It's Quiet 18 - Wanna ring the bell?

[Great Kompany]

Was for more than a sentimental decision, come on now. He was unarguably one of the top midfielders in La Liga last season. And we didn't have to pay a fee, and we needed depth at the position. And we missed out on bringing in our main targets. The transfer couldn't have made more sense.

He was one of the top midfielders in a very insipid Laliga season with another year adding to his age. He was 33 coming to a highly aggressive premier league with an extend Champions league and a club world cup on the horizon. Not to discount the fact that Rodri was almost dead due to tiredness last season and would not be able to play more than 30-40 matches this season.

I am not paid millions to foresee all of this but the people who are paid must have thought of all of this.

Our board changed policy of only hiring from the premier league ( Ake,Nunes,Grealish,Kalvin Phillips) has misfired big fucking time and we are now at some 250 Million in the red. The investment in Laliga and Bundesliga would have done wonders.

I love Bruno G. and would love for him to play for us but I hope our scouts have one player up their sleeves playing in Lyon, Stuttgard or Benfica if Bruno G. deal fail to materialize next month.

 

[Great Kompany]

Another thing while listening to multiple podcasts about Man City during the last month was the interesting buy of Gvardiol. He was bought because he was available and Leipzig was willing to sell. In short an easier transfer negotiation.

A LB like Robinson would have been better investment in half the money but the board decided to take the easier option that they often tend to do in the last 4-5 years. There is a reason we only do release clauses because they are easy.

In order to revive the club into another cycle of stupendous success, we need to alter our playbook as most organisations do after a down period.

 

[Bluewonder]

I like the sounds of this. But I think whenever a player is involved now they're sold for cash for the benefit of both teams PSR headroom.

We pay Newcastle for Bruno G for £75m, they pay us £25m for Nunes (essentially the £50m + player valued at £25m. Both teams get to add the values to PSR calculations. Writing off Nunes for £0 won't happen.

Selling Nunes for £25m would realise a loss.

 

[bluetonium]

Sounds too good to be true

Yes please! Let the speculation commence. Er, I mean continue unabated!

 

[vincent]

Another thing while listening to multiple podcasts about Man City during the last month was the interesting buy of Gvardiol. He was bought because he was available and Leipzig was willing to sell. In short an easier transfer negotiation.

A LB like Robinson would have been better investment in half the money but the board decided to take the easier option that they often tend to do in the last 4-5 years. There is a reason we only do release clauses because they are easy.

In order to revive the club into another cycle of stupendous success, we need to alter our playbook as most organisations do after a down period.

Yeah. Robinson is a cracking player and perhaps would have made more sense. But Gvardiol is quality so no regrets about signing him for me.

 

[Vester]

Selling Nunes for £25m would realise a loss.

It would, this financial year. But this deal is only going to happen if it would be something like 100m (Bruno G) & 50m (Nunes). Thats what would help Newcastle with their PSR problems, which is the whole reason to why they could be open to selling.

But for us, if the fee in reality would be 50m + Nunes, the financials will over a 5 year period be the same regardless if it's 50m & 0m or 100m & 50m. Any loss in the books this year would be money saved other years.

If we pay 20m more than we think Bruno G is worth just so we can get 20m more for Nunes so we wont make a book loss on him, it's essentially a 20m loss anyway. The only difference is what financial years that will be affected.

Not the end of the world making a book loss on a player, thats the cost of doing bad business. In the end of the day, selling a 50m signing thats failed after 1 year for 30m, meaning a 10m book loss is still "better" business then selling a 50m signing for 20m after 3 years, even if it means no book loss. Since 30m in is more than 20m in.

 

[langy]

I know he gig discounted before but luis Diaz would rip that wing apart . Very good player but Barca bound .,

Barca can't afford anyone they may lose Dani olmo as they can't register him

 

[WRicko]

It would, this financial year. But this deal is only going to happen if it would be something like 100m (Bruno G) & 50m (Nunes). Thats what would help Newcastle with their PSR problems, which is the whole reason to why they could be open to selling.

But for us, if the fee in reality would be 50m + Nunes, the financials will over a 5 year period be the same regardless if it's 50m & 0m or 100m & 50m. Any loss in the books this year would be money saved other years.

If we pay 20m more than we think Bruno G is worth just so we can get 20m more for Nunes so we wont make a book loss on him, it's essentially a 20m loss anyway. The only difference is what financial years that will be affected.

Not the end of the world making a book loss on a player, thats the cost of doing bad business. In the end of the day, selling a 50m signing thats failed after 1 year for 30m, meaning a 10m book loss is still "better" business then selling a 50m signing for 20m after 3 years, even if it means no book loss. Since 30m in is more than 20m in.

Player costs are spread over years so City might take less than they paid for Nunes for the right player but they won’t want to make a loss in the accounts even if it means paying more for the incoming player. We have seen this before with clubs

 

[MCFCFanTX]

Hopefully we do go big and spend in January. I miss the "city is ruining football" discourse. I need that.

 

[Vester]

Player costs are spread over years so City might take less than they paid for Nunes for the right player but they won’t want to make a loss in the accounts even if it means paying more for the incoming player. We have seen this before with clubs

Yes this is basically what I wrote. I just said that over a 5 year period the cost for the club will be the same regardless if it's 100m & 50m or 50m & 0. With other words, not the end of the world to make a book loss on a player unless you have immediate problems of meeting PSR.

Just wrote my post since the way some people are talking one could think its better to sell a 50m signing before his final year for 10m and no book loss than to sell him for 20m after 2 years at a 10m book loss. When the player has cost the club 50m regardless and 20m in is more than 10m in.