal.
  • Fiiish said:

    There is absolutely no way Man City is turning a profit on its own, and talking about transfer spend in isolation ignores wages and other inducements which no doubt send their total squad spend above the nominal.

    They have made a profit for the last three years. And without knowing exactly how much "sponsorship" they get from the Emirates it is fair to say that there isn't an open cheque book. This is the very reason that they won't sign Sanchez.

  • 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.

    Several pages ago I agreed with you that they are running a very good business, which you'd expect for the richest man in the world.

    Their purchasing is part of that business - they have paid a lot of money for a manager who knows which players he wants, and they have signed players that fit his vision. Thus, they haven't had too many failures under him, and have bought young. Not having the transfer record is, in my opinion, more than a bit misleading, particularly when you look at the list you just wrote down - that's an INSANE list of purchases by anyone's standards. It's truly bizarre to me that you could write that list down and use it as evidence of them not spending lavishly! Even after the net spend thing, Mansour is said to be just shy of £1bn down, when you include the infrastructure expenses.

    As for Sanchez - I don't think he has the right attitude for Pep, and his demands have really highlighted that. If Pep really wanted him, if the club badly needed him, surely you'd agree United would lose that financial battle? Besides, I didn't intend to say they buy players at any cost - what I meant is, they will pay what they need to pay to get what they want in order to achieve their goal. And are not limited in any way in doing that.

    And absolutely right - there are question marks over many, if not all the owners. The Russians at Chelsea and Bournemouth, the aforementioned Chinese. Hell, even Leicester are owned by a company that wants to sell more aftershave in airports, and have used the stadium and shirt sponsorship to do that. Arsenal's owners are sitting pretty while charging the highest rates for tickets of any sporting venue on the planet. I respect Peter Coates for doing things properly at Stoke, although I realise that's slightly hypocritical given that I detest gambling advertising and how Sky are directing it at children during match days.

    We could go on and on, but this is, and always has been, a conversation about City, and I find the introduction of other teams to be a 'whatabout' conversation. You honestly don't mind what the Mansours are up to, you're happy as long as the football is pretty. I am not.

    I think what started this off was me saying something like "how can anyone be surprised that the richest country in the world has spent unlimited funds and won everything" and I stand by that. What you've conveyed is that they are a well-run company, and you are absolutely right, I take that on board and agree with you. But it doesn't change my mind about disliking the whole affair, and not wanting a Middle Eastern state to use this sport as a marketing tool to paint over their human rights issues.

    Someone else can explain that stuff far better than me (extra kudos if you watch the torture tape!): https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-men-behind-man-city-a-documentary-not-coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06

    Admittedly that's not the most reputable website of all the interwebs (although the author does appear to be trustworthy), so here's a Guardian article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/who-pays-for-manchester-city-beautiful-game



  • I accept that you don't like what the Mansours are doing but to admire an owner (Coates) who has made his billions as a direct result of financial harm to untold numbers of people and their families (bookmakers ban and restrict winners) is slightly hypocritical isn't it? Equally, do you deliberately not buy anything originating from a county that has questionable human rights e.g. petrol?

    As I said before, we are going to have to beg to differ. I originally stated that I admired the football played under Pep and how he improves players doing it. You are not prepared to accept that because of the way that the money to that is raised. I accept that as an argument but that doesn't mean I agree with it simply because I would struggle to find too many top clubs that don't have questionable ways of raising money.
  • JiMMy 85 said:


    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.

    Several pages ago I agreed with you that they are running a very good business, which you'd expect for the richest man in the world.

    Their purchasing is part of that business - they have paid a lot of money for a manager who knows which players he wants, and they have signed players that fit his vision. Thus, they haven't had too many failures under him, and have bought young. Not having the transfer record is, in my opinion, more than a bit misleading, particularly when you look at the list you just wrote down - that's an INSANE list of purchases by anyone's standards. It's truly bizarre to me that you could write that list down and use it as evidence of them not spending lavishly! Even after the net spend thing, Mansour is said to be just shy of £1bn down, when you include the infrastructure expenses.

    As for Sanchez - I don't think he has the right attitude for Pep, and his demands have really highlighted that. If Pep really wanted him, if the club badly needed him, surely you'd agree United would lose that financial battle? Besides, I didn't intend to say they buy players at any cost - what I meant is, they will pay what they need to pay to get what they want in order to achieve their goal. And are not limited in any way in doing that.

