Of course ill defend it, id be a hypocrite otherwise. I simply cannot see why it tarnishes anything they win, or makes any success shallow.
Man City 2020/21 - General discussion
- Thread starter Suedesi
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) review both the Everton and Bodø/Glimt victories at Old Trafford. Listen to the guys discuss 2 wins and 7 goals in the last week, analyse of the Amorim formation, focus on Amad and how he is playing, and also take a look at Hojlund, Rashford & Zirkzee – who starts v Arsenal?
That doesn't make sense. Do you know that Bayern pre-70s was nowhere near a big club? Their only national league title was in the 30s. Bayern was a small club even inside Germany before the Beckenbauer and Müller generation. Should they have changed the name?
To be clear, I'm only talking about small clubs becoming big ones in this reply, not about how they do. While football always had rich people injecting lots of money, from corrupt and dubious origin, to make clubs relevant almost overnight, like Berlusconi with Milan in the 80s, it was possible in those times to become a top club in a more modest way. Such as Ajax, Celtic, I think that Bayern and Benfica too. But today, it's impossible. There is no way that any club today can ever become a big or giant club without huge injections from money. You either do the City route or you will always be second-fiddle. Football has never been more financially unequal, the gap between the top clubs and mid-tier ones has become truly unbridgeable by any "organic" means, without huge injections of money. Ajax for decades are the perfect example. And look how their good squad was quickly decimated after their 2019 UCL campaign. Without these sheiks doing megalomaniacal projects, the stablished status quo of big clubs from the 2010s will never change. Even this Barcelona at their worst are still unreachable by mid-tier clubs.
Which cash rich dictatorship took Bayern Munich to European renown?
The guy was saying that City should have changed name just because it became big.
And please, read all comments in the previous page. Cash rich dictatorships aren't the only ones to inject lots of money from dubious and corrupt origin to make a club explode almost overnight. Please, read what I talked about Berlusconi in the 80s with Milan. Milan was pretty much deceased, truly dead as a big club and even were relegated to second division two times. Then Berlusconi bought them, injected insane amounts of money, bought the likes of Van Basten and Gullit, which would be inimaginable before, and Milan quickly became the best squad in Europe and won everything. Don't try to pretend that Berlusconi's money is acceptable, we all know the nadir of his corruption and mafia ties. Do I really need to explain Berlusconi?
Nah I’m only yanking your chain. You have won the lottery but I would be delighted for the same to happen to United. I personally never play the oil money card because it just comes across as petty and embittered. And it doesn’t change the fact that United have been poorly run themselves.
The one thing I would say is that City have taken it to a new level with their spending and the quality of their squad basically makes it FM cheat mode. I say that more as a statement of fact than grumbling though. It’s hard to compete when you look at their bench yesterday.
There’s an element of jealousy of course but there are a large number of fans who also look at the morals and ethics of how their football clubs are run. Where‘s the money coming from etc?
FC United was formed out of unhappy fans at the Glazer takeover. They’re a minority of course but they do exist.
I think you also find the likes of City fans who only fill their ground for the big games and Chelsea fans who couldn’t be bothered making the (albeit significant) effort to get to Baku for the Europa league final wind us up a bit too as they seem to take it all for granted.
You were very lucky to win today with the chances West Ham had. They deserved at least a draw. As much as I hate to say it it's a feckin phenomenal run.
Of course. I think City was more of a lottery win than our takeover as we were somewhat established before Roman came along
Well I could, and I get why you say that, I just think that's the reality of the situation unless you want to never see another club join the elite (which quite possibly you don't
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that and it certainly would explain why City's wage bill is more comparable to Liverpool and Arsenal than to Utd. I'm not doubting what you are saying, but is that information actually out there somewhere? i.e. what would City's wage bill be if they used the exact criteria that Utd do? Would be an interesting comparison.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Yeah you've done that thing where you've changed what I've actually said and then countered an argument which was never made. And then made a pithy remark at the end to top it off. Classic.
In my experience fans of most cubs resent losing their best players or being outbid on ones they want, regardless of whether the club outbidding them has become established over time or through a takeover. Most fans focus on their own teams. I very much doubt Arsenal losing RVP to you was any less of a bitter pill to swallow than if he'd gone to City for example.
The financial landscape is such that it is now not possible for a club to grow organically and compete with the likes of Utd or Bayern. The only way to do that is through a takeover and cash injection. So no doubt you would be happy if none of these takeovers could happen and you could remain perpetually on top of your perch, always be able to get the best youth products, pay the highest wages and transfer fees etc. Of course you would want that to continue, who wouldn't in your position? But to somehow state that the resentment of smaller clubs in football over the financial landscape is limited only to City and Chelsea and not to Utd simply isn't the case. You are all the problem.
As for the Hertha/Union thing, maybe just read what I actually said? I was saying Bayern Munich would hate their primacy being challenged, just like Utd do with City.
Above’s what you said mate.
Unless you were being sarcastic then I’d say my reply was spot on.
Disagree, but I can see that that I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was poor clubs resent losing their best players to richer clubs regardless of the source of wealth. It's not the oil money per se, it's the financial inequality and the inability to change it. Whereas rich clubs who by and large benefit from their established status (and the resultant inequality) have a specific problem with clubs who provide a big cash injection, as they know this is the only way they can be challenged. I think there are two very different perspectives here.
I still refuse to wobble my head!
You’re exactly right that the poorer clubs will always resent losing their best players to richer clubs irrespective of how long that club has been wealthy or where the money comes from.
The bigger clubs will resent the nouveau riche partly for the reasons you mention.
The similar sized clubs to City and Chelsea in terms of fan base before the investment eg West Ham may resent it the most because it could have quite easily been them in that position.
Your original post just pointed to the larger clubs having an issue with clubs all of a sudden having vast investment and threatening the status quo. I merely wanted to point out I disagreed.
Your head can remain exactly where it is.
I'm not sure about that. Apart from it sucking on a rivalry basis, I'd much rather have the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool (and Leicester, but obviously no rivalry there as of yet) continue to win titles and establish themselves as the best in England as opposed to Man City. It wouldn't be nice to endure, but it would actually mean something. It's hard to give a shit seeing City clean up, it feels incredibly hollow. There's nothing organic or genuine about it.
What a laughable thing to say. Of course we won't.
Because they have the money as you do too in order to field two seperate teams and when your fighting on multiple fronts that is a huge advantage and amazes me you can't see that
They cant because then they'd be hypocrites but the rest can and should.
Their squad list suggests they have 23 senior players, of whom 3 are GKs, and 20 are outfieldiers. Utd have 26 senior players of whom 4 are GKs and 22 are outfielders.
I agree that their team is better but you are perfectly capable of playing 2 separate teams too
I have no problem with what Chelsea did. I think Billionaires buying football clubs for a bit of fun makes competition more interesting. I also don't care where a football team is when it's taken over. It wouldn't bother me if WBA were taken over & spent a couple of Hundred Million to propel themselves up the table. I found it rather boring the 2 times after we'd won 3/3 League Titles & was glad we didn't do 4,5,6 in a row.
It becomes more unpalatable when there is no end to the heavy spending. Abramovich spent heavily for a few years & then calmed down. This gave everyone else a chance to catch up. Abramovich then spent more reasonably while keeping Chelsea competitive. There's been very little slowdown in City's spending since the takeover 13 years ago. This has led to them being insusceptible to the natural vagaries of football.
It becomes more unpalatable when there is no end to the heavy spending. Abramovich spent heavily for a few years & then calmed down. This gave everyone else a chance to catch up. Abramovich then spent more reasonably while keeping Chelsea competitive. There's been very little slowdown in City's spending since the takeover 13 years ago. This has led to them being insusceptible to the natural vagaries of football.
I have seen several Chelsea fans talking about city only winning because they spent a billion and several Milan fans talking shit about PSG around the time they took Zlatan and Thiago Silva
I don't agree with this. The recent City spending, there have been clubs who almost matched them
Since Pep joined City, they have only spent 50m more than Chelsea and like 100m more than United. Those are comparable numbers
The time Roman took over Chelsea, he was spending 3 to 4 times the budget of Arsenal and Liverpool almost every window.
