Mangala transfer papers leaked

[Phil1]

With logic like that 'wreckless' my friend you will have to consider changing you pseudonym!.......perfect summary!

It's not neccessarily correct though. The piece I saw was pretty extensive by Nick Harris who writes a lot on the finances in football. Granted he doesn't seem to like us much and there's less than subtle digs in a lot of his work when discussing us, but like Ric says, surely the club would have put those peddling the fee right by now?
As for Wreckless's claims of City fans having some sort of ulterior motive for accepting the higher figure, well that's just nonesense. I'm not particularly arsed either way. If we've got him for £32 million then fine, if it's £42 million then its fine. What's done is done. We've just got to work on making it a good deal.

 

[City_Sean]

Whilst the fee is huge, I for one couldn't care less about what he cost. We paid what we wanted, and that's all that matters.

 

[Ric]

Whilst the fee is huge, I for one couldn't care less about what he cost. We paid what we wanted, and that's all that matters.

Tend to agree with this. The fee doesn't come directly out of our pockets (matchday revenue is relatively minor now in comparison to TV and commercial revenue), so I don't really care.

It's like when people said "I'd pay £35m for Sterling, but not £40m" last summer. Why would you really give a shit?!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think it was 55% that Porto had.

You're right although it was 56.67% to be precise. That would extrapolate to £42m based on us paying £24m to Porto.

 

[Dax777]

I don't care what we pay for players as long they are good enough. The jury is very much still out on that one with him.

It's not about what we pay for players per se, but rather, the opportunity cost of doing so. We could have gotten Sanchez and played Denayer for that kind of money, and we would have been better off.

Similarly, 28 million for Bony, we could have used Kelechi and perhaps Arturo Vidal for 20 million.

Take out Mangala and Bony and you have 70 million to spend on 2 great players and 2 freed up spots on the foreign roster.

And just for good measure, you can add Caballero to that list. Sure he didn't cost much, but a foeign CL spot for a backup goalie?

These are all poor front office decisions. I chronicled some of those in a thread 2 summers ago.

Role players should be averagely priced or come based on some techicality or bargain opportunity. Delph is a fantastic example of this. So is Clichy. Mangala and Fernandihno are not. Even though i live Fernandihno, his old club fleeced us.

Negredo was a good expensive buy, yet we weren't fleeced. Because that's the price you'd expect for the top Spanish scorer in LA liga the prior season.

Aguero, Yaya, Silva were all on the verge of becoming great or already there in the case of Aguero, so the price was fair. Dzeko was also a fair price. Sure he didn't hit similar heights again, but he was 5th in ballon for voting the year before he came, and yet he cost a little more than a mid table VB in Lescott.


Milner was a rip off too. And that is coz they didn't want to sell. So was Lescott. These teams were pissed we wanted their best players from the previous seasons, and didn't want to sell. But we kept shoving money at them until it became too stupid for them not to take it.

That is not a City tax. That is City smashing and grabbing coz it has the muscle. But that comes at an increased cost. There are teams with players who want to move, who are good enough for the top level, and who's contract have run down. They normally go for around 7-15 million tops. But we never chase those players, the only one we almost got was Fernando. He was them forced by his club to sign a new K to help increase his fee.

Look at it this way, if any club comes for Aguero or Silva, they'd have to pay out of their nose to get them. 50 for Silva, and 100 for Aguero. And the reason why is simple. We are not interested in selling. But if you offer 500 million for Aguero, even City would take the money.

And that's what we did a lot in the past. Offer silly enough money that the teams would be foolish not to take. That is not a City tax. It' was a City strategy!


PS: 2nd part of this response was meant for @Rolee

 

[BenjaniMwaruwari]

Kinda depressing that we looked into this deal (agent fees and everything), considered it for over 6 months and still decided that the price is acceptable for him.

 

[Barcon]

Kinda depressing that we looked into this deal (agent fees and everything), considered it for over 6 months and still decided that the price is acceptable for him.

No worse than reading the thread and still thinking that's what we paid for him.

 

[Bill]

It's not about what we pay for players per se, but rather, the opportunity cost of doing so. We could have gotten Sanchez and played Denayer for that kind of money, and we would have been better off.

Similarly, 28 million for Bony, we could have used Kelechi and perhaps Arturo Vidal for 20 million.

Take out Mangala and Bony and you have 70 million to spend on 2 great players and 2 freed up spots on the foreign roster.

And just for good measure, you can add Caballero to that list. Sure he didn't cost much, but a foeign CL spot for a backup goalie?

These are all poor front office decisions. I chronicled some of those in a thread 2 summers ago.

Role players should be averagely priced or come based on some techicality or bargain opportunity. Delph is a fantastic example of this. So is Clichy. Mangala and Fernandihno are not. Even though i live Fernandihno, his old club fleeced us.

Negredo was a good expensive buy, yet we weren't fleeced. Because that's the price you'd expect for the top Spanish scorer in LA liga the prior season.

Aguero, Yaya, Silva were all on the verge of becoming great or already there in the case of Aguero, so the price was fair. Dzeko was also a fair price. Sure he didn't hit similar heights again, but he was 5th in ballon for voting the year before he came, and yet he cost a little more than a mid table VB in Lescott.


Milner was a rip off too. And that is coz they didn't want to sell. So was Lescott. These teams were pissed we wanted their best players from the previous seasons, and didn't want to sell. But we kept shoving money at them until it became too stupid for them not to take it.

That is not a City tax. That is City smashing and grabbing coz it has the muscle. But that comes at an increased cost. There are teams with players who want to move, who are good enough for the top level, and who's contract have run down. They normally go for around 7-15 million tops. But we never chase those players, the only one we almost got was Fernando. He was them forced by his club to sign a new K to help increase his fee.

Look at it this way, if any club comes for Aguero or Silva, they'd have to pay out of their nose to get them. 50 for Silva, and 100 for Aguero. And the reason why is simple. We are not interested in selling. But if you offer 500 million for Aguero, even City would take the money.

And that's what we did a lot in the past. Offer silly enough money that the teams would be foolish not to take. That is not a City tax. It' was a City strategy!


PS: 2nd part of this response was meant for @Rolee

Very good post.

 

[Rolee]

It's not about what we pay for players per se, but rather, the opportunity cost of doing so. We could have gotten Sanchez and played Denayer for that kind of money, and we would have been better off.

Similarly, 28 million for Bony, we could have used Kelechi and perhaps Arturo Vidal for 20 million.

Take out Mangala and Bony and you have 70 million to spend on 2 great players and 2 freed up spots on the foreign roster.

And just for good measure, you can add Caballero to that list. Sure he didn't cost much, but a foeign CL spot for a backup goalie?

These are all poor front office decisions. I chronicled some of those in a thread 2 summers ago.

Role players should be averagely priced or come based on some techicality or bargain opportunity. Delph is a fantastic example of this. So is Clichy. Mangala and Fernandihno are not. Even though i live Fernandihno, his old club fleeced us.

Negredo was a good expensive buy, yet we weren't fleeced. Because that's the price you'd expect for the top Spanish scorer in LA liga the prior season.

Aguero, Yaya, Silva were all on the verge of becoming great or already there in the case of Aguero, so the price was fair. Dzeko was also a fair price. Sure he didn't hit similar heights again, but he was 5th in ballon for voting the year before he came, and yet he cost a little more than a mid table VB in Lescott.


Milner was a rip off too. And that is coz they didn't want to sell. So was Lescott. These teams were pissed we wanted their best players from the previous seasons, and didn't want to sell. But we kept shoving money at them until it became too stupid for them not to take it.

That is not a City tax. That is City smashing and grabbing coz it has the muscle. But that comes at an increased cost. There are teams with players who want to move, who are good enough for the top level, and who's contract have run down. They normally go for around 7-15 million tops. But we never chase those players, the only one we almost got was Fernando. He was them forced by his club to sign a new K to help increase his fee.

Look at it this way, if any club comes for Aguero or Silva, they'd have to pay out of their nose to get them. 50 for Silva, and 100 for Aguero. And the reason why is simple. We are not interested in selling. But if you offer 500 million for Aguero, even City would take the money.

And that's what we did a lot in the past. Offer silly enough money that the teams would be foolish not to take. That is not a City tax. It' was a City strategy!


PS: 2nd part of this response was meant for @Rolee

Ok mate, that's your opinion. I however believe it's common sense that if you know the buyer has a large wedge burning a hole in their pocket then you try to squeeze as much out of them as you can.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It's not neccessarily correct though. The piece I saw was pretty extensive by Nick Harris who writes a lot on the finances in football. Granted he doesn't seem to like us much and there's less than subtle digs in a lot of his work when discussing us, but like Ric says, surely the club would have put those peddling the fee right by now?
As for Wreckless's claims of City fans having some sort of ulterior motive for accepting the higher figure, well that's just nonesense. I'm not particularly arsed either way. If we've got him for £32 million then fine, if it's £42 million then its fine. What's done is done. We've just got to work on making it a good deal.

Good morning Pablo. I'm not sure we can read silence, on the part of the club, as acquiescence on any subject. The club, rightly in my view, has a policy of not commenting on media articles frustrating though that can be. Without getting into the agenda argument I am reluctant to accept anything in the media about our club without seeing evidence.

As regards ulterior motive, I don't share the opinion that Mangala is a write off or not worth the money whether it was £32m or more but I do think that it suits those who subscribe to the "Mangala's a flop" argument to inflate the fee to exaggerate the extent of that floppery (?).

My sincerest hope is that he gets a run of games in a settled defensive partnership and proves that he is actually invaluable. I just sense that the problems in defense relate more to deficiencies in midfield and, more importantly, to the constant need to re jig the defence on an almost weekly basis due to injuries. I think the same factors have also made MD look worse than he is.

 

[Phil1]

Good morning Pablo. I'm not sure we can read silence, on the part of the club, as acquiescence on any subject. The club, rightly in my view, has a policy of not commenting on media articles frustrating though that can be. Without getting into the agenda argument I am reluctant to accept anything in the media about our club without seeing evidence.