    And absolutely right - there are question marks over many, if not all the owners. The Russians at Chelsea and Bournemouth, the aforementioned Chinese. Hell, even Leicester are owned by a company that wants to sell more aftershave in airports, and have used the stadium and shirt sponsorship to do that. Arsenal's owners are sitting pretty while charging the highest rates for tickets of any sporting venue on the planet. I respect Peter Coates for doing things properly at Stoke, although I realise that's slightly hypocritical given that I detest gambling advertising and how Sky are directing it at children during match days.

    We could go on and on, but this is, and always has been, a conversation about City, and I find the introduction of other teams to be a 'whatabout' conversation. You honestly don't mind what the Mansours are up to, you're happy as long as the football is pretty. I am not.

    I think what started this off was me saying something like "how can anyone be surprised that the richest country in the world has spent unlimited funds and won everything" and I stand by that. What you've conveyed is that they are a well-run company, and you are absolutely right, I take that on board and agree with you. But it doesn't change my mind about disliking the whole affair, and not wanting a Middle Eastern state to use this sport as a marketing tool to paint over their human rights issues.

    Someone else can explain that stuff far better than me (extra kudos if you watch the torture tape!): https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-men-behind-man-city-a-documentary-not-coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06

    Admittedly that's not the most reputable website of all the interwebs (although the author does appear to be trustworthy), so here's a Guardian article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/who-pays-for-manchester-city-beautiful-game



    So The Guardian is reputable?
  • Fiiish said:

    There is absolutely no way Man City is turning a profit on its own, and talking about transfer spend in isolation ignores wages and other inducements which no doubt send their total squad spend above the nominal.

    They have made a profit for the last three years. And without knowing exactly how much "sponsorship" they get from the Emirates it is fair to say that there isn't an open cheque book. This is the very reason that they won't sign Sanchez.
    Does this profit include deals with Etihad or other help they receive from the UAE government/royals?
  • I accept that you don't like what the Mansours are doing but to admire an owner (Coates) who has made his billions as a direct result of financial harm to untold numbers of people and their families (bookmakers ban and restrict winners) is slightly hypocritical isn't it?

    Well... yes, that's why I said it was hypocritical. Did you skip that bit on purpose?


    Equally, do you deliberately not buy anything originating from a county that has questionable human rights e.g. petrol?

    When did anyone talk about boycotting anything?


    that doesn't mean I agree with it simply because I would struggle to find too many top clubs that don't have questionable ways of raising money.

    ...and that's partly why I don't like football anywhere near as much as when I was a lad.
  • Also just because they don't want to overspend on Sanchez doesn't mean that they can't afford to buy him or anyone else that they want, it just shows that they don't have the mentality of a 9 year old playing Football Manager with infinite money and that they don't want to hand over money to both a football rival and a business rival. If Mansour really wanted to he could afford to fly Sanchez to a private island in the Indian Ocean, dress him up in a Charlie Chalk costume and have him sing the Wurzels back catalogue at his niece's birthday party.
  • Fiiish said:

    There is absolutely no way Man City is turning a profit on its own, and talking about transfer spend in isolation ignores wages and other inducements which no doubt send their total squad spend above the nominal.

    They have made a profit for the last three years. And without knowing exactly how much "sponsorship" they get from the Emirates it is fair to say that there isn't an open cheque book. This is the very reason that they won't sign Sanchez.
    No that is not the reason they won't sign Sanchez. As i said on the last page they've pulled out of a deal because his agent reneged on a previously agreed deal and started courting interest from United.

    City were going to sign him for 60m on deadline day in the summer if Arsenal had found a replacement in time, so it's fair to say they can probably afford 35m now if they wanted to. They've pulled out in principle over Sanchez and his agent's actions, not because they can't afford him.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    I accept that you don't like what the Mansours are doing but to admire an owner (Coates) who has made his billions as a direct result of financial harm to untold numbers of people and their families (bookmakers ban and restrict winners) is slightly hypocritical isn't it?

    Well... yes, that's why I said it was hypocritical. Did you skip that bit on purpose?

    Yes I did! And for that reason I don't understand your logic in admiring Coates


    Equally, do you deliberately not buy anything originating from a county that has questionable human rights e.g. petrol?

