Funnily enough, Roy Keane brought it up twice and Vieira said it as well.
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.
Media thread 2022/23
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It’s mad the things I’ve read this week and especially today.
- People saying the leagues easier to win now
- Peps a chequebook manager, he’s had an open budget to write blank cheques
- City have spent X billion so it’s no surprise we’ve won the league
I can tell you, this is all bullshit, they’re incredibly lazy arguments which hold no weight when faced with facts. When the media say no one can compete with Pep due to finances, they’re actually getting his name mixed up with Alex Ferguson.
Only one team in the 90’s was consistently breaking transfer records, that was Utd, and no one was saying anything. In the early 2000’s they aggressively paid well over the odds for players, whilst everyone else was left behind. Leeds nearly bankrupted themselves between 2000-2003 trying to keep up with them and they failed to achieve anything. In 2001 they spent the equivalent in inflation to what Nottingham Forest have just spent to survive in the PL. In basic terms, PL teams have far more money now. Without FFP the majority of teams could break the British record transfer fee no problem, whereas in the 90’s only one team could do it consistently, that was Utd.
Alex Ferguson is the actual chequebook manager, he was the one with an open budget. He had no FFP to contend with, and he over inflated the market so much, that player values went beyond what most clubs could afford. In the early 00’s, teams at the mid to lower end of the league, were still working on budgets of the early 90’s. Whilst Ferguson signed players like Veron, Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Carrick, for exorbitant fees, way over the market values at the time. Ferdinand value was 2.5x over what the rest of the league was paying for the top market players. It would be like paying the equivalent of £250M today. He was doing it for years, and more to the point, for a long time when no one else could compete financially.
When Chelsea came along in 2002 with new ownership, now Ferguson and Utd had competition in the market. Chelsea went toe to toe with them, they went wild at the start with their signings, with no apparent regard for the actual value of players. As of last year, they’ve managed to inflate transfers on 14 occasions, by paying over market value for players. In comparison, Utd have done it 12 times, Liverpool and Arsenal just three times, Newcastle and Aston Villa only once and City, just twice. We only did it with Grealish and Diaz. Both are brilliant players, but Diaz was slightly over the market value at the time, and Grealish was quite a bit over. However, interestingly Grealish came down to a buyout clause in his contract, which was actually set in a year where the market values were inflated, so Aston Villa’s analytics team must’ve felt he could achieve the market cap. So in their defence, it was actually not such an over inflated figure. But It was only over inflated for us, because we had Covid and the transfer markets crashed quite a bit. If Covid hadn’t of happened, the £100M mark would’ve likely already been broken.
Pep and his teams transfer policy has been absolutely incredible since he arrived. We picked up Ederson, Stones, Laporte, Walker, Bernardo, Rodri, Gundogan, Haaland, Alvarez, for all around half the price or less, of top transfer caps in those season. If we had followed Utd and Chelsea’s past transfer dealings, we would’ve signed someone like John Stones for about £100M. But we didn’t, we got him a great price for the time.
The only reason City have had to spend Billions, is because Utd inflated the market from 93-2002, and then both Chelsea and Utd continued to do that up until this very day. When City signed Robinho for £30M+ in 2008, Utd had already got near that figure 3 times in 6 years with Veron, Ferdinand and Rooney, and Chelsea had got near that figure 5 times. Meaning the tone had been set for a top valued player. But If they hadn’t of inflated the transfers paying over the odds collectively on 8 occasions, in the years before. Robinho would’ve gone for around £15M. Since we were taken over, both Chelsea and Utd have consistently bought more expensive players than City, which result in the price of all top players going up. Whereas City have largely stayed under the radar of the top transfer bands. Which suggests our financial team has a great understanding of what the fair prices are in the climate, and will walk away from deals, that could cause inflation in transfers. Compared with Utd and Chelsea, who don’t seem to care at all, and never get called out for over spending or making stupid deals.
The fact Pep is still able to dominate when there is so many people at the table is astounding. We have signed many players for prices that other clubs could’ve easily afforded. Take our last window for example, Haaland, Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega. All players picked up for minimal fees, yet all of them could probably get in any side in the league. Whereas Chelsea went crazy, and again paid over the odds for Enzo Fernandez and Utd paid over the odds for both Anthony and Casemiro. However, it was the media slagging us off for signing Haaland.
It speaks volumes as to the job Pep and the club as a whole have done in the last few years. Whatever the media say, we should all be incredibly proud and extremely satisfied in the way we’ve gone about becoming a dominate force. We’ve done it in a better way, than both Utd and Chelsea have and that’s a fact, not just a bullshit opinion from some journalist who has never done any actual research.
- People saying the leagues easier to win now
- Peps a chequebook manager, he’s had an open budget to write blank cheques
- City have spent X billion so it’s no surprise we’ve won the league
I can tell you, this is all bullshit, they’re incredibly lazy arguments which hold no weight when faced with facts. When the media say no one can compete with Pep due to finances, they’re actually getting his name mixed up with Alex Ferguson.
Only one team in the 90’s was consistently breaking transfer records, that was Utd, and no one was saying anything. In the early 2000’s they aggressively paid well over the odds for players, whilst everyone else was left behind. Leeds nearly bankrupted themselves between 2000-2003 trying to keep up with them and they failed to achieve anything. In 2001 they spent the equivalent in inflation to what Nottingham Forest have just spent to survive in the PL. In basic terms, PL teams have far more money now. Without FFP the majority of teams could break the British record transfer fee no problem, whereas in the 90’s only one team could do it consistently, that was Utd.
Alex Ferguson is the actual chequebook manager, he was the one with an open budget. He had no FFP to contend with, and he over inflated the market so much, that player values went beyond what most clubs could afford. In the early 00’s, teams at the mid to lower end of the league, were still working on budgets of the early 90’s. Whilst Ferguson signed players like Veron, Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Carrick, for exorbitant fees, way over the market values at the time. Ferdinand value was 2.5x over what the rest of the league was paying for the top market players. It would be like paying the equivalent of £250M today. He was doing it for years, and more to the point, for a long time when no one else could compete financially.
When Chelsea came along in 2002 with new ownership, now Ferguson and Utd had competition in the market. Chelsea went toe to toe with them, they went wild at the start with their signings, with no apparent regard for the actual value of players. As of last year, they’ve managed to inflate transfers on 14 occasions, by paying over market value for players. In comparison, Utd have done it 12 times, Liverpool and Arsenal just three times, Newcastle and Aston Villa only once and City, just twice. We only did it with Grealish and Diaz. Both are brilliant players, but Diaz was slightly over the market value at the time, and Grealish was quite a bit over. However, interestingly Grealish came down to a buyout clause in his contract, which was actually set in a year where the market values were inflated, so Aston Villa’s analytics team must’ve felt he could achieve the market cap. So in their defence, it was actually not such an over inflated figure. But It was only over inflated for us, because we had Covid and the transfer markets crashed quite a bit. If Covid hadn’t of happened, the £100M mark would’ve likely already been broken.
Pep and his teams transfer policy has been absolutely incredible since he arrived. We picked up Ederson, Stones, Laporte, Walker, Bernardo, Rodri, Gundogan, Haaland, Alvarez, for all around half the price or less, of top transfer caps in those season. If we had followed Utd and Chelsea’s past transfer dealings, we would’ve signed someone like John Stones for about £100M. But we didn’t, we got him a great price for the time.
The only reason City have had to spend Billions, is because Utd inflated the market from 93-2002, and then both Chelsea and Utd continued to do that up until this very day. When City signed Robinho for £30M+ in 2008, Utd had already got near that figure 3 times in 6 years with Veron, Ferdinand and Rooney, and Chelsea had got near that figure 5 times. Meaning the tone had been set for a top valued player. But If they hadn’t of inflated the transfers paying over the odds collectively on 8 occasions, in the years before. Robinho would’ve gone for around £15M. Since we were taken over, both Chelsea and Utd have consistently bought more expensive players than City, which result in the price of all top players going up. Whereas City have largely stayed under the radar of the top transfer bands. Which suggests our financial team has a great understanding of what the fair prices are in the climate, and will walk away from deals, that could cause inflation in transfers. Compared with Utd and Chelsea, who don’t seem to care at all, and never get called out for over spending or making stupid deals.
The fact Pep is still able to dominate when there is so many people at the table is astounding. We have signed many players for prices that other clubs could’ve easily afforded. Take our last window for example, Haaland, Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega. All players picked up for minimal fees, yet all of them could probably get in any side in the league. Whereas Chelsea went crazy, and again paid over the odds for Enzo Fernandez and Utd paid over the odds for both Anthony and Casemiro. However, it was the media slagging us off for signing Haaland.
It speaks volumes as to the job Pep and the club as a whole have done in the last few years. Whatever the media say, we should all be incredibly proud and extremely satisfied in the way we’ve gone about becoming a dominate force. We’ve done it in a better way, than both Utd and Chelsea have and that’s a fact, not just a bullshit opinion from some journalist who has never done any actual research.
Last edited:
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,496
Oh, look, Miguel Delaney did his article again
I never write in this thread but I'll say my two cents regarding hearing about these journalists coming out now.
Everything regarding FFP is stupid... because FFP is stupid a concept.
FFP was NOT designed to keep the league competitive, that is a big misnomer the general populace has.
Instead it was a limitation on spending wherein the big clubs stayed big and the small clubs stay small, hence, FFP is essentially ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
Even if City did break FFP rules, I don't care at all if media spew this because FFP is a sham to begin with.
On top of that, FFP was designed to stop clubs from going bankrupt, and over the last few years we have STILL SEEN MANY CLUBS FUCK UP FINANCES EVEN WITH FFP. And City were clearly never in danger of going bankrupt, so it's design implementation for it's intention was insanely flawed.
The league could have easily put in a limit to spending by ALL clubs in the premier league, similar to America which forces all teams to have the same wage/spending cap, but they didn't. If they truly wanted competition, where everybody is fighting for the league they could have done this.
Anyways, that's it. FFP is the biggest sham of a system I have ever seen in professional sport.
Everything regarding FFP is stupid... because FFP is stupid a concept.
FFP was NOT designed to keep the league competitive, that is a big misnomer the general populace has.
Instead it was a limitation on spending wherein the big clubs stayed big and the small clubs stay small, hence, FFP is essentially ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
Even if City did break FFP rules, I don't care at all if media spew this because FFP is a sham to begin with.
On top of that, FFP was designed to stop clubs from going bankrupt, and over the last few years we have STILL SEEN MANY CLUBS FUCK UP FINANCES EVEN WITH FFP. And City were clearly never in danger of going bankrupt, so it's design implementation for it's intention was insanely flawed.
The league could have easily put in a limit to spending by ALL clubs in the premier league, similar to America which forces all teams to have the same wage/spending cap, but they didn't. If they truly wanted competition, where everybody is fighting for the league they could have done this.
Anyways, that's it. FFP is the biggest sham of a system I have ever seen in professional sport.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
The reaction to our title win, unsurprisingly, has been absolutely scandalous. Led by the BBC. Innocent until proven guilty my arse. The cartel have won, the truth doesn’t matter. If only the club showed the same appetite to fight as Pep and the players.
Last edited:
daveoswald
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2022
- Messages
- 718
Partly, but the the real reason was the enlightenment, innovation and being sat on vast coal deposits to drive it.The history of the country is based on success through brutal violence against poorer peoples at home and abroad and anyone who stood up against it has been violently put down.
Indeed what’s also apparent is that the premier league by fucking up the charges even after 4 years of investigation and the appeal are indicative the cunts have changed the rules every year based on what we submitted and want to proceed retrospectively.I never write in this thread but I'll say my two cents regarding hearing about these journalists coming out now.
Everything regarding FFP is stupid... because FFP is stupid a concept.
FFP was NOT designed to keep the league competitive, that is a big misnomer the general populace has.
Instead it was a limitation on spending wherein the big clubs stayed big and the small clubs stay small, hence, FFP is essentially ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
Even if City did break FFP rules, I don't care at all if media spew this because FFP is a sham to begin with.
On top of that, FFP was designed to stop clubs from going bankrupt, and over the last few years we have STILL SEEN MANY CLUBS FUCK UP FINANCES EVEN WITH FFP. And City were clearly never in danger of going bankrupt, so it's design implementation for it's intention was insanely flawed.
The league could have easily put in a limit to spending by ALL clubs in the premier league, similar to America which forces all teams to have the same wage/spending cap, but they didn't. If they truly wanted competition, where everybody is fighting for the league they could have done this.
Anyways, that's it. FFP is the biggest sham of a system I have ever seen in professional sport.
If they had put a bit of thought into the Alvarez situation. They could have actually written a good article.The quote from the article; "So you don’t just sign Erling Haaland, you sign Julián Álvarez to give him a rest. Kalvin Phillips arrives for £45m, doesn’t play all season, and it’s fine."
Absolutely ridiculous that buying Alvarez for £14m is somehow a sign that City have a bottomless pit of money, when we've sold three forwards for £150m+ in the same year.
A World Cup winner sitting waiting for Haaland to get tired. Or a player being taught to play Kev’s role.
Have we bought the next Kevin De Bruyne for £14 Million.
Fuck me mate I'm not good enough with words but obviously you are, because you've just wrote exactly what I feel. Not just what I feel but what I know is the truth after growing up with Liverpool and the rags dominating football for decades.It’s mad the things I’ve read this week and especially today.
- People saying the leagues easier to win now
- Peps a chequebook manager, he’s had an open budget to write blank cheques
- City have spent X billion so it’s no surprise we’ve won the league
I can tell you, this is all bullshit, they’re incredibly lazy arguments which hold no weight when faced with facts. When the media say no one can compete with Pep due to finances, they’re actually getting his name mixed up with Alex Ferguson.
Only one team in the 90’s was consistently breaking transfer records, that was Utd, and no one was saying anything. In the early 2000’s they aggressively paid well over the odds for players, whilst everyone else was left behind. Leeds nearly bankrupted themselves between 2000-2003 trying to keep up with them and they failed to achieve anything. In 2001 they spent the equivalent in inflation to what Nottingham Forest have just spent to survive in the PL. In basic terms, PL teams have far more money now. Without FFP the majority of teams could break the British record transfer fee no problem, whereas in the 90’s only one team could do it consistently, that was Utd.
Alex Ferguson is the actual chequebook manager, he was the one with an open budget. He had no FFP to contend with, and he over inflated the market so much, that player values went beyond what most clubs could afford. In the early 00’s, teams at the mid to lower end of the league, were still working on budgets of the early 90’s. Whilst Ferguson signed players like Veron, Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Carrick, for exorbitant fees, way over the market values at the time. Ferdinand value was 2.5x over what the rest of the league was paying for the top market players. It would be like paying the equivalent of £250M today. He was doing it for years, and more to the point, for a long time when no one else could compete financially.
When Chelsea came along in 2002 with new ownership, now Ferguson and Utd had competition in the market. Chelsea went toe to toe with them, they went wild at the start with their signings, with no apparent regard for the actual value of players. As of last year, they’ve managed to inflate transfers on 14 occasions, by paying over market value for players. In comparison, Utd have done it 12 times, Liverpool and Arsenal just three times, Newcastle and Aston Villa only once and City, just twice. We only did it with Grealish and Diaz. Both are brilliant players, but Diaz was slightly over the market value at the time, and Grealish was quite a bit over. However, interestingly Grealish came down to a buyout clause in his contract, which was actually set in a year where the market values were inflated, so Aston Villa’s analytics team must’ve felt he could achieve the market cap. So in their defence, it was actually not such an over inflated figure. But It was only over inflated for us, because we had Covid and the transfer markets crashed quite a bit. If Covid hadn’t of happened, the £100M mark would’ve likely already been broken.
Pep and his teams transfer policy has been absolutely incredible since he arrived. We picked up Ederson, Stones, Laporte, Walker, Bernardo, Rodri, Gundogan, Haaland, Alvarez, for all around half the price or less, of top transfer caps in those season. If we had followed Utd and Chelsea’s past transfer dealings, we would’ve signed someone like John Stones for about £100M. But we didn’t, we got him a great price for the time.
The only reason City have had to spend Billions, is because Utd inflated the market from 93-2002, and then both Chelsea and Utd continued to do that up until this very day. When City signed Robinho for £30M+ in 2008, Utd had already got near that figure 3 times in 6 years with Veron, Ferdinand and Rooney, and Chelsea had got near that figure 5 times. Meaning the tone had been set for a top valued player. But If they hadn’t of inflated the transfers paying over the odds collectively on 8 occasions, in the years before. Robinho would’ve gone for around £15M. Since we were taken over, both Chelsea and Utd have consistently bought more expensive players than City, which result in the price of all top players going up. Whereas City have largely stayed under the radar of the top transfer bands. Which suggests our financial team has a great understanding of what the fair prices are in the climate, and will walk away from deals, that could cause inflation in transfers. Compared with Utd and Chelsea, who don’t seem to care at all, and never get called out for over spending or making stupid deals.
The fact Pep is still able to dominate when there is so many people at the table is astounding. We have signed many players for prices that other clubs could’ve easily afforded. Take our last window for example, Haaland, Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega. All players picked up for minimal fees, yet all of them could probably get in any side in the league. Whereas Chelsea went crazy, and again paid over the odds for Enzo Fernandez and Utd paid over the odds for both Anthony and Casemiro. However, it was the media slagging us off for signing Haaland.
It speaks volumes as to the job Pep and the club as a whole have done in the last few years. Whatever the media say, we should all be incredibly proud and extremely satisfied in the way we’ve gone about becoming a dominate force. We’ve done it in a better way, than both Utd and Chelsea have and that’s a fact, not just a bullshit opinion from some journalist who has never done any actual research.
What a post, absolutely brilliant.
Enjoy your night fellow blue.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.