True, when you look at it that way. I'm buzzing to potentially see Enzo and Mudryk in action tonight for example.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Last 5 years netspend City and the rest of the PL
- Thread starter BlueBrain
- Start date
True, when you look at it that way. I'm buzzing to potentially see Enzo and Mudryk in action tonight for example.
The trouble with the Chelsea plan, is it's a "all eggs in one basket" deal.
Long contracts and amortisation to spread the costs will only work if all the buys are sound.
What happens if the players bought stink?
Don't gel well due to too many incoming players all at once?
Get long term injured?
Want a move?
All the above will reduce a players value if they need to sell.
So any replacement will cost more than the outgoing player.
They already have no wriggle room to spend more.
Risky, but it could work. If not, they are going bust or at least selling the club.
Long contracts and amortisation to spread the costs will only work if all the buys are sound.
What happens if the players bought stink?
Don't gel well due to too many incoming players all at once?
Get long term injured?
Want a move?
All the above will reduce a players value if they need to sell.
So any replacement will cost more than the outgoing player.
They already have no wriggle room to spend more.
Risky, but it could work. If not, they are going bust or at least selling the club.
I have seen loads and loads of negative stories about Chelsea. I have seen pundits on skysports, talksport etc all have a go at ridiculing Boehly and Chelsea for either spending too much, or being clueless, or distorting the market etc. To me it seems like endless avalanche but I guess to someone who only checks for City news, all that stuff will go unnoticed. It is what it is though.
Chelsea fans complain about the exact same things City fans complain about - that Chelsea get unfair press coverage and that there is a media agenda against Chelsea etc, hence I find it difficult to take it seriously when a fan of any club complains about being the target of media agenda.
Yeah we do pick up what we want as supporters, your clubs lucky you get positives City be lucky to have one positive article after spending €750m in season!
Better than having no eggs I guess. Must be super exciting for Chelsea fans at the prospect of it coming together in 18 months to two years time. It’s why we can’t stand still this summer, need to really push the squad on.The trouble with the Chelsea plan, is it's a "all eggs in one basket" deal.
Long contracts and amortisation to spread the costs will only work if all the buys are sound.
What happens if the players bought stink?
Don't gel well due to too many incoming players all at once?
Get long term injured?
Want a move?
All the above will reduce a players value if they need to sell.
So any replacement will cost more than the outgoing player.
They already have no wriggle room to spend more.
Risky, but it could work. If not, they are going bust or at least selling the club.
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 8,273
- Team supported
- Manchester city
No I thought yo meant new stories.Seriously?
I think we’re potentially saying the same thing, but I’m ok with it and Chelsea fans should be to.The trouble with the Chelsea plan, is it's a "all eggs in one basket" deal.
Long contracts and amortisation to spread the costs will only work if all the buys are sound.
What happens if the players bought stink?
Don't gel well due to too many incoming players all at once?
Get long term injured?
Want a move?
All the above will reduce a players value if they need to sell.
So any replacement will cost more than the outgoing player.
They already have no wriggle room to spend more.
Risky, but it could work. If not, they are going bust or at least selling the club.
What happens if it doesn’t work? Well they do poorly fall out of top 4 and need to come up with a strategy and start again, no doubt from a worse position.
The issue we have is the history clubs feel they should be at the top and that it should be consistent.
This idea of clubs trying new things and risk/ reward seems correct to me.
The issue I have with the whole net pay etc. is there is no real balancing figure.
If everyone had £500 million to spend plus sales over 10 years you could look and say well they won’t have much left, they will have to sell.
However, the reality in the Prem seems different and the ones with the high spends seem the same every season.
We have changed our pattern and so have Chelsea to the extent.
If this low net spend means we can really splash out that’s great, if it is a target and we go for value over first choice etc. Then I think the squad suffers.
If everyone had £500 million to spend plus sales over 10 years you could look and say well they won’t have much left, they will have to sell.
However, the reality in the Prem seems different and the ones with the high spends seem the same every season.
We have changed our pattern and so have Chelsea to the extent.
If this low net spend means we can really splash out that’s great, if it is a target and we go for value over first choice etc. Then I think the squad suffers.
The obvious flaw with net spend is the idea that a net spend of 0 is somehow desirable or commendable.The issue I have with the whole net pay etc. is there is no real balancing figure.
If everyone had £500 million to spend plus sales over 10 years you could look and say well they won’t have much left, they will have to sell.
However, the reality in the Prem seems different and the ones with the high spends seem the same every season.
We have changed our pattern and so have Chelsea to the extent.
If this low net spend means we can really splash out that’s great, if it is a target and we go for value over first choice etc. Then I think the squad suffers.
These are businesses with hundreds of millions in revenue, if they're not reinvesting a decent amount of that revenue in the thing that earns them that money (the squad) then they're being mismanaged - either it's being creamed off the top by greedy owners or being pissed away in huge wages.
I would suggest a net spend of 10% of revenue is about right, so 60m for the richest clubs, 20m for smaller ones.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Your owners are white Yanks. Our owners are brown Arabs. It's that simple... :-/The idea that no one is saying a word about Chelsea is a bit wild to be honest. It just tells me that you (like most people) only consume your own club's news and don't really bother checking what's being said about other clubs. It's like a saw a Newcastle complain about this too, saying something along the lines of 'Chelsea spend x amount of money, not a word but we spend 12m on Dan Burn and the press goes into a meltdown about how we're ruining football'.
If you only consume City news, well of course you're gonna think City get a much harder time from the press than any other club.
Go to four minutes of Pep's press conference & you can taste the anger within our club that others can be up to their bollocks in debt, & still be as profligate with their spending as they like.
Hell UEFA/G14 will even bend over & change FFP rules to suit the European elite, but where City are concerned they want to introduce capital punishment as a deterrent to spending our sensible transfer budget!
When we were stitched up over FFP in 2014, we should have adopted PSG's approach & just spent what we liked & paid the resulting fine.
Why? At the eleventh hour, UEFA/G14 changed their FFP rules meaning City went from being £3m inside FFP, to being £3m outside AFTER UEFA had PASSED our interim accounts. They then changed the FFP monitoring period rules BEFORE we submitted our final accounts four weeks later without telling anyone, hence we failed!!
We were fined £50m, had a £50m net transfer cap placed on us for 3 seasons, & our Champions League squad was also reduced to 20 players for 3 seasons, with a requirement we still field 4 academy trained & 4 association trained players!
PSG? They failed FFP by £300m & received the same punishment as City! :-/
We may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. At least PSG got Mbappé, Neymar & Messi out of it... \0/
Last edited: