Ah but could we have signed him as well ?
I have absolutely no idea now, where we are upto re sponsorship etc.
Guardian article - how we got away with spending zillions this window etc
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/sep/02/financial-fair-play-manchester-city
Profit of £30m or so we could have managed it. Unless you're compiling City's books you'll find out how much the sponsorship levels have grown when the accounts come out. Must be up a fair bit though.
Profit of £30m or so we could have managed it. Unless you're compiling City's books you'll find out how much the sponsorship levels have grown when the accounts come out. Must be up a fair bit though.
Am I right in thinking we haven't signed a new deal with an Abu Dhabi based sponsor since 2011? Would be nice to be able to say that and watch the confusion on peoples faces when they realise we're an attractive sponsorship opportunity for anyone.
The problem is not that City are able to spend FFP legally it is that the other clubs are not prepared to invest their profits in a similar fashion.
Arsenal this morning claiming a lack of players for their inactivity which is another way of saying the owners want to use their considerable surplus in other directions Mike Ashley style.
That is their choice as is the decision by Mr A. to saddle Chelsea with the debt of his investment loan to them.
The worry for all clubs including European giants is that the City juggernaut is gathering pace so they all have the choice to either compete by gambling their Business Plan against City's for player investment cost or settle for a guaranteed profit rather than competing for expensive players.
In fact they are now competing against ADUG where new sponsorship money will be attracted to City rather than others. City are the team to beat in the PL and perhaps CL whether Sky or BT like it or not so maximum exposure for all our sponsors who will already have recognised the way Etihad Airways have progressed via association with City.
Good post and a fair summation I think of the choices the 'other three' face in terms of how to compete with City.
My own opinion is that Abramovich decided long ago he wasn't going to compete. Hence the biggest transfer fee they've paid post Torres is 32 million pounds for Costa/Hazard. This is a very different model from the one he used when he came in and is much closer to the Arsenal one. It's interesting for me because if Chelsea/Arsenal do continue to be content with a top 4 finish each year without there being an enormous pressure to deliver trophies we could end up in a situation where City dominate the league for the foreseeable future.
In a way that'd be a shame. Winning a competitive league is far more satisfying that winning a two team one. I'm not saying it's currently uncompetitive BTW, just that if the trends continue I can see us being miles ahead of the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal in five years time.
Good post and a fair summation I think of the choices the 'other three' face in terms of how to compete with City.
My own opinion is that Abramovich decided long ago he wasn't going to compete. Hence the biggest transfer fee they've paid post Torres is 32 million pounds for Costa/Hazard. This is a very different model from the one he used when he came in and is much closer to the Arsenal one. It's interesting for me because if Chelsea/Arsenal do continue to be content with a top 4 finish each year without there being an enormous pressure to deliver trophies we could end up in a situation where City dominate the league for the foreseeable future.
In a way that'd be a shame. Winning a competitive league is far more satisfying that winning a two team one. I'm not saying it's currently uncompetitive BTW, just that if the trends continue I can see us being miles ahead of the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal in five years time.