    When did anyone talk about boycotting anything?

    You did when you said that you wouldn't go to Charlton if they were taken over by such a regime. Or did I make that one up?


    that doesn't mean I agree with it simply because I would struggle to find too many top clubs that don't have questionable ways of raising money.

    ...and that's partly why I don't like football anywhere near as much as when I was a lad.

    At least we are agreed on that!
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 16

    JiMMy 85 said:

    I accept that you don't like what the Mansours are doing but to admire an owner (Coates) who has made his billions as a direct result of financial harm to untold numbers of people and their families (bookmakers ban and restrict winners) is slightly hypocritical isn't it?

    Well... yes, that's why I said it was hypocritical. Did you skip that bit on purpose?

    Yes I did! And for that reason I don't understand your logic in admiring Coates


    Equally, do you deliberately not buy anything originating from a county that has questionable human rights e.g. petrol?

    When did anyone talk about boycotting anything?

    You did when you said that you wouldn't go to Charlton if they were taken over by such a regime. Or did I make that one up?


    that doesn't mean I agree with it simply because I would struggle to find too many top clubs that don't have questionable ways of raising money.

    ...and that's partly why I don't like football anywhere near as much as when I was a lad.

    At least we are agreed on that!
    I admire the manner in which Coates has built Stoke. A local businessman, self-made millionaire, who took the club he loves to the top by spending within his means and so on. That's what I like, and is probably the best a supporter could hope for in an owner. But absolutely, he did it through making millions out of gambling (ie. other peoples' misery), hence why I charged myself with hypocrisy.

    I don't see it as a boycott as much as not seeing a club owned by an oppressive state as being my club any more. I don't boycott Charlton now, I just don't go very often cos I don't believe in what the club is right now (among other reasons). I've fallen out of love with the game, and my club.

    That all said, I do avoid Nestle products (which is almost impossible) and BP, so I at least try. I just don't think that, if I eat a Kit-Kat, you get to tell me that my distaste for the Mansour ownership is invalid.
  • 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 think it's more that this one has got desperately away from you and you're not really sure what point you're trying to make anymore
  • The big question for Arsenal is
    £35M and Mkhitaryan good enough
    Answer is clearly yes

    Espically if they use the money as part of the Aubameyang deal
  • 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 think it's more that this one has got desperately away from you and you're not really sure what point you're trying to make anymore
    Nah, you just don't get it.
  • The big question for Arsenal is
    £35M and Mkhitaryan good enough
    Answer is clearly yes

    Espically if they use the money as part of the Aubameyang deal

    It's a great deal for player out of contract in 3 months, who doesn't want to be there, and who has quite possibly passed his peak at 29.
  • edited January 16
    I think the reason ManC did not buy Sanchez simply comes down to the fact they don't need him. Even after their loss, MC is on pace to set the all-time single season table points (by a mile) and also the goals scored record. They are the faves to win the Champions League too. And given all this, spending £30M to buy a forward 5 months from being out of contract at age 30 simple seemed unnecessary. And I think it shows how smart their owners are.

    I do wanna say that it's not just down to the owners being willing to spend money, but that the huge commercial revenues the club brings in ALLOWS them to spend that money.

    Despite all the massive transfers, MC only spends about 55.8% of its turnover on wages through 2016-17, whereas CAFC is close to 100% and most clubs in the PL spend 70%+. They could actually spend more! In the last year of financials available, MC made a profit of £100,000. That may be negative now after this summer's transfers, but my guess is they lose less money than Charlton.

    The rich get richer.

    image
  • The big question for Arsenal is
    £35M and Mkhitaryan good enough
    Answer is clearly yes

    Espically if they use the money as part of the Aubameyang deal

    I don't think it's £35m and Mkhitaryan.

    More £35m and we'll sell you Mkhi for £25m or something.
  • The big question for Arsenal is
    £35M and Mkhitaryan good enough
    Answer is clearly yes

    Espically if they use the money as part of the Aubameyang deal

    I don't think it's £35m and Mkhitaryan.

    More £35m and we'll sell you Mkhi for £25m or something.
    Worse than that, apparently it's a straight swap deal. So they're valuing Mkhitaryan (on a 3-year deal currently) on the same money as Sanchez (with a 6 month contract).
  • The big question for Arsenal is
    £35M and Mkhitaryan good enough
    Answer is clearly yes

    Espically if they use the money as part of the Aubameyang deal

    I don't think it's £35m and Mkhitaryan.

    More £35m and we'll sell you Mkhi for £25m or something.
    Worse than that, apparently it's a straight swap deal. So they're valuing Mkhitaryan (on a 3-year deal currently) on the same money as Sanchez (with a 6 month contract).
    Know who I'd rather have though.

    Gets him off the wage bill for United too.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Mkhitaryan was the best player in the league the year he left Dortmund.

    Outstanding talent.

    Really surprised me it hasn't worked out here yet. Maybe a move will do him good.

    Swap with Ozil maybe?
  • I think the reason ManC did not buy Sanchez simply comes down to the fact they don't need him. Even after their loss, MC is on pace to set the all-time single season table points (by a mile) and also the goals scored record. They are the faves to win the Champions League too. And given all this, spending £30M to buy a forward 5 months from being out of contract at age 30 simple seemed unnecessary. And I think it shows how smart their owners are.

    I do wanna say that it's not just down to the owners being willing to spend money, but that the huge commercial revenues the club brings in ALLOWS them to spend that money.

    Despite all the massive transfers, MC only spends about 55.8% of its turnover on wages through 2016-17, whereas CAFC is close to 100% and most clubs in the PL spend 70%+. They could actually spend more! In the last year of financials available, MC made a profit of £100,000. That may be negative now after this summer's transfers, but my guess is they lose less money than Charlton.

    The rich get richer.

    image

    In addition, these are the average ticket prices for the 10 most expensive Clubs in Europe:

    1.Arsenal £74.09
    2.Chelsea £68.71
    3.Real Madrid £55.91
    4.Liverpool £55.68
    5.Bayern Munich £54.92
    6. Man United £53.41
    7.Barcelona £51.59
    8.Galataray £48.64
    9.Man City £40.83
    10. West Ham £35.30

    Little wonder Arsenal fans are pissed off - they are paying twice as much as the City but, more to the point, three to four times as much as Charlton!
  • edited January 18


    Of course. Or alternatively, what is your actual point?

    I don't think anyone should be surprised by Man City's success, and would prefer it if the world wasn't wowed by it, on account of the fortune they have spent, and where the money came from.


    perceived human rights abuses.

    Strange choice of words, in my humble opinion. I don't think anyone has denied that Mansour's country has major issues with human rights. And I have linked to a coupe of articles to this end.


    Except it's been pointed out that they've spent in line with their rivals, who don't play anything like as entertaining football,

    It hasn't really. There's the point about net spend, but as I have responded a couple of times, I think that's misleading, and I have explained why. This is why I said "you don't get it", cos I feel I have outlined my points and feeling several times, and you've condescendingly said "you don't have a point", which is exasperating. Even I am bored of me typing this much.


    The drudgery of watching Man Utd labour to a draw against Southampton with some of the most expensive signings ever or Chelsea failing to beat the likes of Burnley despite buying up every young player going is irrelevant apparently because you've decided it doesn't count.

    That's a straw man argument. I haven't said anything of the sort.


    You've also made the bizarre statement that it's not surprising City are running a very good business with their wealth, as if we aren't being run into the ground by one of the richest men in Belgium.

    Did you seriously just compare the richest man in the world to the richest man in Belgium? I mean... I take the point that being rich doesn't necessarily mean that they will run a football club well, but it's far more likely that they would, given Mansour's background.


    Basically, City have an owner who none of us would like to get a pint with, and in an ideal world he wouldn't be able to have as much money as he has. Also in an ideal world teams wouldn't be richer than each other and the football would just be organically wonderful I imagine. However the reality is that is is provably both difficult to put together a team that is scintillating to watch regardless of how much money you throw at it, and it's impressive work to run a business as effectively as they have - with our own atrocious example showing you just how easy it is to cock it all up regardless of how much cash you've got in the bank.

    I agree with all that.


    You just don't want to accept that some of us, rather than tearing our hair out over how unfair the world is aren't wrong to just like to come home and watch a decent bit of football, and can accept maybe it's not David Silva's fault that people are being tortured in Yemen,

    Very fair point, and I accept that. But from my perspective, this isn't a case of me saying "you can't enjoy it!" - I see it as the other way around. I don't enjoy it, but on this thread, have been told multiple times that I am wrong to not find it enjoyable. I find it depressing.
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:


    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.

    Several pages ago I agreed with you that they are running a very good business, which you'd expect for the richest man in the world.

    Their purchasing is part of that business - they have paid a lot of money for a manager who knows which players he wants, and they have signed players that fit his vision. Thus, they haven't had too many failures under him, and have bought young. Not having the transfer record is, in my opinion, more than a bit misleading, particularly when you look at the list you just wrote down - that's an INSANE list of purchases by anyone's standards. It's truly bizarre to me that you could write that list down and use it as evidence of them not spending lavishly! Even after the net spend thing, Mansour is said to be just shy of £1bn down, when you include the infrastructure expenses.

    As for Sanchez - I don't think he has the right attitude for Pep, and his demands have really highlighted that. If Pep really wanted him, if the club badly needed him, surely you'd agree United would lose that financial battle? Besides, I didn't intend to say they buy players at any cost - what I meant is, they will pay what they need to pay to get what they want in order to achieve their goal. And are not limited in any way in doing that.

    And absolutely right - there are question marks over many, if not all the owners. The Russians at Chelsea and Bournemouth, the aforementioned Chinese. Hell, even Leicester are owned by a company that wants to sell more aftershave in airports, and have used the stadium and shirt sponsorship to do that. Arsenal's owners are sitting pretty while charging the highest rates for tickets of any sporting venue on the planet. I respect Peter Coates for doing things properly at Stoke, although I realise that's slightly hypocritical given that I detest gambling advertising and how Sky are directing it at children during match days.

    We could go on and on, but this is, and always has been, a conversation about City, and I find the introduction of other teams to be a 'whatabout' conversation. You honestly don't mind what the Mansours are up to, you're happy as long as the football is pretty. I am not.

    I think what started this off was me saying something like "how can anyone be surprised that the richest country in the world has spent unlimited funds and won everything" and I stand by that. What you've conveyed is that they are a well-run company, and you are absolutely right, I take that on board and agree with you. But it doesn't change my mind about disliking the whole affair, and not wanting a Middle Eastern state to use this sport as a marketing tool to paint over their human rights issues.

    Someone else can explain that stuff far better than me (extra kudos if you watch the torture tape!): https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-men-behind-man-city-a-documentary-not-coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06

    Admittedly that's not the most reputable website of all the interwebs (although the author does appear to be trustworthy), so here's a Guardian article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/who-pays-for-manchester-city-beautiful-game



    So The Guardian is reputable?
    All papers have a bias, but within that context my answer is yes, a darn sight more so than most others.
  • I think the reason ManC did not buy Sanchez simply comes down to the fact they don't need him. Even after their loss, MC is on pace to set the all-time single season table points (by a mile) and also the goals scored record. They are the faves to win the Champions League too. And given all this, spending £30M to buy a forward 5 months from being out of contract at age 30 simple seemed unnecessary. And I think it shows how smart their owners are.

    I do wanna say that it's not just down to the owners being willing to spend money, but that the huge commercial revenues the club brings in ALLOWS them to spend that money.

    Despite all the massive transfers, MC only spends about 55.8% of its turnover on wages through 2016-17, whereas CAFC is close to 100% and most clubs in the PL spend 70%+. They could actually spend more! In the last year of financials available, MC made a profit of £100,000. That may be negative now after this summer's transfers, but my guess is they lose less money than Charlton.

    The rich get richer.

    image

    In addition, these are the average ticket prices for the 10 most expensive Clubs in Europe:

    1.Arsenal £74.09
    2.Chelsea £68.71
    3.Real Madrid £55.91
    4.Liverpool £55.68
    5.Bayern Munich £54.92
    6. Man United £53.41
    7.Barcelona £51.59
    8.Galataray £48.64
    9.Man City £40.83
    10. West Ham £35.30

    Little wonder Arsenal fans are pissed off - they are paying twice as much as the City but, more to the point, three to four times as much as Charlton!
    Galatasaray the 8th most expensive, that's surprising! Surprised West Ham are higher than Spurs too
  • I think the reason ManC did not buy Sanchez simply comes down to the fact they don't need him. Even after their loss, MC is on pace to set the all-time single season table points (by a mile) and also the goals scored record. They are the faves to win the Champions League too. And given all this, spending £30M to buy a forward 5 months from being out of contract at age 30 simple seemed unnecessary. And I think it shows how smart their owners are.

    I do wanna say that it's not just down to the owners being willing to spend money, but that the huge commercial revenues the club brings in ALLOWS them to spend that money.

    Despite all the massive transfers, MC only spends about 55.8% of its turnover on wages through 2016-17, whereas CAFC is close to 100% and most clubs in the PL spend 70%+. They could actually spend more! In the last year of financials available, MC made a profit of £100,000. That may be negative now after this summer's transfers, but my guess is they lose less money than Charlton.

    The rich get richer.

    image

    In addition, these are the average ticket prices for the 10 most expensive Clubs in Europe:

    1.Arsenal £74.09
    2.Chelsea £68.71
    3.Real Madrid £55.91
    4.Liverpool £55.68
    5.Bayern Munich £54.92
    6. Man United £53.41
    7.Barcelona £51.59
    8.Galataray £48.64
    9.Man City £40.83
    10. West Ham £35.30

    Little wonder Arsenal fans are pissed off - they are paying twice as much as the City but, more to the point, three to four times as much as Charlton!
    Galatasaray the 8th most expensive, that's surprising! Surprised West Ham are higher than Spurs too
    And Man City still don't sell out.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 17 16 1 0 52 11 41 49
    2 Man Utd 17 12 2 3 37 11 26 38
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
    Are Leicester unfashionable again? I think they are.
    I don't think one title makes a team fashionable. More a team with a cult following. But the other more fashionable sides will probably be more worried about them than Burnley who are where they are because of their defence (they score less then one to every three of City) - and the current injuries in that department might restrict their progress.
    Burnley lost Keane in the summer, then lost Heaton to injury. Lowton has been injured, Mee has missed a couple of games, it’s down to the coaching and tacti cs, rather than individuals
    Not doubting that or that their manager is doing a fantastic job but they don't have the ability to chase a game - they have had six one nil wins this season and rely on keeping that clean sheet and then nicking a goal with only two points picked up all season when behind.

    Ward is now injured too and eventually all these will catch up with them - they have Spurs, Liverpool and Man Utd twice in the next seven games and how they come out of those will determine whether they are serious CL contenders or destined for mid table safety.
    The injuries did catch up with Burnley - they've played 8 games since posting this and not won a match. As much as their defence has continued to do well, it is that inability to score (just 20 goals all season and only 4 in that run without winning) that has been their undoing.

    Still a fantastic achievement to be where they are but will need to strengthen next season if they aren't to get dragged into the relegation zone - and will need to do so if they want to keep Dyche.
  • After the Spurs game a couple of months back, the Puncheon challenge on De Bruyne, the challenge on Sane at the weekend, there were another couple of dreadful challenges on City players last night, none of which were punished with a red.

    Someone tell me how this is only a yellow card?! What was the ref watching?

  • Its definitely a bad challenge yet in defence of the West Brom player. The ball is at a height where you cant head it, yet the ball is high so he's got to go in with his foot a bit higher than usual

    The other foot is behind him so he's not lunged in two footed... Its just something that HAD to be timed to perfection for it to work - I don't want to see injuries to players yet at the same time, tackling cannot be banned within Football which appears to be the direction everyone wants to see it going.

    Can see why its nothing more than a yellow card...

    Instant bookings are always given for the nature of the foul not the outcome of the player
  • Its definitely a bad challenge yet in defence of the West Brom player. The ball is at a height where you cant head it, yet the ball is high so he's got to go in with his foot a bit higher than usual

    The other foot is behind him so he's not lunged in two footed... Its just something that HAD to be timed to perfection for it to work - I don't want to see injuries to players yet at the same time, tackling cannot be banned within Football which appears to be the direction everyone wants to see it going.

    Can see why its nothing more than a yellow card...

    Instant bookings are always given for the nature of the foul not the outcome of the player

    That is a disgraceful challenge and has no place in modern football. Any no talent donkey could go flying around a football pitch like that and maybe connect cleanly with the ball 1 out of 20 times. I love watching Konte harrasing and tackling players in mid-field; you never see him recklessly launching himself like a human missile at another player (I am sure someone will find a clip now). My point is tackling is still an essential part of modern football. Banning that kind of tackle does not mean removing the art of tackling from the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.