Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Premier League 23/24
Comments
-
Buying Sterling for 50 million getting nine years service out of him and then selling him for 50 million was great business.2
-
Compare that to letting Pogba go on a free, re-signing him for £90m, then letting him go on a free again.
Yes they spend a fuck load of money, but they're good at spending it wisely, instead of chucking £90m and 9 year contracts at 21 year olds, or spending £73m on a winger that they then loan back to the team they signed him from because otherwise all he's doing is sitting in his Cheshire home playing FIFA every day2 -
Agreed, they did very well to get the fee they did when selling. But it did cost them 50 million up front - not something that many clubs could afford nine years ago.blackpool72 said:Buying Sterling for 50 million getting nine years service out of him and then selling him for 50 million was great business.0 -
This was a six year window that I used. Not one or two seasons. In fact, there are only five players currently on City's books that were at the club seven years ago and one of them, Foden, was homegrown and hadn't started a PL game at that time. The others are Walker, Stones, Ederson and KDB and they cost £182.5m in total - an average of £45.5m which has been remarkable business given all that they have contributed to City's success. It could also be argued that the net cost of the current squad is about £500m. That would probably be less than all of the other six clubs' squads net cost.Callumcafc said:I do think using net spend in a specific window is a difficult argument to make - you can find a cut off point that makes almost any of the top six clubs look like the worst offender.Yes City sold Sterling for nearly 50m and bought Alvarez cheaply, but they also bought Sterling for nearly 50m nine years ago.
Without spending that money in the first place a decade ago, they wouldn’t have the asset to sell today.0 -
"Available" is not the same as "spent". Chelsea have had a net spend of £650m in the last two seasons alone on 26 players. Those players will not be on £20k a week any more than the purchases made by Arsenal or United will be.SELR_addicks said:
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?0 -
But if Man City want their first choice, they get them.Addick Addict said:
"Available" is not the same as "spent". Chelsea have had a net spend of £650m in the last two seasons alone on 26 players. Those players will not be on £20k a week any more than the purchases made by Arsenal or United will be.SELR_addicks said:
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?
There is no battle and therefore other teams don't bother trying because Man City can just offer £1 more fee and £1 more per week wages no matter what other teams offer.
That is how they get players cheaply, because why would other teams even compete with them in the transfer window for their targets? There is only one winner.
Again, you're only using transfer expenditure which paints such a tiny picture of the overall scale of the money Man City have spent to make their team better over the last 20 years.
It isn't by accident Man City have the 'best' manager in the worst. Managed to sign the 'best' free agent in the world. And never seem to lose any 'transfer battles' they're in.0 -
That doesn't make any sense, as surely then as a club going against them you realise who their targets are and just keep bidding on them, and if they never give up they'll massively overspend on every player, eventually leading to a point where they'll either stop outbidding everyone or finally fall foul of FFP0
-
as long as they stop all the other cnut teams winning anything I can live with it
but i do fear this season cnuteta and the cnutettes will win the title and will obviously deserve it but their fans are so spursy with their annoying cnutness6 -
Sterling cost City £44.5m upfront with £5m in add ons. They got £47.5m for him. I understand what you are saying about "upfront" but that summer Liverpool paid £65m for Mane and Benteke combined - the former's success at Liverpool was on a par with that of Sterling but Benteke was a complete dud. United spent £113m on Depay, Darmien, Schweinsteiger, Schneirdelin, Martial and Bailly. Not one of those could be considered a good purchase. Chelsea spent over £100m of which £33m was spent on Batshuyai and £22m on Baba - the two between them started just 16 PL games.Callumcafc said:
Agreed, they did very well to get the fee they did when selling. But it did cost them 50 million up front - not something that many clubs could afford nine years ago.blackpool72 said:Buying Sterling for 50 million getting nine years service out of him and then selling him for 50 million was great business.
As I've said before, City will pay the right price for the right player. A case in point was Mahrez. Leicester wanted £95m for him. City refused to pay that and pulled out of buying him that window. Mahrez ended up going there later for £60m. Another one is Kane. They refused to meet Levi's valuation of £150m so again they didn't buy him. Instead, they waited and got Haaland for a third of that price.0 -
See above re Mahrez and Kane about never losing any transfer battles. They weren't prepared to pay what those clubs demanded and were prepared to lose both to another club.SELR_addicks said:
But if Man City want their first choice, they get them.Addick Addict said:
"Available" is not the same as "spent". Chelsea have had a net spend of £650m in the last two seasons alone on 26 players. Those players will not be on £20k a week any more than the purchases made by Arsenal or United will be.SELR_addicks said:
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?
There is no battle and therefore other teams don't bother trying because Man City can just offer £1 more fee and £1 more per week wages no matter what other teams offer.
That is how they get players cheaply, because why would other teams even compete with them in the transfer window for their targets? There is only one winner.
Again, you're only using transfer expenditure which paints such a tiny picture of the overall scale of the money Man City have spent to make their team better over the last 20 years.