I am sure when City fills their 22 man squad with top class players they will also preach the virtue of spending within your means to others like some Chelsea fans were doing after their transfer ban forgetting that Conte spend 250m in a season and Lampard did the same last window.
A team can spend a quarter of a billion in one window yet complain about how financially disadvantaged they are
I am not talking about City in the Pep era. I am talking about City since the takeover.
If you are going to compare different clubs spending during Pep's City era then you have to compare the starting base. Aguero, KDB, Silva, Sterling & Fernandinho have all been instrumental in Pep's success at City. If he hadn't started with these players he would have had to buy them. This would take his spending to more insane levels.
Chelsea have had 5 £100 Mill + transfer windows since takeover . City have had 8 £100 Mill + transfer windows since takeover & they were taken over 6 years after Chelsea.
In regards my initial point. As there has been little slowdown in City's spending they are now able to field 2 teams with little drop off in quality. The league would be a lot better if teams who were taken over were allowed to spend a couple of Hundred Million without sanction. They could then take a more organic route to progression.
I've just looked through Transfermarket and I know it's not scientific or 100% accurate but
Since Pep came City have spent £853.55m and recouped £301.45m for a nett £552.1m
In that time United have spent £775.38m and recouped £222.88m
so City are £1.4m nett better off since 2016, I thought City spent loads in the 2 seasons before Pep came, laying the foundations as it were.
United spent 349.35 in this time recouping £151.33m City spent £279.9m recouping £88.16m for a nett difference of another £6.28m
So basically since the season 2014/15 United and City have spent more or less exactly the same amount bar probably a Dan James or Ferran Torres, the one big difference is City have had less managers and spent the money far better, as someone said in the thread earlier City got Soriano and Txiki whereas United got Woodward.
edit
as Wasp commented and I didn't see that
I've gone back to 2010 for both clubs
City gross in that time is 1540.35 recouping 403.79 leaving a net of 1036.56m
United gross in that time is 1370.91 recouping 406.78 leaving a net of 964.13
So since 2010 City have outspent United either Gross £169.44m or Nett £72.43m in 10 years, I honestly thought it was 2-300m net difference, and 4-500m Gross, not those totals.
Last edited:
Sure they can. Remember when they didn’t have money? City fans talked all sorts of shit about how hollow United are and that they’d never want to throw money around like us.
As for the notion some are peddling that jealousy is the only driver of people disliking City’s ascendance, and that we’d love for sheikhs to inject money into United; you’re wrong. Some of us actually would prefer for our club to not be used to rehabilitate the image of disgusting regimes. Is the idea of caring about common decency over football that alien to you guys?
I was with you, and respecting your point of view, right up until you trotted out that tired old cliche / fantasy that attendances at the Etihad are low.
If you bother to check the records you’ll see that in the 2018/19 season, City had the 5th highest attendance (only you, Arsenal, West Ham and Spurs had higher).
It amuses me that nobody bleats about Klanfield being empty but it’s actually emptier than the Etihad. The numbers prove that pre-covid City had a higher average attendance than anfield and that’s not just because the Etihad has a slightly higher capacity as the seat occupation percentage was higher too.
It’s as if some rival supporters want to find a stick to beat City with but then carefully select a piece of straw.
Recent posts about net spends should surely take into account current squad values
At odds with the image of a club who throw money around until it stocks, with the implication that we don't seek value or invest wisely, our squad value is along with liverpool's, significantly higher than all the other PL clubs. Indeed it's broadly in line with our total net investment in the squad since we were taken over in 2008. This idea that our owners have no business savvy, or don't view this is a long term investment, is laughable
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/startseite/wettbewerb/GB1
At odds with the image of a club who throw money around until it stocks, with the implication that we don't seek value or invest wisely, our squad value is along with liverpool's, significantly higher than all the other PL clubs. Indeed it's broadly in line with our total net investment in the squad since we were taken over in 2008. This idea that our owners have no business savvy, or don't view this is a long term investment, is laughable
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/startseite/wettbewerb/GB1
Sorry late to this but Vidic says hello at 7m and
Ronaldo at 12m
the first 2 I thought off
And then we have a thread on why he shoots so much.Net Spend argument is a Red Herring. You also bought players before the market went crazy. This isn't something you knew beforehand it was merely luck on your part. I agree Woodward is incompetent but Soriano isn't much better. He had a large role in the collapse of Spanair.