As regards ulterior motive, I don't share the opinion that Mangala is a write off or not worth the money whether it was £32m or more but I do think that it suits those who subscribe to the "Mangala's a flop" argument to inflate the fee to exaggerate the extent of that floppery (?).

My sincerest hope is that he gets a run of games in a settled defensive partnership and proves that he is actually invaluable. I just sense that the problems in defense relate more to deficiencies in midfield and, more importantly, to the constant need to re jig the defence on an almost weekly basis due to injuries. I think the same factors have also made MD look worse than he is.

Morning. I suppose I'm just saying that not all of us who are erring on the side of the higher fee are doing so because of an agenda. I've thought it was the full £42 million for a while but have never pushed it on here or used it as a stick to beat him with, in fact this is the first time it's become a relevent topic and its the only reason I've brought it up.
Mangala proving to be worth his fee is beneficial to everyone involved so that's all I'm interested in now he's here. I think it's fair to say the jury is still out.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

What was the Martial leak? Missed that.

His contract/deal to the rags was "leaked" details of add owns etc,bumping it up to a possible £60m fee.
1-2 days later it's Mangala's......not Yaya's,KDB,Sterlings etc.....it's the player who every fuckin pundit etc says we overpaid for.
Just find it bizarre it was his what was leaked.

 

[moomba]

The thing is the "leak" as far as I can see it doesnt contain anything that hadnt already been public knowledge for over a year . Porto declared the price we paid and the % that they held to their Stock Exchange when the deal went through.

 

[Rolee]

The thing is the "leak" as far as I can see it doesnt contain anything that hadnt already been public knowledge for over a year . Porto declared the price we paid and the % that they held to their Stock Exchange when the deal went through.

The PDF won't download for me, am I right in assuming there's nothing definitive in it in regards what we paid the third parties?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The PDF won't download for me, am I right in assuming there's nothing definitive in it in regards what we paid the third parties?

You are. It only details what we paid Porto for their share.

 

[Rolee]

You are. It only details what we paid Porto for their share.

Thanks

 

[mscenterh750]

As in the title of a metallica song "SO FUCKING WHAT"

 

[NipHolmes]

It's not about what we pay for players per se, but rather, the opportunity cost of doing so. We could have gotten Sanchez and played Denayer for that kind of money, and we would have been better off.

Similarly, 28 million for Bony, we could have used Kelechi and perhaps Arturo Vidal for 20 million.

Take out Mangala and Bony and you have 70 million to spend on 2 great players and 2 freed up spots on the foreign roster.

And just for good measure, you can add Caballero to that list. Sure he didn't cost much, but a foeign CL spot for a backup goalie?

These are all poor front office decisions. I chronicled some of those in a thread 2 summers ago.

Role players should be averagely priced or come based on some techicality or bargain opportunity. Delph is a fantastic example of this. So is Clichy. Mangala and Fernandihno are not. Even though i live Fernandihno, his old club fleeced us.

Negredo was a good expensive buy, yet we weren't fleeced. Because that's the price you'd expect for the top Spanish scorer in LA liga the prior season.

Aguero, Yaya, Silva were all on the verge of becoming great or already there in the case of Aguero, so the price was fair. Dzeko was also a fair price. Sure he didn't hit similar heights again, but he was 5th in ballon for voting the year before he came, and yet he cost a little more than a mid table VB in Lescott.


Milner was a rip off too. And that is coz they didn't want to sell. So was Lescott. These teams were pissed we wanted their best players from the previous seasons, and didn't want to sell. But we kept shoving money at them until it became too stupid for them not to take it.

That is not a City tax. That is City smashing and grabbing coz it has the muscle. But that comes at an increased cost. There are teams with players who want to move, who are good enough for the top level, and who's contract have run down. They normally go for around 7-15 million tops. But we never chase those players, the only one we almost got was Fernando. He was them forced by his club to sign a new K to help increase his fee.

Look at it this way, if any club comes for Aguero or Silva, they'd have to pay out of their nose to get them. 50 for Silva, and 100 for Aguero. And the reason why is simple. We are not interested in selling. But if you offer 500 million for Aguero, even City would take the money.

And that's what we did a lot in the past. Offer silly enough money that the teams would be foolish not to take. That is not a City tax. It' was a City strategy!


PS: 2nd part of this response was meant for @Rolee

Good post, you miss a vital point regarding the strategy. Our aim was to weaken our rivals and strengthen at the same time. We took Barry, Milner and Lescott. Crucial players for Villa and Everton and English too, at the time these were teams pushing for top 4 and what we did was cute. I've not seen the media pick up on this

 

[NipHolmes]

Not read all the thread. But worth mentioning that some of the fee paid for Fernando so it a unfair to blame Mangala for the fee

 

[Rolee]

To those that are bemoaning the fact that we went and spent on Mangala instead of Sanchez you're ignoring salaries. At the time we were under FFP sanction which meant we couldn't increase our wage bill, this has to be factored into argument on who we should/could have targeted that summer.