So £126.9m on Wirtz according to Fabrizio but the press let them say £116m(more acheivable addons). Now conflicting info on how much Isak will cost: Is it £125m or £130m? In terms of PR it doesn't even seem that much better to say 125m IMO but it's almost like Liverpool have PR contracts with most of the MSM. The way they get the most positive angles possible with their transfer business.
It annoys me as City fan because I watched the MSM make sure that City's winter transfer business was taken in isolation. Every transfer City make, they leave no stone unturned to quote the highest possible fee. They will believe any source, like they did with the Haaland transfer about agent fees and wages etc. Now, they are merging two different seasons together which quite clearly suits Liverpool(and Chelsea). So they can ignore that
City made over £177m in player sales(credit: BlueCityBrain) revenue last season, putting City
10th in the league on netspend, with £39.3m. Which means you could say the outgoings paid for most of the spending in Jan but none of the MSM said that. They continue to ignore it, with this 'Since Jan' Liverpool narrative. United had the 3rd highest netspend last season with £118.6m and are 3rd again this summer(so far), with City in 6th but you wouldn't think so listening to Sly Sports or reading the Daily Fail. Going by
Valuball's figures(BlueCityBrains new site?) though, I've noticed Donnarumma is already on there for £30m. Is that fee confirmed yet? I hope not, PSG wanted rid.
Anyway, if it's possible to pay to make sure at least some of the MSM are putting City's transfer business in a more even light, why aren't City doing it? It's not that I want the netspend trophy or anything but it can take pressure off the club and justify spending more when you need to(exactly what Liverpool seem to have been using the press for IMO).
Going into this summer window this is where City stood in terms of the 5 year netspend compared to the rest of the PL:
Liverpool will have moved up in that list by the end of the window but they will still look fine on a 5 year outlook. Chelsea have only recently started clawing back their netspend as you can see, yet their fans all seem to think their 'business strategy' deserves praise. It doesn't, as good as they sell(
so do City btw) they spent obsene amounts to attain most of those assets, you can't compare that to clubs outside of the big 6 or even within the big 6. That's without going into the loopholes which don't deserve praise either(City wouldn't get it, quite the opposite).
