Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fee for Diaz was £60 m , but £20 m was for Otemendi (who was in the last year of his contract and could have left for nothing , and we would have let leave for nothing if any one was interested)
But by cobbling the two deals together it says £60 m when really it’s £40 m for Diaz and£20 m for the general
It basically means we pay the balance (£40m)over the length of Diaz’s contract(5years) so £8 m per season for us and Benfica get to count £60 m over 5 years on their profit page so £12 m per season towards their bottom line for FFP

ITS A PAPER EXERCISE

DIAZ HAS COST US £40 m

fantastic piece of business

we also did a similar deal for Cancelo with Danilo but the press will never mention the real cost of the deal because it’s City
 
franksinatra said:
In fairness, and context is everything, Edersons price was highlighted in the context of what a bargain it was an unknown thanat 34 million, similarly that was the case with Dias, highlighting what an excellent buy he is proving, and how few top class centre halfs there are available.
Click to expand...
What 'context' (otherwise known as Frank's Justifications for anti City Comments' for a tortuous article in some paper at the time Ederson. It converted the price City paid in Euros into sterling and then converted it to Euros at the time Buffon became the most expensive goalie some 16 years beforeand the conversion rate was very differnt
Lo and behold ,' flthy rich City owned by filthy oil rich arabs have blown more on an unknkown than on the worlds best goalie at the time.'
Additionally Darke mentioned a player costing £mega 'plus add-ons'. On the odd occasions they mention transfer fees add ons are never mentioned although nearly all have them.
So what is the context of this other than always looking to paint an anti City picture?
 
Mike Cledford said:
What 'context' (otherwise known as Frank's Justifications for anti City Comments' for a tortuous article in some paper at the time Ederson. It converted the price City paid in Euros into sterling and then converted it to Euros at the time Buffon became the most expensive goalie some 16 years beforeand the conversion rate was very differnt
Lo and behold ,' flthy rich City owned by filthy oil rich arabs have blown more on an unknkown than on the worlds best goalie at the time.'
Additionally Darke mentioned a player costing £mega 'plus add-ons'. On the odd occasions they mention transfer fees add ons are never mentioned although nearly all have them.
So what is the context of this other than always looking to paint an anti City picture?
Click to expand...

I think that post highlights exactly why ‘context’ is needed.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
Not sure why our club is targeted for transfer fees , fair play the first few seasons we were bank rolled no doubt , but for the last five seasons we have spent what we have earned FFP has seen to that , the difference is our owners do not milk the profits like the Glazers , FSG Group and Kroenke . Sheik Mansour pours every penny back into MCFC and CFG. We should be the envy of the football world , because our profits go back into football and not to buy shopping malls.
Click to expand...
An accurate post , explains how so many are on pay roll to smear us. Our success would expose this more in other clubs. CTID.
 
Last edited:
You never hear 70m Allison or 65m virgil or 90m pogba or 54m martial mentioned, Chelsea just get a pat on the arse for a good transfer window as they 'needed to do it'.
It's getting predictable and boring but we'll never get a fair crack of the whip with the press, we could win the premier league with our U12s playing but the media would try and sour it with some nonsense.
But Ian Darke whether he's doing it off his own back or has the producer in his ear telling him what to say gets on my fuckin nerves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top