LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Done. OursImagine it’s a player that we actually need!
Done. OursImagine it’s a player that we actually need!
The Mbappe mention was sarcasm!Thing is Mbappe doesn't want to sign for us.
If City felt they were being mugged off we wouldn't be buying him, it's happened many of times in the past.
Like I said leave the tears to the bitter rival fans and the press.
City could pay 200m for him and I wouldn't give a shit.
It is over 50% MORE than the City record fee we paid just last season!Right, this might not exactly be the most scientific method but it's the way I think of it. I've always believed that transfer inflation is a function of club revenue. City earn about £500m a year of which Grealish represents a 20% outlay.
So the easy way to compare a fee to a natural value is to look at a club's revenue that year and see the percentage of that revenue that someone paid. Again it's not the best method but it's how I look at it.
According to Companies House filings in 1989, United's revenue was £9.5m. In that year, they paid £2.3m for Gary Pallister and £2.4m for Paul Ince. That represents 24% and 25% of revenue respectively.
Converted into today's terms, that would mean they paid the equivalent of £120m for Pallister and £125m for Ince at around the same outlay as we're expected to have for Kane and Grealish.
I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything but I feel like some historical context on spending should be drawn in this conversation. £100m sounds like a lot of money now but it's less in real terms than the Pallister fee.
Rhetorical, to illustrate a point.Have you ever thougt,Pep might not want anyone from Dormung or PSG?
Genuine question.
I was making a point, Dad.What with son
How is 100m 50% more than 65m? Unless we are paying another 30mIt is over 50% MORE than the City record fee we paid just last season!
I think we are being mugged, but “we” isn’t “me” so spend away…I guess?!
If he comes, I hope he’s a brilliant success, scores & assists for fun and becomes an England regular.
But, think about that for a second, too…£100M for a player that just broke into the England team and has only played a few cameos!
£100m is 154% of £65m - he is hereHow is 100m 50% more than 65m? Unless we are paying another 30m
How is 100m 50% more than 65m? Unless we are paying another 30m
My mistake, I was think 100% either way, its money well spentThanks @Blue Coop, but if he didn’t get it first time, I think you’ve only confused him further with your “hieroglyphics!”
:-)
Let me make it easy:
50% of £65M is £32.5M
Therefore, 50% MORE than £65M would be:
£65M + £32.5M = £97.5M…
… or about £100M!
P.S. I liked the “You are here/He is here” approach, cheers!
JeezCorrect ,I believe Grealish is the closest thing to messi around atm
Are you on magic mushrooms or just need to wear your prescription glasses more oftenCorrect ,I believe Grealish is the closest thing to messi around atm
They’ll be calling him Michael Kane from Tottingham next. SSN employ Mark Wright, as soon as they did that they lost all remaining credibilityYep. And they've quoted Kanes age wrong. Absolute plonkers
I know, Grealish like Messi hahaThe trolls are out in full force
The reaction to Grealish on here is plain scary, WTF is going on?Are you on magic mushrooms or just need to wear your prescription glasses more often
Sorry, but I've never spotted Messi's alice band or him strutting his stuff with his socks down.Correct ,I believe Grealish is the closest thing to messi around atm