City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome

padr81 said:
Got off light should have at least been expolusion from football for eternity.
Click to expand...

The City bean counters would probably settle for 115 x250k wouldn't they.
29m, record wiped clean, bargain!
 
Sandikan said:
The City bean counters would probably settle for 115 x250k wouldn't they.
29m, record wiped clean, bargain!
Click to expand...

In a heartbeat, I'd nearly pay that myself (sponsored by Aabar via 28.999999999999m contribution for HRH)
 
padr81 said:
In a heartbeat, I'd nearly pay that myself (sponsored by Aabar via 28.999999999999m contribution for HRH)
Click to expand...

I dare say you would.

It'd literally be selling some nobody youngster to a Bournemouth or someone.
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...a-real-madrid-uefa-future-revenue-stream-ffp/

After the useless UEFA embarrassingly can't do anything (or brown envelopes) to City's blatant cheating and now they are on the back of RM and Barcelona.

The shameless feckers in UEFA need to show people that they are serious with FFP by dealing with City first.

You can't pick and choose a club you could bully. Go for the biggest and the most obvious one City to show people you are serious about it.

This is also a great reminder to Premier League to set an example.
 
miked99 said:
This mantra about FFP is utter bollocks. No, it was designed to stop clubs gambling their futures with massive, reckless levels of overspending. It's like people have forgotten how Leeds and Portsmouth nearly gambled themselves out of business, spending money they didn't have. God knows how Portsmouth survived, they were on the brink of being wound up so many times during their plummet down the divisions.

It also needs to exist, because if it didn't, what would've happened? city would've said here's £300M for Messi, £300M for Ronaldo, £300M for Bale, £300M for Neymar. We'll pay you guys £2,000,000 a week each. And football would've been finished as a competitive exercise. And we know every city fan would've loved that to happen.

If city aren't punished then it's a green light for Newcastle to do whatever they want, pretty much.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and i have argued the same thing about the FFP. As for the second paragraph, the ME states adopting such an aggressive strategy in terms of luring players from Europe to come and play in their leagues feels like the beginning of a concentrated effort to create a monopoly by bypassing the rules "legally". You need 200 million pounds for x talent to eliminate competition but your hands are tied because of FFP? Here, take 100 million quid for y washed-up star who won't mind making a second fortune before his retirement.
 
I had a conversation with a city fan today. I hadn’t seen him in a while and he reminded me 5 minutes into a conversation that I’d not congratulated him on the treble.

I responded by explaining that I thought they had a great team. I didn’t particularly want a conversation, but he continued to press me.

To cut a long and predictably boring story short, he tried the whole whataboutism nonsense and that went nowhere. He then talked about how his club is now so well run which I acknowledged, but when pressed about the beginning of the new regime, he accepted that things just might not have always been legit and above board and when I asked him if city would be anywhere a treble had they not bent the rules he gave me a non response and the conversation moved away from football.

Nice fella and has supported city for upwards of 50 years and I don’t begrudge him the pleasure of seeing his team win, but I realised today how little I care about what they’ve done.

Once more, they have a bloody brilliant team, but a really shit club. They used to have a shit team and a great club.

Despite the chaos at united and it’s not the best period for us, I’m just glad I grew up a United supporter.
 
I can actually see them having a meh (for their standards) year next year.

They are potentially losing a decent amount of their experienced players and I can see a relative lack of hunger after a 3 peat/treble. They were even playing like well fed players last season until Pep publically nailed them after the Spurs game.

Unfortunately however, that will likely mean a Liverpool title.
 
Dancfc said:
I can actually see them having a meh (for their standards) year next year.

They are potentially losing a decent amount of their experienced players and I can see a relative lack of hunger after a 3 peat/treble. They were even playing like well fed players last season until Pep publically nailed them after the Spurs game.

Unfortunately however, that will likely mean a Liverpool title.
Click to expand...

Why? After City, the drop in standard is huge and I would say Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man Utd will be fighting out for the title.

However, in reality it will be City again. They can go to 100 points if need be. Last season they dropped off the pace once Arsenal bottled it again.
 
If the Premier League are in charge of this I can’t see any huge sanctions against City.

The Premier League has to protect its own back against the super league end of the day and won’t want to destroy one of its biggest cash cows.

It will either be a fine or a small points deduction I imagine purely on self interest and survival by the PL themselves.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Not sure the charges include other clubs inflating transfer fees…
Click to expand...
Systemic and creative financial doping across every avenue possible is the only logical conclusion when you read the range of charges. Doesn't mean the charges haven't missed some more subversive financial doping methods.
 
Dancfc said:
I can actually see them having a meh (for their standards) year next year.

They are potentially losing a decent amount of their experienced players and I can see a relative lack of hunger after a 3 peat/treble. They were even playing like well fed players last season until Pep publically nailed them after the Spurs game.

Unfortunately however, that will likely mean a Liverpool title.
Click to expand...

Guardiola is beginning the process of downgrading his squad for his departure, so the next coach who comes in doesn’t win the default titles he has and everyone puts it down to his ‘genius’ rather than simply having the squad that should have won everything and probably more in Europe too.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
What's West Ham's incentive to pay more than they have to?
Click to expand...

Tin foil hat me says they don't have to pay it, or some Emirates company puts some money into West Ham off the back of it or something...

I realise accounting wise none of this makes sense... but these fees City get for players with barely any professional apperances is just wild.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Tin foil hat me says they don't have to pay it, or some Emirates company puts some money into West Ham off the back of it or something...

I realise accounting wise none of this makes sense... but these fees City get for players with barely any professional apperances is just wild.
Click to expand...

Accounting wise is the only thing that matters, so if it doesn't make any sense then it's probably not happening. Hiding wages can make sense for all parties involved. Weird transfer fees can make sense if players go both ways (Pjanic/Melo deal, or Oshimen to Napoli). In a transfer like this it really doesn't.
 
NotThatSoph said:
What's West Ham's incentive to pay more than they have to?
Click to expand...

They paid about 10m for Nsereko about 15 years ago.

Inflation and all that.

Orion. said:
Guardiola is beginning the process of downgrading his squad for his departure, so the next coach who comes in doesn’t win the default titles he has and everyone puts it down to his ‘genius’ rather than simply having the squad that should have won everything and probably more in Europe too.
Click to expand...

He's reshaping the squad to suit his tactical changes.

However, no fullbacks, means whoever comes in after him will have to play a similar way or spend half a billion replacing the half a billion worth of fullbacks he signed and then got rid of.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Accounting wise is the only thing that matters, so if it doesn't make any sense then it's probably not happening. Hiding wages can make sense for all parties involved. Weird transfer fees can make sense if players go both ways (Pjanic/Melo deal, or Oshimen to Napoli). In a transfer like this it really doesn't.
Click to expand...

It does make sense, if city are able to claim they received more for a transfer than they actually have, by secretly refunding the buyer from another source. It's exactly the sort of thing they've been accused of. I highly doubt WH would be party to such an agreement though.
 
Flying high said:
It does make sense, if city are able to claim they received more for a transfer than they actually have, by secretly refunding the buyer from another source. It's exactly the sort of thing they've been accused of. I highly doubt WH would be party to such an agreement though.
Click to expand...

It makes sense for City, not for West Ham.
 
Flying high said:
It does make sense, if city are able to claim they received more for a transfer than they actually have, by secretly refunding the buyer from another source. It's exactly the sort of thing they've been accused of. I highly doubt WH would be party to such an agreement though.
Click to expand...

An agreement like that makes no sense for the buying club because a higher reported fee then limits their own spending power. That's why this theory has always been stupid. City get high transfer fees for their young players because they have (supposedly) one of the best academies in the country, and they sell their young players fast enough that people aren't sure if they're good or not, so they gamble on the potential that the player might end up really good.

Not to beat a dead horse, or to try to dog our own club but it's the only club that I have comparable examples to. Had we sold Tuanzebe fresh out of the youth academy when he was a highly rated prospect, or even after his loan at Villa, or had we sold Elanga after he had a spell of a few good games under Ralf before he had more time to really show his level, then we would likely have gotten more money for them than we would have now.
 
Cloud7 said:
An agreement like that makes no sense for the buying club because a higher reported fee then limits their own spending power. That's why this theory has always been stupid. City get high transfer fees for their young players because they have (supposedly) one of the best academies in the country, and they sell their young players fast enough that people aren't sure if they're good or not, so they gamble on the potential that the player might end up really good.

Not to beat a dead horse, or to try to dog our own club but it's the only club that I have comparable examples to. Had we sold Tuanzebe fresh out of the youth academy when he was a highly rated prospect, or even after his loan at Villa, or had we sold Elanga after he had a spell of a few good games under Ralf before he had more time to really show his level, then we would likely have gotten more money for them than we would have now.
Click to expand...
I think your probably right but its a weird situation where giving youth players chances and premier league experience somehow makes them less valuable.
You'd normally expect these really talented youth players to make the odd appearance or get on the bench. The non existant chances at City create a situation where its hard to say these players aren't worth the money being paid. Maybe this random winger who hasn't been within a mile of their first team is worth as much as Elanga who has games and goals under his belt but it feels pretty backwards.

