Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 40,419
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
Maybe, because Every Day Hurts.
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.
Red Cafe in meltdown
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Maybe, because Every Day Hurts.
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
It's bonkers reading the first page of that thread. The odd sane person pointing out that they have spent a fortune themselves but most of them seem to be under the impression that they have spent vastly less than us in the time that mourinho and Pep have been in their jobs. They have spent a fortune, they throw more money at wages than us and if "Jose had to take a knife to a gunfight" it is because whoever spends the money at their club is a fucking spaz and not because we have blown them away with spending. They have spent nearly as much as us in the last three years and are mid-table and yet many of them still think mourinho is as good a manager as Pep - truly bewildering. There are a couple of decent posts on that page from people who seem far too reasonable to inhabit that forum:
"It's incredible to hear people putting City's success down to only spending money when we've been guilty of relentlessly spending money for 5 years and have feck all to show for it. It's not as "easy" as just spending money. We're proof of that."
"The greatest achievement of Jose so far is convincing us that this is the best anyone can do with the resources at his disposal.
Amazing."
Agree, they shift PEG and for me they will be top 4 with potential to challenge if replaced with the right person. Got it wrong three times, fingers crossed four times soonI’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you that that we can just ignore the rags now.
For all the years that we we no threat to them, they took the piss relentlessly. 30 years of having to suck it up cannot simply be forgotten overnight.
Their recent results, especially the win in Turin, show that they are still capable of pulling off wins when it looks like they’re going to lose.
The rags might be shit, but we ignore them at our peril.
Patientman63
Well-Known Member
Their recent results, especially the win in Turin, show that they are still capable of pulling off wins when it looks like they’re going to lose.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 14,481
All the hype over spending and backing the manager is misplaced blame in my opinion.
Transfer fees get the headlines but in reality there is no visibility in to the exact figures, the press tend to narrow down on a number based on speculation at the time. The real numbers you can reliably work with come from the accounts and so are a bit historic but there are 4 figures you can quote with relative certainty: Wages, Other fees (covering Agent Fees), Transfer fee amortisation (fees for current players divided over the length of contacts) and any profit on player sales. There is as always some detail behind the number we don't know but this is the best indication of 'investment' and 'backing the manager' you are going to get.
Swiss Ramble does a good job in isolating these figures for all clubs and when you look at both clubs for the last set of accounts this is what you get:
Rags - Man City
Wages: £263.5 - £243.8
Other fees : £117.0 - £98.4
Player Amortization : £129.9 - £124.9
Profit on player sales : +£10.9 - +£34.6
So rags outspend us in every department when you look at the audited figures. They don't reflect the current squad but I don't envisage much change - Mahrez the only big addition for us. A couple for them including Sanchez, Fred and Dalot that are not in these figures. So we are not by any stretch outspending them.
That said - i'm not arsed by the narrative. Let them deflect from the real problems. Let them think they are not spending the money. Let them blame Edd and the board.
Bumping this as the qtr results out today for the rags. Income down 6%, profit down 23%.
Wages up 10% to £77m - that is going to be over £300m for the full year.
So this not investing in the squad narrative....
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Bumping this as the qtr results out today for the rags. Income down 6%, profit down 23%.
Wages up 10% to £77m - that is going to be over £300m for the full year.
So this not investing in the squad narrative....
With results like those, they'll be agitating for a super league before long...
Blue Til Death
Well-Known Member
The squad they have, it won’t matter one bit who comes in after the poisonous one fucks off, they are simply not good enough in every department, defence is awful, midfield full of similar players who cannot adapt and their attack is toothless to say the least.. If the team was restructured I dare say they would score more but they would also let more in, if that’s possible they way they are shipping goals playing so defensively at the moment..
Happy Fuckin days :-))
Happy Fuckin days :-))
HypnoticBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,002
From a post on Red Cafe
“I'd be disappointed to see us as another shitty oil funded club. I'd get a kick out of the hypocrisy of the press and City fans crying if we start spending more than them but that's about it. If we are funded by this mob we'll have free reign on the market almost since it's still a big club with history (unlike City) so the biggest names in the market would be a lot more willing to join but it would feel dirty going out there and breaking the bank signing 50-60m players just for the bench and 5 defenders for 300m and such.
I don't want to see this happen but it the thought affects me less than it would a few years ago because I've loved the game less and less due to the direction it's been going”
They‘ve spent more than us on transfers since the first year we won the Prem in 11/12 - €1.03 Bill v €950 mil.
And the bit about their bench not having 50-60m players on it - can anybody remind me how much £ Lukakakaku, Fred & Sanchez were ?
We had Sané who was £50 mil.
They are in fantasy land some of their fans.
CTID
“I'd be disappointed to see us as another shitty oil funded club. I'd get a kick out of the hypocrisy of the press and City fans crying if we start spending more than them but that's about it. If we are funded by this mob we'll have free reign on the market almost since it's still a big club with history (unlike City) so the biggest names in the market would be a lot more willing to join but it would feel dirty going out there and breaking the bank signing 50-60m players just for the bench and 5 defenders for 300m and such.
I don't want to see this happen but it the thought affects me less than it would a few years ago because I've loved the game less and less due to the direction it's been going”
They‘ve spent more than us on transfers since the first year we won the Prem in 11/12 - €1.03 Bill v €950 mil.
And the bit about their bench not having 50-60m players on it - can anybody remind me how much £ Lukakakaku, Fred & Sanchez were ?
We had Sané who was £50 mil.
They are in fantasy land some of their fans.
CTID
With regard to wages increase, and Premier league rules (aka the premier leagues own FFP), don’t these figures seem to indicate they’ve broken them?
If someone with considerably more brain power than I have today could make sense of the maths.
From
https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazo...f80-8f46-64c6e2e1b929/PL_Handbook-2018-19.pdf
Via premier league website
EDIT : mods please move to main United thread, ta
If someone with considerably more brain power than I have today could make sense of the maths.
E.18.
If any of Contract Years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, the sum of a Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments exceeds £67m, £74m or £81m, respectively, the relevant Club must elect to either: (a) be assessed by the Board on the ‘Prior Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.19 applies); or (b) be assessed by the Board on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.20 applies).
E.19.
Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘Prior Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.19.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £7m when compared to the previous Contract Year;
E.19.2. that the excess increase, over and above the £7m referred to at Rule E.19.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared to the previous Contract Year and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit; or
E.19.3. that the excess increase, over and above the figures set out in Rule E.18, as applicable, has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.
E.20.
Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.20.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £19m (in Contract Year 2016/17), £26m (in Contract Year 2017/18) or £33m (in Contract Year 2018/19), as applicable, when compared with Contract Year 2012/13; or
E.20.2. that the excess increase, over and above the figures referred to at Rule E.20.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared with the like figures in Contract Year 2012/13 and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.
If any of Contract Years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, the sum of a Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments exceeds £67m, £74m or £81m, respectively, the relevant Club must elect to either: (a) be assessed by the Board on the ‘Prior Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.19 applies); or (b) be assessed by the Board on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.20 applies).
E.19.
Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘Prior Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.19.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £7m when compared to the previous Contract Year;
E.19.2. that the excess increase, over and above the £7m referred to at Rule E.19.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared to the previous Contract Year and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit; or
E.19.3. that the excess increase, over and above the figures set out in Rule E.18, as applicable, has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.
E.20.
Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.20.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £19m (in Contract Year 2016/17), £26m (in Contract Year 2017/18) or £33m (in Contract Year 2018/19), as applicable, when compared with Contract Year 2012/13; or
E.20.2. that the excess increase, over and above the figures referred to at Rule E.20.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared with the like figures in Contract Year 2012/13 and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.
From
https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazo...f80-8f46-64c6e2e1b929/PL_Handbook-2018-19.pdf
Via premier league website
EDIT : mods please move to main United thread, ta