It isn't by accident Man City have the 'best' manager in the worst. Managed to sign the 'best' free agent in the world. And never seem to lose any 'transfer battles' they're in.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Like I said, they have the best negotiation and scouting team in the world that selects the valuation of the players.Addick Addict said:
Sterling cost City £44.5m upfront with £5m in add ons. They got £47.5m for him. I understand what you are saying about "upfront" but that summer Liverpool paid £65m for Mane and Benteke combined - the former's success at Liverpool was on a par with that of Sterling but Benteke was a complete dud. United spent £113m on Depay, Darmien, Schweinsteiger, Schneirdelin, Martial and Bailly. Not one of those could be considered a good purchase. Chelsea spent over £100m of which £33m was spent on Batshuyai and £22m on Baba - the two between them started just 16 PL games.Callumcafc said:
Agreed, they did very well to get the fee they did when selling. But it did cost them 50 million up front - not something that many clubs could afford nine years ago.blackpool72 said:Buying Sterling for 50 million getting nine years service out of him and then selling him for 50 million was great business.
As I've said before, City will pay the right price for the right player. A case in point was Mahrez. Leicester wanted £95m for him. City refused to pay that and pulled out of buying him that window. Mahrez ended up going there later for £60m. Another one is Kane. They refused to meet Levi's valuation of £150m so again they didn't buy him. Instead, they waited and got Haaland for a third of that price.
They didn't sign Kane and signed Haaland instead, is that a lost transfer battle? Or a team deciding they would rather spend 500k a week on one player rather than another.
When you have unlimited funds deciding not to sign Kane because you can sign Haaland isn't really a decision any other club in the world can make.0 -
Alexis Sanchez, Cucurella, Harry Maguire, Kane, Declan Rice.SELR_addicks said:
But if Man City want their first choice, they get them.Addick Addict said:
"Available" is not the same as "spent". Chelsea have had a net spend of £650m in the last two seasons alone on 26 players. Those players will not be on £20k a week any more than the purchases made by Arsenal or United will be.SELR_addicks said:
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?
There is no battle and therefore other teams don't bother trying because Man City can just offer £1 more fee and £1 more per week wages no matter what other teams offer.
That is how they get players cheaply, because why would other teams even compete with them in the transfer window for their targets? There is only one winner.
Again, you're only using transfer expenditure which paints such a tiny picture of the overall scale of the money Man City have spent to make their team better over the last 20 years.
It isn't by accident Man City have the 'best' manager in the worst. Managed to sign the 'best' free agent in the world. And never seem to lose any 'transfer battles' they're in.
All players that City have been interested in at some point in recent seasons but walked away when either the asking price or the salary was deemed to be too high.
It's definitely not the case at all that City just outbid all clubs and get everyone they want.6 -
Literally Bayern Munich, who pretty much chose the opposite way around. You're acting like City sign whoever they like and everyone else has to mop up the dregs left behind. That's simply not the case.SELR_addicks said:
Like I said, they have the best negotiation and scouting team in the world that selects the valuation of the players.Addick Addict said:
Sterling cost City £44.5m upfront with £5m in add ons. They got £47.5m for him. I understand what you are saying about "upfront" but that summer Liverpool paid £65m for Mane and Benteke combined - the former's success at Liverpool was on a par with that of Sterling but Benteke was a complete dud. United spent £113m on Depay, Darmien, Schweinsteiger, Schneirdelin, Martial and Bailly. Not one of those could be considered a good purchase. Chelsea spent over £100m of which £33m was spent on Batshuyai and £22m on Baba - the two between them started just 16 PL games.Callumcafc said:
Agreed, they did very well to get the fee they did when selling. But it did cost them 50 million up front - not something that many clubs could afford nine years ago.blackpool72 said:Buying Sterling for 50 million getting nine years service out of him and then selling him for 50 million was great business.
As I've said before, City will pay the right price for the right player. A case in point was Mahrez. Leicester wanted £95m for him. City refused to pay that and pulled out of buying him that window. Mahrez ended up going there later for £60m. Another one is Kane. They refused to meet Levi's valuation of £150m so again they didn't buy him. Instead, they waited and got Haaland for a third of that price.
They didn't sign Kane and signed Haaland instead, is that a lost transfer battle? Or a team deciding they would rather spend 500k a week on one player rather than another.
When you have unlimited funds deciding not to sign Kane because you can sign Haaland isn't really a decision any other club in the world can make.2 -
Cucurella too, they went up to £30m and walked away when that was rejected, Chelsea went to double that!Addick Addict said:
See above re Mahrez and Kane about never losing any transfer battles. They weren't prepared to pay what those clubs demanded and were prepared to lose both to another club.SELR_addicks said:
But if Man City want their first choice, they get them.Addick Addict said:
"Available" is not the same as "spent". Chelsea have had a net spend of £650m in the last two seasons alone on 26 players. Those players will not be on £20k a week any more than the purchases made by Arsenal or United will be.SELR_addicks said:
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?
There is no battle and therefore other teams don't bother trying because Man City can just offer £1 more fee and £1 more per week wages no matter what other teams offer.
That is how they get players cheaply, because why would other teams even compete with them in the transfer window for their targets? There is only one winner.
Again, you're only using transfer expenditure which paints such a tiny picture of the overall scale of the money Man City have spent to make their team better over the last 20 years.
It isn't by accident Man City have the 'best' manager in the worst. Managed to sign the 'best' free agent in the world. And never seem to lose any 'transfer battles' they're in.
Well negotiated by Brighton but shows City don't always pay whatever.3 -
Don't forget Steve Daly0
-
Also sorry @SELR_addicks but all these times City bid on a player and then decided not to buy them at a higher fee, just sounds like shrewd business to me? So again it's not how much money they have it's how well they spend it, regardless of funds apparently on offer to them, as Chelsea are showing anyone can throw money about, people are just extra salty because a relative newcomer to the fold is doing it better than the old guard have recently1
-
Again you are all focused on transfers and missing the bigger picture.sam3110 said:Also sorry @SELR_addicks but all these times City bid on a player and then decided not to buy them at a higher fee, just sounds like shrewd business to me? So again it's not how much money they have it's how well they spend it, regardless of funds apparently on offer to them, as Chelsea are showing anyone can throw money about, people are just extra salty because a relative newcomer to the fold is doing it better than the old guard have recently
Net spend, net spend, net spend. While you miss the substantial investment into the infrastructure. The buying up of foreign clubs. The investment into the backroom staff. The threats of legal action, so even the FA and Premier League are scared to tackle their breaking of the financial rules.
All of this to lead to Manchester City winning 5 of the last 6 Premier Leagues. Probably about to be 6 of the last 7. It will be 7 years since they've even finished 3rd.
Since 2010 Manchester City have won the league 7 times. The next team closest has won it twice.
This isn't a 'relative newcomer coming to the fold', this is 'we are turning into the German League in terms of competitiveness'.0 -
Since 2010 four other teams have won the PL so it hasn't been a one horse race. With four games to go, Arsenal are four points ahead, with a vastly superior goal difference, of City who have two games in hand and between the two are Liverpool. This is actually one of the most competitive PL seasons we have had in the period you're talking about, so much so that both Arsenal and Liverpool have been favourites to win it at different times during the course of the season. In fact, if City were a certainty to win the PL they wouldn't be trading at 1.62. Let's also not forget United won the PL 13 times in 20 seasons so City's success is hardly unique.SELR_addicks said:
Again you are all focused on transfers and missing the bigger picture.sam3110 said:Also sorry @SELR_addicks but all these times City bid on a player and then decided not to buy them at a higher fee, just sounds like shrewd business to me? So again it's not how much money they have it's how well they spend it, regardless of funds apparently on offer to them, as Chelsea are showing anyone can throw money about, people are just extra salty because a relative newcomer to the fold is doing it better than the old guard have recently
Net spend, net spend, net spend. While you miss the substantial investment into the infrastructure. The buying up of foreign clubs. The investment into the backroom staff. The threats of legal action, so even the FA and Premier League are scared to tackle their breaking of the financial rules.
All of this to lead to Manchester City winning 5 of the last 6 Premier Leagues. Probably about to be 6 of the last 7. It will be 7 years since they've even finished 3rd.
Since 2010 Manchester City have won the league 7 times. The next team closest has won it twice.
This isn't a 'relative newcomer coming to the fold', this is 'we are turning into the German League in terms of competitiveness'.2 -
I think City will drop points tonight2
-
Normally I’d agree but Brighton are in pretty poor form.BigRedEvil said:I think City will drop points tonight0 - Sponsored links:
-
City 2-0 up already0
-
Blimey, City look sharp tonight.
Some header by KdB for the 1st.0 -
What a stupid goal to concede0
-
City working on the goal difference tonight0
-
ForeverAddickted said:What a stupid goal to concede
This playing out from the back is just brain dead when you have got a load of players closing you down.
I'd love to see some stats about how many goals are conceded from doing this against how many are scored. I'd bet the former is much higher than the latter.1 -
What a terrible week for Liverpool, Arsenal winning 5-0, losing to Everton and now City scoring freely too.
Thought Klopp looked very tired last night, and emotional. With Salah and Van Dijk showing their age a bit it felt very 'end of an era'.
They've got some good young players though, could really go either way, massive appointment they need to get right.2 -
Thought Brighton might have put up a bit of a fightBigRedEvil said:I think City will drop points tonight1 -
Bit of a waste dropping Bellingham back, but tell me this isn't the best front line in the world right now
----------Rice --- BellinghamPalmer ------ Foden ------ Saka-------------------Kane2 -
That’s exactly what I’d like to see - I think just have rice holding and let the others all interchange and play freely, would be unstoppable!CAFCsayer said:Bit of a waste dropping Bellingham back, but tell me this isn't the best front line in the world right now
----------Rice --- BellinghamPalmer ------ Foden ------ Saka-------------------Kane1 -
Littler top.1