Its being fraudulent or cheating makes no sense as your basically including west ham in a conspiracy to cheat west ham. Why bother when you can pluck a sponsor out of thin air anyway?
 
Cloud7 said:
An agreement like that makes no sense for the buying club because a higher reported fee then limits their own spending power. That's why this theory has always been stupid. City get high transfer fees for their young players because they have (supposedly) one of the best academies in the country, and they sell their young players fast enough that people aren't sure if they're good or not, so they gamble on the potential that the player might end up really good.

Not to beat a dead horse, or to try to dog our own club but it's the only club that I have comparable examples to. Had we sold Tuanzebe fresh out of the youth academy when he was a highly rated prospect, or even after his loan at Villa, or had we sold Elanga after he had a spell of a few good games under Ralf before he had more time to really show his level, then we would likely have gotten more money for them than we would have now.
Click to expand...

FFP doesn't apply everywhere. It also isn't something that every club pushes to the limit. So a club well within FFP constraints may appreciate a small boost to their finances. Or the owner of said club.
 
caid said:
I think your probably right but its a weird situation where giving youth players chances and premier league experience somehow makes them less valuable.
You'd normally expect these really talented youth players to make the odd appearance or get on the bench. The non existant chances at City create a situation where its hard to say these players aren't worth the money being paid. Maybe this random winger who hasn't been within a mile of their first team is worth as much as Elanga who has games and goals under his belt but it feels pretty backwards.

Its being fraudulent or cheating makes no sense as your basically including west ham in a conspiracy to cheat west ham. Why bother when you can pluck a sponsor out of thin air anyway?
Click to expand...

Elanga is two years older, and doesn't look to have become a particularly better player than he was when he made his debut. With young players you pay for both their current ability and future potential, and Elanga's potential probably isn't valued very highly. I've never heard of this Castro guy, but as far as I know Elanga has never been very highly rated in the youth teams, either.
 
It's hardly rocket science.

1. City's youth teams have been dominating and winning consecutive championships for three years running, both at Under-21 and Under-18 level.

2. The case of Lavia (and Sancho before him) proves that a couple minutes here and there are not necessary. Some of these players have the quality to come into a Bundesliga or Premier League club and perform as starters straight away, potentially generating tens of millions of pounds for whichever club gambled on them for £10-15m.

3. Carlos Borges was the top scorer of the U21 Premier League 2 with 21 goals and also provided 10 assists in 24 matches.

In this case 1+1+1=3; no conspiracy theories necessary.
 
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this belong here but I guess this is the issue City have when they are run by a country. UAE have been sanctioned by the US for their role in supplying Russia in the war (hope that makes the Blue Moon guys proud), randomly Saudi have threatened to blockade the country as well. If ever you needed proof of why state ownership is bad, Newcastle's owners might literally be at war with City soon.
 
simonhch said:
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
Click to expand...
Top post.
 
simonhch said:
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
Click to expand...
Excellent
 
NotThatSoph said:
It makes sense for City, not for West Ham.
Click to expand...
It might interest them if they were to get a totally free player out of it though. I’m not sure any club would want in on City’s dodgy dealings at the moment, mind.
 
simonhch said:
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
Click to expand...


Although sometimes I feel green looking at the blue side ,, it is this tradition that reminds me of why I love United.

Top Post and had it not been the Glazers mismanagement , we would not have been having this conversation.
 
AlexUTD said:
The Premier League are taking their sweet time to give a punishment on those 115 breaches.
Click to expand...

It will take years.

I saw a friend over the weekend that works in financial markets and he told me that he recently met someone that works on the Premier League's legal team and that they told him that the Premier League have overwhelming evidence against Man City, but it's likely to be a very long drawn out battle.
 
simonhch said:
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
Click to expand...

Rico Lewis, Phil Foden, Cole Palmer are proof that there is a clear pathway in if you're good enough. There was for Sancho too but he wouldn't wait for his chance. Eric Garcia despite signing for City at 16 had also established himself in the squad before refusing a new contract to go to Barca and Angelino was given multiple chances to prove himself.

The idea there is no realistic pathway is purely untrue, but the manner in which City run their youth team is absolutely ruthless, if you aren't showing the quality needed to play in the CL by 20ish you're out to a club of your level. They go out and buy the equivalent of FM wonderkids and give them a couple of years to establish themselves or out they go. Cities u23's is full of £10m-£20m players who have never barely kicked a ball at the top level.

Kayky, Delap, McAtee, Doyle, Mbete and Harwood Bellis will all go for £20m ish in the next while too if they don't make the step up, which only McAtee looks like he has the ability for right now.
 
padr81 said:
Rico Lewis, Phil Foden, Cole Palmer are proof that there is a clear pathway in if you're good enough. There was for Sancho too but he wouldn't wait for his chance. Eric Garcia despite signing for City at 16 had also established himself in the squad before refusing a new contract to go to Barca and Angelino was given multiple chances to prove himself.

The idea there is no realistic pathway is purely untrue, but the manner in which City run their youth team is absolutely ruthless, if you aren't showing the quality needed to play in the CL by 20ish you're out to a club of your level. They go out and buy the equivalent of FM wonderkids and give them a couple of years to establish themselves or out they go. Cities u23's is full of £10m-£20m players who have never barely kicked a ball at the top level.

Kayky, Delap, McAtee, Doyle, Mbete and Harwood Bellis will all go for £20m ish in the next while too if they don't make the step up, which only McAtee looks like he has the ability for right now.
Click to expand...

City have built a brilliant academy structure and as more players like Lavia, Trafford, Bazunu etc. get sold, their academy ones would become even more sought after, especially if there are other successes like Lavia.

If City actually get away without any major damages to the 115 charges, they are going to dominate for a while and that too without spending exorbitantly as done in the past.
 
Nickelodeon said:
City have built a brilliant academy structure and as more players like Lavia, Trafford, Bazunu etc. get sold, their academy ones would become even more sought after, especially if there are other successes like Lavia.

If City actually get away without any major damages to the 115 charges, they are going to dominate for a while and that too without spending exorbitantly as done in the past.
Click to expand...

Can Lavia even considered a City academy product? They signed him at 16 years old and sold him 2 years later.
 
WeePat said:
Can Lavia even considered a City academy product? They signed him at 16 years old and sold him 2 years later.
Click to expand...

I don't mean academy product in the literal sense of the word. It's developing youth players and then either getting a first team player on the cheap or selling off a talented youngster for a, sometimes huge, profit.
 
simonhch said:
Snap up top youth talent from around the globe, trade on their successful brand, sell on for good fees. Virtually no realistic first team pathway. It’s a business model. It works. Not my cup of tea. I prefer developing youth players with the idea of actually integrating them into the squad, but that’s why we are United and they are City. That’s why we’ve had a youth player in every match day squad since 1937. Not a single game missed. Sometimes, as a result, we hold on to young players too long, to give them a real shot. Then when you sell, other clubs know their true quality and that they are surplus to requirements. It’s not a strategy designed to maximise sale value. It’s a strategy to maximise value to the first team and continue an incredible tradition and fundamental principle of the club.

Anyone casting envious glances needs to reassess if they even understand what supporting this club means. You can’t have it both ways. You either sell a player right at that point where their performances are too good for youth football and you are forced to give them a shot, hence maximal potential, or you give them a pathway to the first team that may result in (a) getting a valuable homegrown academy player, (b) selling on eventually at a reduced price, or (c) releasing or selling for peanuts if they fail to make the step up. What you can’t do is sell them at their highest potential point, where perceived value is the highest, and give them a first team shot.

We are United. We develop players to play in our team, it’s exactly what we are all about. Those who don’t make it, usually go on to have good careers elsewhere because of all the time investment we’ve made in them. But if it swells you with more pride to sell on all the talented youngsters before they’ve even been given a shot, because somehow that makes us master negotiators, then maybe go and support City. They do that better than anyone.

Borges for instance. Imagine we’ve sold Greenwood for 14m before he’d been given a first team shot. Or Rashford for 10m plus bonuses before he’d played a competitive PL game in anger. We could easily have sold either for that money. But what a betrayal of everything this club stands for that would have been. There is literally nothing about City, not their incredibly shady but talented manager or mega billions, that I envy. It’s a completely soulless and corrupt enterprise, with very few true fans, traditions, or principles.
Click to expand...
We don't develop many youth players into our first team though.
 
VeevaVee said:
It might interest them if they were to get a totally free player out of it though. I’m not sure any club would want in on City’s dodgy dealings at the moment, mind.
Click to expand...

A free player, as in Carlos Borges? If so, City have to not only give £14m back to West Ham, they'll have to create a false money trail for West Ham's accounts. It's not even comparable to the wage issue, it's a whole other league in terms of both risk and complications. For wages it's somewhat easy, and the risk is all of City, while here it's much more difficult and just as risky for the other clubs. It's also straight up illegal, while the wage thing doesn't have to be. In addition to all of this, with the wages it's in the interest of all parties to keep quiet, while here you're counting on your competitors not ratting you out.
 
Hammondo said:
We don't develop many youth players into our first team though.
Click to expand...

Well that’s just not true is it? If it was that afore mentioned record wouldn’t be a thing for a start. Likewise if it wasn’t for personal choices, two of our starting front three would be from the academy, which is a boast few, if any, top club can make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.