Wasting money, or buying smart?

I think the criticism lies at the money we've spent and not on the quality. No one seems to be saying we have bought poor players and not in the positions we need, and from pretty much everyone who i've seen tipping, they all tip city to win it.

As for the money we have spent, its justified as it was desperately needed and we have to pay these prices for the best players.
 
Please remove the OP. It is factual & has been researched.

It is NOT what the media wish to know, or rather, not what the media wish the public to know.

For some reason BBC. Mail & Sly Sports etc. falsify the transfer figures to make others, rags especially, look to have spent less & City spent more.

But we & most football fans know the real story, City done good in this market - long may it continue.
 
Aytoun said:
Please remove the OP. It is factual & has been researched.

It is NOT what the media wish to know, or rather, not what the media wish the public to know.

For some reason BBC. Mail & Sly Sports etc. falsify the transfer figures to make others, rags especially, look to have spent less & City spent more.

But we & most football fans know the real story, City done good in this market - long may it continue.
Click to expand...


I will consider myself sent to Coventry :-)
 
Stockport mackem said:
This may tip into the media bias thread, apologies if it does.

So, City were heavily criticised for the outlay of money £30m+ for a goalkeeper, £50m+ for fullbacks, a right attacking mid, and a centre mid in Luiz.
Spend £216m (ish).

Several points here......
21 players have left (6/7 on loan)... realising £70m+...
Giving the benefit of the doubt (assuming wages are paid for loaners), 15 less on the wage bill...including some significant earners

So, a net spend of £146m....but 15 less wages to pay, no, it probably doesn't balance out...but it isn't too much of a yawning gap.

Who has been replaced??????
How much criticism did City get for Bravo, and the defence last year?
In comes 3 top quality defenders and a goalkeeper....makes sense to me.

Silva coming in...maybe Merlins long term replacement, but a player which adds another dimension , I would go as far to say, he is world class.

So...City are stronger.

Age.....
Average age of players bought......23
Average age of players that gave left .... 26

To summarise so far....
Younger, better players brought in to positions that were desperately needed.

Last point...timing.
City bought early....probably why the press went nuts....all done at once....and early.
Look what has happened to the transfer market since mid July.....a very average premier league player is now £20m or so (Gray to Watford £18m as an example).
Pep got in before the prices went even more crazy.

Quick comparison to the Rags

3 players in £146m ...average age 25

6 players left £7.25m average age 23 (not counting Ibrahimovic as likely to stay).
3 of the 5 players loaned....so only Rooney & Januzaj have left.

Players brought in.....
A forward replacing a forward....more mobile yes, but will he score more
A centre mid
A centre back

The Rags issues were scoring goals....I don't see how this has improved

In conclusion

Tfr net difference
City £146m
Rags £139m

Players off the books (wage reduction)
City 15 or 16
Rags 3 (inc Ibra)

Average age of recruits
City 23
Rags 25

Average age of release players
City 26
Rags 23 (25 inc Ibra)

Players replaced in need of positions
City....keeper and full backs...yes
Rags...forwards....yes in that Ibra is injured.....but no stronger than last year.

Rags also still looking to buy more, in the heightened market

Wasting money, or buying smart?

So, city have bought, younger, better players, in positions they needed to..... before the prices hiked up even further....in total contrast to the Rags

I think Pep has bought smart
Click to expand...
I always had suspicions that you were a closet blue Mack. And they've been confirmed with that post. Welcome to the City family bud. Word of warning though; be prepared to age rapidly.
 
jimharri said:
I always had suspicions that you were a closet blue Mack. And they've been confirmed with that post. Welcome to the City family bud. Word of warning though; be prepared to age rapidly.
Click to expand...

Haha.....I age sufficiently with my own lot thanks very much
However, I will keep a close eye on the blues
 
some media don't even count we sold anyone. The line is - Guardiola is under pressure because of last year and because he spent another 200+ million.
 
Stockport mackem said:
This may tip into the media bias thread, apologies if it does.

So, City were heavily criticised for the outlay of money £30m+ for a goalkeeper, £50m+ for fullbacks, a right attacking mid, and a centre mid in Luiz.
Spend £216m (ish).

Several points here......
21 players have left (6/7 on loan)... realising £70m+...
Giving the benefit of the doubt (assuming wages are paid for loaners), 15 less on the wage bill...including some significant earners

So, a net spend of £146m....but 15 less wages to pay, no, it probably doesn't balance out...but it isn't too much of a yawning gap.

Who has been replaced??????
How much criticism did City get for Bravo, and the defence last year?
In comes 3 top quality defenders and a goalkeeper....makes sense to me.

Silva coming in...maybe Merlins long term replacement, but a player which adds another dimension , I would go as far to say, he is world class.

So...City are stronger.

Age.....
Average age of players bought......23
Average age of players that gave left .... 26

To summarise so far....
Younger, better players brought in to positions that were desperately needed.

Last point...timing.
City bought early....probably why the press went nuts....all done at once....and early.
Look what has happened to the transfer market since mid July.....a very average premier league player is now £20m or so (Gray to Watford £18m as an example).
Pep got in before the prices went even more crazy.

Quick comparison to the Rags

3 players in £146m ...average age 25

6 players left £7.25m average age 23 (not counting Ibrahimovic as likely to stay).
3 of the 5 players loaned....so only Rooney & Januzaj have left.

Players brought in.....
A forward replacing a forward....more mobile yes, but will he score more
A centre mid
A centre back

The Rags issues were scoring goals....I don't see how this has improved

In conclusion

Tfr net difference
City £146m
Rags £139m

Players off the books (wage reduction)
City 15 or 16
Rags 3 (inc Ibra)

Average age of recruits
City 23
Rags 25

Average age of release players
City 26
Rags 23 (25 inc Ibra)

Players replaced in need of positions
City....keeper and full backs...yes
Rags...forwards....yes in that Ibra is injured.....but no stronger than last year.

Rags also still looking to buy more, in the heightened market

Wasting money, or buying smart?

So, city have bought, younger, better players, in positions they needed to..... before the prices hiked up even further....in total contrast to the Rags

I think Pep has bought smart
Click to expand...


Have I been proved right ?
 
willipp said:
I think the criticism lies at the money we've spent and not on the quality. No one seems to be saying we have bought poor players and not in the positions we need, and from pretty much everyone who i've seen tipping, they all tip city to win it.

As for the money we have spent, its justified as it was desperately needed and we have to pay these prices for the best players.
Click to expand...
We have only paid as much as the selling club would let the players go for .no one calls the selling club greedy bastards.we would certainly have paid less if we were allowed two .but oviously that not a good story for them is it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.