Re-build and Net Spend

[Metalartin]

To be fair the OP has cherry picked a period where our spending dropped - according to Transfermarkt in the previous two seasons our net spend was over £300m, and the figures above include £35m of outgoings for this season without any arrivals yet.

Villa are nowhere close, and still have a wage bill not much more than a third of ours.

Still - the Swiss Ramble figures and Prestwich Blue have a more balanced look. We've spent big, but netspend is just one part of the story (e.g. retiring a club legend, and paying £50m for a young, lower waged replacement, hammers the net spend, but can leave the club better off overall).

The last 3 years is no more of a cherry pick than picking a time period from 2014 to 2019. Cherry picking their inputs, is what the United and Liverpool sycophant journalists have been doing for years. Whichever inputs they can use that make City look worse in comparison to United/Liverpool, sometimes leaving United out of the picture when it suits them(because Liverpool have spent very well in fairness), they'll use because they aren't interested in a balanced view. Player wages, used to be one of the biggest talking points, the minute United are top of pile(2nd highest in Europe at one time if I remember right) they stop talking about it as one of the biggest problems in modern football. Liverpool had a higher wage bill than City after winning the CL, I seem to remember unfounded excuses about City not including the full staff wage bill(hence the tea lady's wage jokes). Same with transfer inflation, when the figures don't fit their narrative --because United and Chelsea have done more market inflating deals than City in the PL era by far-- they aren't interested as much. Andy Carrol cost around £5m more than Aguero too in the same period which always makes me laugh when I'm reminded of it.

By the start of the 22/23 season, we will have most likely have done our rebuild and have a 5 year period to compare with the likes of Chelsea and United and Liverpool all who have to strengthen just as much as we do, if not more in some cases. Hopefully by then we will even have some more academy graduates in the first team too(regulars).

 

[manimanc]

And that was back in the good old days when you had to be champions just to be in it.
To be honest - I'm a bit jealous

Of?

 

[bluenova]

The last 3 years is no more of a cherry pick than picking a time period from 2014 to 2019. Cherry picking their inputs is what the United and Liverpool sycophant journalists have been doing for years. Player wages used to be one of the biggest talking points, the minute United are top of pile(2nd highest in Europe at one time if I remember right) they stop talking about it as one of the biggest problems in modern football. Same with transfer inflation, when the figures don't fit their narrative, because United and Chelsea have done more market inflating deals than City in the PL era by far, they aren't interested as much.

by the start of the 22/23 season we will have done our rebuild and have a 5 year period to compare with the likes of Chelsea and United and Liverpool all who have to strengthen just as much as we do, if not more in some cases.

My main point is that I don't think netspend is a valid comparison with some other big clubs because City had a squad of 30somethings on high wages, and replaced them with much younger/cheaper players.

When you look at how much the top teams have actually spent in their accounts (the Swiss Ramble figures), City's spending looks a lot more reasonable.

However, it does cherry pick if you start just after the season where we had a net spend of £200m, and includes the quirk of early summer 2021 where we've sold quite a few non-squad players for £35m. Just because dodgy journos do it, doesn't mean we should.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The last 3 years is no more of a cherry pick than picking a time period from 2014 to 2019. Cherry picking their inputs, is what the United and Liverpool sycophant journalists have been doing for years. Which ever inputs they can use that make City look worse in comparison to United/Liverpool, sometimes leaving United out of the picture when it suits them(because Liverpool have spent very well in fairness). Player wages used to be one of the biggest talking points, the minute United are top of pile(2nd highest in Europe at one time if I remember right) they stop talking about it as one of the biggest problems in modern football. Same with transfer inflation, when the figures don't fit their narrative --because United and Chelsea have done more market inflating deals than City in the PL era by far-- they aren't interested as much.

By the start of the 22/23 season, we will have most likely have done our rebuild and have a 5 year period to compare with the likes of Chelsea and United and Liverpool all who have to strengthen just as much as we do, if not more in some cases. Hopefully by then we will even have some more academy graduates in the first team too(regulars).

Exactly.

My

 

[Metalartin]

However, it does cherry pick if you start just after the season where we had a net spend of £200m, and includes the quirk of early summer 2021 where we've sold quite a few non-squad players for £35m. Just because dodgy journos do it, doesn't mean we should.

Which is why I highlighted the facts about what's been going on for years. My argument wasn't that it isn't selective, it was that it's no more selective than most of the comparisons done about City in the last 10 years. They even tried to make Chelsea the most successful team of the last decade of PL just gone when the sensible answer was City(11 trophies to their 10, Pep made a point of saying it was City in a few of his conferences which I enjoyed). They constantly try and control the narrative because they don't want City to be seen in a positive light. So I don't really mind seeing the City fans giving a different a different view. As long as it's correct, nobody can really argue. That's what they tell us, when the shoe is on the other foot.

The fans should do it more if anything and the club should do it more too because I know they hate having to read out the stats or the new records, that the club informs them of, on Sky or BT.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Which is why I highlighted the facts about what's been going on for years. My argument wasn't that it isn't selective, it was that it's no more selective than most of the comparisons done about City in the last 10 years. They even tried to make Chelsea the most successful team of the last decade of PL just gone when the sensible answer was City(11 trophies to their 10). They constantly try and control the narrative because they don't want City to be seen in a positive light. So I don't really mind seeing the City fans giving a different a different view. As long as it's correct, nobody can really argue. That's what they tell us, when the shoe is on the other foot.

The fans should do it more if anything and club should do it more because I know they hate having to read out the stats or the, new records that the club informs them of on Sky or BT.

I'm with you totally on this.

As I inferred in the OP I'm anti net-spend and get hacked off with how it is continually used against us. We all know we spent shit loads up to 17/18 but this seemed a good opportunity to turn the narrative in our favour using the currency our critics always choose.

Obviously cherry picked, but the bottom line though is that there has been a v large turnorund of players from those who featured in the 17/18 season including players considered amongst the best Aside from Aguero, whose involvement was minimal, not one of them featured in the title win last season. So that's what you call a re-build (pending Aguero's replacement) and the net spend is what it is and so far v v good...

 

[Metalartin]

I'm with you totally on this.

As I inferred in the OP I'm anti net-spend and get hacked off with how it is continually used against us. We all know we spent shit loads up to 17/18 but this seemed a good opportunity to turn the narrative in our favour using the currency our critics always choose.

Obviously cherry picked, but the bottom line though is that there has been a v large turnorund of players from those who featured in the 17/18 season including players considered amongst the best Aside from Aguero, whose involvement was minimal, not one of them featured in the title win last season. So that's what you call a re-build (pending Aguero's replacement) and the net spend is what it is and so far v v good...

Yeah, I'd rather City be smart with their outgoings and incomings(really need to do better with our sales) but I've no interest in the netspend trophy whatsoever. Whenever a City fan brings up United when it comes to netspend out comes the: "We/They earn their money though" line. It's just a waste of time even talking to most of the people who act like they care about any of it. Once cornered, they just come out with conspiracies to cover their backs.

 

[bluenova]

Which is why I highlighted the facts about what's been going on for years. My argument wasn't that it isn't selective, it was that it's no more selective than most of the comparisons done about City in the last 10 years. They even tried to make Chelsea the most successful team of the last decade of PL just gone when the sensible answer was City(11 trophies to their 10, Pep made a point of saying it was City in a few of his conferences which I enjoyed). They constantly try and control the narrative because they don't want City to be seen in a positive light. So I don't really mind seeing the City fans giving a different a different view. As long as it's correct, nobody can really argue. That's what they tell us, when the shoe is on the other foot.

The fans should do it more if anything and the club should do it more too because I know they hate having to read out the stats or the new records, that the club informs them of, on Sky or BT.

I don't know :)

I prefer to win an argument, or at lease sow doubt, rather than aim for some kind of mutual fudging. If you tell anyone these figures, they're just going to point out that Pep spent £300m+ net in the two previous seasons, and they'd be right. Net spend isn't the hill on which to fight your battles.

Chuck in a bit of amortisation and wage bills and you'll find a lot more opposition fans struggling.

 

[Corky]

I don't know :)

I prefer to win an argument, or at lease sow doubt, rather than aim for some kind of mutual fudging. If you tell anyone these figures, they're just going to point out that Pep spent £300m+ net in the two previous seasons, and they'd be right. Net spend isn't the hill on which to fight your battles.

Chuck in a bit of amortisation and wage bills and you'll find a lot more opposition fans struggling.

If it was clearly Chelsea won.

 

[andyhinch]

Is there a cup ?