City have traditionally always been big spenders even before the takeover. To mask their deficiencies they trotted out the line that we bought our titles under SAF. The fact that SAF was the biggest spender in 2 of his 20 PL seasons is lost on them.
I totally agree 100% but some people like to use it, others don't but in the last 10 years the spending differential between City and United isn't a factor IMO why we're doing pretty well (CL Aside) and United appear (to my else) to bumble from one play style to another and a different management playing style when the last one hasn't worked.
Not that it bothers me either way but I honestly don't see you winning anything with Solksjaer, should really have got someone like Tuchel or Poch when they were available, I just don't see where Ole is going to take you and don't think he'll ever get to the point in challenging Liverpool or City over the next few years. Players like Greenwood, Rashford, McTominay i'd say deserve a top class coach who will take them and the team to the next level.
WRT to big spenders, yeah we purchased some shit in that time, Fitzroy Simpson, Danny Hoekman, Ingerbritsen, Andy Hill etc etc but I went a bit further back as I was a bit bored at work.
From 1985 till the takeover (no idea why 85 it just popped in my head and was around the time I started watching City) till the takeover in 2008 we outspent you 4 times, since then it's been 8 out of 13. (TBH I thought it would probably have been more) of course all these need to be taken with a pinch of salt too.
Last edited:
I agree with the bold as well. For net spend to provide any meaningful insight, you have to assume both sides are starting from equal footing and quality of players(market value). E.g Saudi takes over Newcastle today, they will have to spend more than the top clubs to catch up. So in the next 5yrs you will expect Newcastle to have a higher net spend than the top clubs
2. Some clubs have older players, these are assets with very little value in the market, In 2015/16, City had the 3rd oldest team in the league and they had to rebuild massively City lost Kompany, Yaya, Fernando, Zabaleta, Clichy, Sagna, Joe Hart, Demichelis, etc players with little market value as they either went to full retirement or semi-retirement. Now Aguero, David Silva, Fernandinho will have to go also while they will get little money from their transfers
Last edited:
Can somebody please explain where/how/why net spend is a red herring ? A red herring in relation to what exactly ?
Kaiser explains it well, also it can often mean you're having to weaken your team to strengthen your squad but it can also mean you've been lucky in realising a value for an asset, Coutinho is a prime example, no way in the world was that bloke worth £70m at the time never mind £130m or however much he went for.
Basically it doesn't matter how much you spend, what matters is how you spend the gross amount. City have been lucky that they can afford the odd dud and one thing I think we do better than most is move them on quickly, our biggest duds - Bony, Garcia, Nolito, Rodwell, Sinclair didn't really cost us much and we got ok resale most clubs can't absorb these risks and may be stuck with the platers for a while, this is something (I believe) United are terrible at, take your 50% hit on a £30m players, it's amortised so it's not really a big hit, it's leaking the wages that can be a killer. For United I'd say Darmian, Rojo should have been moved on quicker, same imo goes now for Martial, Bailly who are both very good players but don't look like they're going to cut it at United.
Chelsea 100M + expenditure per season since take over
2020/21 222M
2019/20 187M
2017/18 234M
2016/17 119M
2014/15 123M
2013/14 117M
2010/11 109M
2004/05 150M
2003/04 152M
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/pre...&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0
Nine 100M plus expenditure season in 16yrs, 7 in the last 10yrs despite being banned for 1 season from transfers
Chelsea was a top 4-side in 2002/03 the last season pre-Roman takeover with useful players like Lampard, Terry etc while City was 14th in 2006/07 season pre-Thakshin takeover with hardly any useful player
I wanted to mention the Coutinho case where you get a silly club pay over the odds for your asset like in Coutinho's case or Neymar's case. Barcelona net spend will lose a little less bad if they factor in 220M they got from Neymar.
Also where a prized asset walks away on a free like Lewandowski/Messi(end of this season) or heavily discounted because they were on the last yr of the contract e.g Sane or Alexis. A Sane or Alexis with good yrs left on the contract will go for over 100M
This isn't really relevant, but I do often wonder where City would be nowadays if:
- a) Sven & Shinawatra had never fallen out
- b) Shinawatra was just a regular millionaire instead of a criminal in exile.
It's easy to forget that Sven had City 3rd in November and as high as 4th going into Christmas 2007. After that little run, Shinawatra got twitchy feet and started pushing for us to hire a more high profile manager, which badly affected the team's focus and resulted in us slipping down the table. We won both derbies and ended up finishing 9th, qualifying for the Europa League via the Fair Play table. We were taken over by Sheikh Mansour that summer and Sven was replaced by Mark Hughes (a weaker manager, in my opinion), but the team was still largely formed of players bought under previous managers and ownership - the only player bought with ADUG money that summer was Robinho. We ended up finishing 10th and reached the Europa League quarter-finals.
Obviously the rest is history. We buy Craig Bellamy, Nigel de Jong, Wayne Bridge in January, then Tevez, Barry, Lescott, Adebayor in the summer, and finish 5th the following season. But without the Sheikh's money I still think we had a good side. We never would have troubled the top four (at least not the old Sky Four), but Sven had a good thing going with us before Thaksin started meddling. There was no reason to think Hart, Zabaleta, Kompany, Richards, Dunne, Elano, Petrov, etc. (plus a fit, young Michael Johnson) wouldn't have been good enough to consistently finish in the top half and occasionally bother the top 6. We never would have ripped up trees and I think we'd have a similar reputation to Everton (under-achieving side with a big fanbase), but we'd have done alright.
Now, if you want to wonder what we'd have been like had Thaksin Shinawatra never taken over, that's another thing entirely. I think we'd be firmly in the Championship these days, after being relegated alongside 11-points Derby County the following season (07/08). Pearce would have been sacked, we'd have replaced him with Steve Bruce, and maybe flirted with promotion/relegation on and off before eventually accepting we were never going to be a big club again. Our chairman at the time, poor old John Wardle, had to pour £2m of his own cash into the club to stop us going bust. There are numerous tales from people on the inside during the Wardle/Pearce years and not one of those stories are happy ones.
Your observations and Thunderheads are unarguable
However if we are talking about the impact of our owners putting in money that gives us an unfair advantage, which appears to be the context (hence my question), the money they have made available is the net spend not the gross so that is the advantage we have.
For example we sold foden, an academy product, for £300M, then £300M of our gross spend is not money made available from having rich owners prepared to bankroll the club. At it's extreme, what about the club that spends a lot so has a big gross spend but has a net negative spend ?
Of course there is an element of luck as you've both referenced.
Plus for us, not only can we afford to dump players at a loss more quickly as one of you has said, but also we can afford to hold onto players like aguero or silva whereas other clubs might feel compelled to cash in. For us, we get no return on many of our best players because we have managed to keep them for so long they get to an age where there is no resale vaue
But to me that makes net spend even more valid, because again it gets to the heart of the argument of our owners pumping in more money than is realistic for most other clubs - you can surely only make those arguments by looking at net spend ?
I accept the net spend calculations are flawed for all kinds of reasons, just as to a lesser extent gross figures & current market value figures are flawed and therefore very arguable. But again, net spend is surely a more meaningful indication of the levels of money put into the club by the owners. Or is that not the point ? City's whole argument against FFP was the idea that an owner who wants to invest to grow a club should be encouraged not prevented. Again, surely that means net spend not gross ?
I have no clue. Transfer net spending is transfer expense minus transfer income. It is an indicator how much the club spends in player transfer, or investment in squad, whatever you want to call it, in a season. In the balance sheet that's how it looks. Transfer net spending and wage budget give me an idea how much money the club invest in its team. It doesn't include everything like investment in academy infrastructure for junior player development, but it gives us an idea.
Last edited: