Then you can see how this conversation about what they've spent is moot, if there is no path to neutering the impact money has on success. In that case, just open the floodgates and may the deepest pockets win.
Man City 2020/21 - General discussion
- Thread starter Suedesi
- Start date
Then you can see how this conversation about what they've spent is moot, if there is no path to neutering the impact money has on success. In that case, just open the floodgates and may the deepest pockets win.
no idea, if I get time I'll have a look but again, I don't think it's massive
But he did get Mahrez, he did get Rodri, he got Dias and Laporte. These are quality players. Ole has been asking for a rw and he never got a player who could improve our squad. Diallo and Pellestri are not going to be first teams this soon. It's like asking Pep to play the young kid you got from argentina for 6 million (Bustos) or that young winger from Partizan for 8 million.
We have been trying to work with free transfers to cover up our loss of Lukaku. Ole asked for Halland and was given Ighalo to work with. Do you see the difference? If you don't get your first choice you still get a quality back up, while we don't.
Yep without a doubt. No one could match or better what Pep has done at City. He is one of my all time favourite managers ever for what he did with 'that' Barcelona team.
Only one manager could probably have done the same, or better with City: Klopp. If City had convinced Klopp to go there while Liverpool got Pep then we would probably still be on 18 - 5.
This is key.
Pep spent close to £20m on Claudio Bravo, didn't like him and then spent another £35m on Ederson a season later.
No other club could afford spending £50m on goalkeepers in consecutive seasons. Even Chelsea had to wait a year or two to get Kepa's replacement.
He spent 40 million on Ake and doesn't even bother to use him. Other clubs including United cannot afford to do that. I am not going to say United don't spend , we have spent loads but City have been operating on another level. Don't know why city fans have such a hard time admitting that.
Wasn't one of those clubs a club they literally bought for Pep's brother? They're unstoppable.
Yeah, Pep's brother is co-owner of Girona if I'm not wrong.
This is already done. Who can forget City selling some data thing to the sister club (Aussie club) for around 25 million many years ago.
Of course there is a different approach but I'm not 100% convinced it has all to do with money or resources. Perhaps there is a worse 'contingency plan' in place too? Actually, the missing of Jorginho or Maguire was not replaced straightaway either by City (Rodri and Dias / Ake came a year after respectively), so they had to adapt too. If the United board thought 80m or whatever for Sancho would do it, then the money was obviously there to spend. Now whether it's good strategy not to come up with an alternative and perhaps wait for Sancho is a different question.
I don't know what that was you'll have to provide a bit more, even my google skills are failing me on this
Media already writing articles as if they've won the damn Champions League. Really hope they don't.
Good that you mentioned Kepa as he was 70m so obviously 'no other club' is not true. But again, that is just arbitrarily picking some criteria to suit your narrative. The GK position was so key for Pep that he had to get it right eventually and recevied the resources for it. But he didn't need to spend after Mendy and instead built in Delph or Zinchenko, or didn't need to buy a winger after Sane went, or didn't replace Gabriel Jesus while everyone on the Caf says he's a complete failure.
I could say then that no other club can afford paying almost 600k in wages for their first 4 goalkeepers, but it would be just as unfair.
Yeah, just like Messi should go to Burnley and prove he can do it in a cold night at Stoke. Why should he? You go up the ladder in life, not downward. I really can't understand people still harping on this flawed argument.
He's been acknowledged by the football professionals as one of the best managers and will certainly go down as one of the greatest in football history. He's got nothing to prove, certainly not to some random posters on a football forum. He's got his own vision of the game and applies it through the players he seems fit with said players generally improving massively under his tenure. It's one thing to have the financial power and great players, it's a whole other to make it work. There plenty of examples of (very good) managers who failed at that.
The only 'blip' in his career, if we can call it that, was at Bayern where he indeed relatively underachieved, given that that club pretty much dominates the league year in, year out.
reading that and I'm not trying to be a dick, but it reads to me you want to blame all United's failure's since Fergie left on City, basically the fault of United is not having proper football people doing all the work, Woodward is the gift that just kept giving for City.
We wanted Pogba, Maguire and Sanchez, you got them and then we went onto other targets, it seems you're blaming City for United not having plan B when players like Sancho and Halland don't come off you don't have a next option.
Pep didn't spend anything on Bravo. Manchester City did. Pep wanted Ter Stegen and Txiki Begerestein decided to for Bravo after Barca told them Ter Stegen was off limits. So Pep was given a goalkeer he never wanted, and when Bravo flopped, Pep was finally allowed to get a keeper he wanted.
Cancelo at 60 million played a bit at left back if I remember correctly.
Didn't you just sign Ferran Torres last summer. You already had Mahrez Silva and Sterling so he's hardly struggling the way Ole is without a proper right winger
Why am I even arguing these points? City have literally bought their way to the top and it could have been anyone that the Sheiks took over.
There's nothing to admire about this soulless ghoul of a club.
To be honest, Chelsea may have done it a season earlier if they weren't transfer embargoed.
The point still stands though - Pep binned a £20m goalkeeper and could go and buy a £35m replacement. What other club can afford that?
Again, Pep spent over £100m on CBs in a season where everyone else (not incl. Chelsea) has to be conservative. Why are you / City fans so defensive over your clubs spending?
Edit: Also, >50% of our £600k wages for goalkeepers is for a player that's been at the club for 10 years and has been voted player of the season for 5 of them. The other is running his contract down, and a third is retiring.
What rubbish! Where did I blame City for anything. It's already said many times we have wasted money and are run like a Business club. It's like you are just making stuffs up. You guys have more money to spend than others , don't know what's so hard to admit.
Some here are already acting like that.
Because Messi plays football. He uses his own talents to influence what is happening on the pitch.
Pep's job is to manage and coach players.
If you put me against Lewis Hamilton in a race, but gave him a Prius and put me in an F1 car, it'd probably still be pretty close (assuming I didn't kill myself). Because he's a better driver.
I can't tell how well Pep is managing and coaching because he's not using the same tools available to other managers and coaches. Certainly I think Klopp beating Pep's City last season shows that Klopp managed better that year. He had lesser tools, and achieved more.
Please name all the defenders you bought since Pep took over.
The worst thing is that we actually generate the money which would allow us to compensate for the mistakes of our board. We could have easily spent 1 billion more in the last decade and it would still have all been the club’s money, and nothing from the owners. Instead they preferred to take the 1 billion out.
So they are not prepared to put qualified people in charge of transfer dealings. If they did, our spending so far would have resulted in a greater output.
Neither are they prepared to use the club’s money to make up for their failures in the running of the club.
Whereas at City their owners put oil money in the club and have a competent board.
That’s the main difference.
So they are not prepared to put qualified people in charge of transfer dealings. If they did, our spending so far would have resulted in a greater output.
Neither are they prepared to use the club’s money to make up for their failures in the running of the club.
Whereas at City their owners put oil money in the club and have a competent board.
That’s the main difference.
I'm not defensive over the spend we've had or will have in the future, I just find it galling that United who have spent similar amounts in the same timeframe won't admit their club have spent atrociously and have spent similar sums to City since Fergie left.
Pep binned a £16m keeper and got a £35m replacement, clubs that could do that are
United
Chelsea
Barca
Real Madrid
PSG
Juventus
if they can afford to spend £70+ on a single defender, midfielder, striker then they can afford to spend £55m on 2 keepers over 2 seasons.
Yeah Ole is struggling big time with Cavani, Rashford, Martial, Greenwood, Bruno Fernandes, Pogba, Mata and James to field a front three, you have to feel for the lad. (And Cancelo was obviously an FFP optimizing sort of swap deal with Juventus.)
This is going in circles.
Two things can be true:
1. City's spending is ridiculous, and is of such a magnitude that it makes their achievements somehow lessened, for many people.
2. United's spend is f*cking terrible, and a testament to how badly that club is run.
Many people don't agree with you because it's a valid point. He's never really managed anywhere under adversity. Yes, that is earned by his genius but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a different challenge.
for the 1st team
Dias
Ake
Mendy
Cancelo
Laporte
Walker
Danilo
Stones
But the defence he inherited was old and we hadn't bought a full back since 2011 (i think)
Kompany (32)
Otamendi (29)
Kolarov (31)
Clichy (31)
Sagna (34)
Zabaleta (32)
Tosin (19)
Maffeo (19)
basically that 100% for example if United went and spent £250m on Sancho, Haaland and Kounde this summer then won the CL next season, would United fans be saying, yeah but it cost £1.3bln to win the CL so wasn't worth it.
spend spend spend spend spend. money doesnt buy the way City played last night, sorry. Like SAF Peps a very good motivator, yes he can spend money but if he had come to United is there ANYONE here who would admit he couldnt have done it because United dont have the money that City have.
Here's the spend over the last five years
£162m makes the difference we see?
Here's the spend over the last five years
| # | club | Expenditure | Arrivals | Income | Departures | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manchester City | £862.57m | 145 | £301.46m | 129 | £-561.11m |
| 2 | Chelsea FC | £804.87m | 157 | £542.53m | 143 | £-262.34m |
| 3 | Manchester United | £699.01m | 60 | £200.59m | 63 | £-498.42m |
| 4 | Arsenal FC | £532.30m | 77 | £223.70m | 80 | £-308.60m |
| 5 | Everton FC | £526.38m | 107 | £270.68m | 109 | £-255.70m |
| 6 | Liverpool FC | £476.13m | 91 | £356.40m | 85 | £-119.73m |
| 7 | Tottenham Hotspur | £419.40m | 56 | £215.33m | 50 | £-204.08m |
| 8 | Leicester City | £411.61m | 77 | £318.80m | 79 | £-92.81m |
| 9 | West Ham United | £375.71m | 86 | £202.97m | 89 | £-172.74m |
| 10 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | £336.65m | 154 | £122.32m | 154 | £-214.34m |
And you do realise right none of them are right wingers? Pogba at RW
It's like saying why did Pep need a CB when he could have played RodriI'm not defensive, of course City spends a fecking ton, more than most, I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies in reasonings, and trying to argue whether it's as impossible for United to compete as it is made out here.
What about Danilo, Angelino and Zinchenko?
What is the difference between the Van der Beek and Ake situation
Danilo is there, just above Stones, Angelino I don't believe was bought back for the first team, just his value rose loads at PSV so we got him back to make even more off him, yeah I forgot Zinchenko but he was purchased as an attacking midfielder.
Ake has been injured most of the season FFS, sick of people saying he doesn't use him, how can he if he's injured
Well given the sheer amount of players I'd say it's not because of money but because of shit planning if you say all of them are shit right wingers. That being said, it wasn't too dissimilar to City after Sane was gone on the left. Sterling would be the only proper option, even that at a stretch as he's been at his best starting from the right.And you do realise right none of them are right wingers? Pogba at RW
That probably has to do with the fact that Kepa cost more than the two of them combined.
Most eh?
No one is arguing (I don't think) that United shouldn't be closer to City. There are a million posts on how bad LVG and Jose's transfers were, how bad Ed is at selling players, how unbalanced this squad is and how crap we've been run.
But City have spent more than any other club on the planet, with only ourselves and PSG anywhere close in recent times. We're a joke, managed by a PE teacher with a bunch of academy graduates playing. PSG aren't in the Prem.
So take out United. That lil table above says City have spent TWICE what any other team in the league has.
So is it that impressive they're winning?
Let me flip it, say City - who already had the most expensive squad 5 seasons ago - had spent the SAME as Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs but were winning the league - would that not be MORE impressive?
Absolutely it would have been more impressive, even if we were at the level those clubs were when we started.