You need to change de bruyne, sterling from 2015 and sane from 2016 there figures are far too high.Its a stick we’re often beaten with from rivals and media alike
But if we just look at transfers over £30m since 10/11 it just doesn’t stack up
10/11
City Dzeko £33m
Utd
Chelsea Torres £56m
Liverpool Carroll £37m
11/12
City Aguero £36m
Utd
Chelsea
Liverpool
12/13
City
Utd Van Persie £30m
Chelsea Hazard £36m
Liverpool
13/14
City Fernandinho £36m
Utd Mata £42m Groot £30m
Chelsea Willian £32m
Liverpool
14/15
City
Utd Di Maria £62m Shaw £34m Herrera £33m
Chelsea Costa £35m Fabregas £30m
Liverpool
15/16
City DeBruyne £68m Stirling £55m Otamendi £38m
Utd Martial £54m Schneiderlein £32m Depay £32m
Chelsea
Liverpool Benteke £42m Firmino £31m
16/17
City Stones £50m Sane £45m
Utd Pogba £95m Mkitaryan £38m Bailly £35m
Chelsea Batshuayi £35m Kante £32m Luiz £31m
Liverpool Mane £37m
17/18
City Laporte £58m Mendy £51m Walker £45 BSilva £42m Ederson £35m
Utd Lukaku £76m Matic £41m Lindelof £35m Sanchez £30m
Chelsea Morata £59m Bakayoko £36m Drinkwater £34m Rudiger £31m
Liverpool Van Dijk £76m Salah £38m Oxlade Chamberlain £34m
18/19
City Mahrez £60m
Utd Fred £53m
Chelsea Kepa £72m Pulisic £58m Jorginho £52m
Liverpool Alisson £56m Keita £54m Fabinho £40m
Its a stick we’re often beaten with from rivals and media alike
But if we just look at transfers over £30m since 10/11 it just doesn’t stack up
10/11
City Dzeko £33m
Utd
Chelsea Torres £56m
Liverpool Carroll £37m
11/12
City Aguero £36m
Utd
Chelsea
Liverpool
12/13
City
Utd Van Persie £30m
Chelsea Hazard £36m
Liverpool
13/14
City Fernandinho £36m
Utd Mata £42m Groot £30m
Chelsea Willian £32m
Liverpool
14/15
City
Utd Di Maria £62m Shaw £34m Herrera £33m
Chelsea Costa £35m Fabregas £30m
Liverpool
15/16
City DeBruyne £68m Stirling £55m Otamendi £38m
Utd Martial £54m Schneiderlein £32m Depay £32m
Chelsea
Liverpool Benteke £42m Firmino £31m
16/17
City Stones £50m Sane £45m
Utd Pogba £95m Mkitaryan £38m Bailly £35m
Chelsea Batshuayi £35m Kante £32m Luiz £31m
Liverpool Mane £37m
17/18
City Laporte £58m Mendy £51m Walker £45 BSilva £42m Ederson £35m
Utd Lukaku £76m Matic £41m Lindelof £35m Sanchez £30m
Chelsea Morata £59m Bakayoko £36m Drinkwater £34m Rudiger £31m
Liverpool Van Dijk £76m Salah £38m Oxlade Chamberlain £34m
18/19
City Mahrez £60m
Utd Fred £53m
Chelsea Kepa £72m Pulisic £58m Jorginho £52m
Liverpool Alisson £56m Keita £54m Fabinho £40m
I've got sheffield at 5000 to 1Be nice to have a title race with Wolves, next season. God ! that would really get the istree clubs frothing and foaming.
Why are Liverpool in this discussion?Its a stick we’re often beaten with from rivals and media alike
But if we just look at transfers over £30m since 10/11 it just doesn’t stack up
10/11
City Dzeko £33m
Utd
Chelsea Torres £56m
Liverpool Carroll £37m
11/12
City Aguero £36m
Utd
Chelsea
Liverpool
12/13
City
Utd Van Persie £30m
Chelsea Hazard £36m
Liverpool
13/14
City Fernandinho £36m
Utd Mata £42m Groot £30m
Chelsea Willian £32m
Liverpool
14/15
City
Utd Di Maria £62m Shaw £34m Herrera £33m
Chelsea Costa £35m Fabregas £30m
Liverpool
15/16
City DeBruyne £68m Stirling £55m Otamendi £38m
Utd Martial £54m Schneiderlein £32m Depay £32m
Chelsea
Liverpool Benteke £42m Firmino £31m
16/17
City Stones £50m Sane £45m
Utd Pogba £95m Mkitaryan £38m Bailly £35m
Chelsea Batshuayi £35m Kante £32m Luiz £31m
Liverpool Mane £37m
17/18
City Laporte £58m Mendy £51m Walker £45 BSilva £42m Ederson £35m
Utd Lukaku £76m Matic £41m Lindelof £35m Sanchez £30m
Chelsea Morata £59m Bakayoko £36m Drinkwater £34m Rudiger £31m
Liverpool Van Dijk £76m Salah £38m Oxlade Chamberlain £34m
18/19
City Mahrez £60m
Utd Fred £53m
Chelsea Kepa £72m Pulisic £58m Jorginho £52m
Liverpool Alisson £56m Keita £54m Fabinho £40m
But what about if long range and set piece goals counted double?Why are Liverpool in this discussion?
They didn’t get anywhere near challenging for the title in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
They have been irrelevant for the most part of this decade.
The table of the decade is:
1. City - 812 points, 4 titles
2. United - 759 points, 2 titles
3. Chelsea - 750 points, 3 titles
4. Arsenal - 719 points, 0 titles
Everyone else are miles behind.
Why are Liverpool in this discussion?
They didn’t get anywhere near challenging for the title in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
They have been irrelevant for the most part of this decade.
The table of the decade is:
1. City - 812 points, 4 titles
2. United - 759 points, 2 titles
3. Chelsea - 750 points, 3 titles
4. Arsenal - 719 points, 0 titles
Everyone else are miles behind.
Why are Liverpool in this discussion?
They didn’t get anywhere near challenging for the title in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
They have been irrelevant for the most part of this decade.
The table of the decade is:
1. City - 812 points, 4 titles
2. United - 759 points, 2 titles
3. Chelsea - 750 points, 3 titles
4. Arsenal - 719 points, 0 titles
Everyone else are miles behind./QUOTE]
If goals from long balls hoofed downfield by Liverpool were worth four points, they might nearly have finished second at least three times.
I don't see any legitimacy to the claims that the league has been bought, particularly when you look at how the club has set itself up to operate like any other business with decisions taken on a sporting level that are balanced by a sound fiscal approach too. We've already seen that even in terms of wages, City are topped by other clubs with less success. The only legitimate complaint, from my POV, is that while run very differently than PSG it is a reality that City have unlimited funds that are effectively derived by the state. No other clubs really have that advantage
And it is an advantage, obviously, to have unlimited financial stability despite running the club shrewdly - Very different pressure and consequently never in any club instability, irrespective of the results. For example, one of the silly criticisms City face is attendance but even if not a single City fan came to the Etihad over the next 10 years the club could continue to thrive - I'm pretty certain no other club could survive similar circumstances without the financial foundation & security that being state backed brings. So to that end, clubs like PSG & City have decided advantages that contribute to their overall success - to what degree is difficult to assess
Not that it matters perhaps but I like the way City is run - I don't get the impression that they are just throwing money at any & every problem despite the English narrative of them buying success. Although I am less familiar with how the academy is run and how they recruit talent. Nevertheless, it's remarkable from the outside looking in to see the way the media has regularly failed to give City, the players or Pep the credit it has earned. As I have remarked before, a Scottish or Welsh coach and there'd be talk of knighthood. If it had been Liverpool accomplishing what City have, the narrative would have been vastly different despite having as significant a foreign element to their success as that of City - from players to coaches & ownership. English media however has a history of failing to recognize their own hypocrisies IMHO
Curious if that narrative & media scrutiny will wear him out the way the Spanish media looked to sabotage his work at Barcelona
Didn't Leicester out spend all the teams in the Championship to gain promotion ?Of course you buy the league........it has been proved time and again that your final league position will be a couple of place either way of where you stand in the table showing wages spent on players per season.
Leicester were the exception with I think the eighth highest wage bill when they won it.
Norwich and Sheffield Utd nor Derby if promoted will not win the league....nor Everton...nor wolves...
they probably did......as I said of course you buy the league!Didn't Leicester out spend all the teams in the Championship to gain promotion ?
Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.Dave Kidd, that respected ( yeah I know) journo from the Sun says we've spent 1.5bn on transfers since 2008. Really?
Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.
Since 2011, we have been spending at an avg of £135m per season, Chelsea at £130m, Liverpool £100m and Utd £115m which isn't a lot of difference.
Ar'nt we still spending the money we got for SWP on players now ?I fucking love it, hope we buy it every year, the rest can go fuck themselves. Puts us again in pot 1 for CL if we are still in it. Salty fucking tears. Better than having to sell SWP to stay afloat.
Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.
Since 2011, we have been spending at an avg of £135m per season, Chelsea at £130m, Liverpool £100m and Utd £115m which isn't a lot of difference.
Get ready for loads of shit coming your way if you start winning things, which would be great (the winning, not the shit) because that would mean another of the entitled clubs being pushed out. It would also mean that the league would be a lot more competitive which is exactly what the rag dipper journos don't want.See my post on the Wolves thread Karen. They have stated that they aim to compete with the top clubs for top players this summer. They are the real deal and not prepared to stand still. This season was good but in their words, they didn't buy Wolves to finish 7th. This is just the start and they are already making big inroads into China (all our games are screened live there), Mexico as we signed Mexican national hero Raul Jimenez and of course, Portugal!
They are also investing heavily in the infrastructure of the club with big improvements to the training ground, laying replica pitches to the Molineux playing surfaces and plans to rebuild Molineux as a 50K seater. We have a waiting list of 5K for season tickets alone!