Ross Barkley

[BillyShears]

Mansour won't be investing, you're out of your mind if you don't understand that any investment in the first team will come from our own revenues from now on. Or maybe you think both Soriano and Khaldoon were lying when they said exactly that at the release of our latest accounts? If we need hard cash to buy a player I'm sure we have credit facilities with CFG that will allow us to get it, but we're expected to be self sufficient with the first team now, the focus of external investment has moved onto the stadium and campus and the CFA.

The point isn't about where the money comes from, it's about having money. We have the money to spend, whether it be on Barkley or on Pogba. I'm not sure why you even brought it up in the first place - since you acknowledge yourself now that Pogba and Koke would cost as much if not more than Barkley - then you also know that if we can sign one we can sign any of them. Which is the point of the thread and point of the discussion.

I also still think you're out of your mind if you don't think Mansour himself will invest in the first team again. Making such a definitive statement is setting yourself up for a fall for no apparent reason as far as I can see. We don't have the funds to sign Messi, however you can bet your life if he's on the market this summer we will sign him. That money won't come out of City's coffers, but out of Mansour's.

Either you don't understand how this works or you're deliberately misreading. Even if we sign Messi, it'll be because our accounts can afford the amortisation caused by his signing and will come out of our pockets. It might be over 5 years instead of one, but it is our pockets it will come out of We will not deliberately run at a loss anymore in order to grow. It's not what CFA want and we'd be setting ourselve sup to get fucked by UEFA and the CFCB. If we need to have cash at hand to sign a player it'll be given to us, but we'll have to pay it back.

As for Pogba/Koke, you don't seem to understand that these boys are the real deal, close to the finished articles and have been vital parts of first teams in the Champions League and in winning major domestic titles, that's why they would cost so much. Barkley has proven the sum total of fuck all.

Haha. With respect don't try and twist this around and imply I don't understand what you're posting. I understand perfectly well what you're saying - however I think you're wrong. For me the argument isn't about where the money comes from, it's about whether we have money or not. You said:

.It's no longer the owners money, it's the clubs money, we're surviving on our own revenues now as per the original business plan and won't see any more heavy investment in the playing squad from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG, that should be borne in mind when we talk about possible transfer targets even as a discussion on this forum, that we should only sign a player if they're actually worth or close to worth the money paid, we should be long past the stage of our development where we pay well over the odds for players.

I guess the point you were trying to make, albeit rather convolutedly, was that you think Barkley represents more of a risk than Koke and Pogba and since we're now operating in a new FFP driven climate we cannot lose money hand over first on poor transfer decisions. Fine, I've no problem with that.

With regards the quality of all the players we are discussing, please don't try and hold you subjective opinion up as more qualified than someone else's. I've seen Pogba, Koke, and Gundogon play enough over the last few years to know how good they are. I happen to think Barkley will develop into a player of equal quality even if he has proven "fuck all". Tricky proving anything when you're playing at Everton and have been in the first team for 12 months.

 

[malg]

He's worth exactly what the buying club decide to pay for him, and what Everton value him at. As for his potential, I can't see that anyone on here has any idea. It's purely guesswork, as we don't see him week in, week out. All we'll get is TV games, and highlights packages, and everyone knows how unreliable they are. I'm sure we have scouts watching the lad, and speaking to people at Everton who work with him.

I'm more than happy to leave it to the experts at the club to decide if he's what we're after, and then see if a deal can be done with the People's Club......

 

[aguero93:20]

The point isn't about where the money comes from, it's about having money. We have the money to spend, whether it be on Barkley or on Pogba. I'm not sure why you even brought it up in the first place - since you acknowledge yourself now that Pogba and Koke would cost as much if not more than Barkley - then you also know that if we can sign one we can sign any of them. Which is the point of the thread and point of the discussion.

I also still think you're out of your mind if you don't think Mansour himself will invest in the first team again. Making such a definitive statement is setting yourself up for a fall for no apparent reason as far as I can see. We don't have the funds to sign Messi, however you can bet your life if he's on the market this summer we will sign him. That money won't come out of City's coffers, but out of Mansour's.

Either you don't understand how this works or you're deliberately misreading. Even if we sign Messi, it'll be because our accounts can afford the amortisation caused by his signing and will come out of our pockets. It might be over 5 years instead of one, but it is our pockets it will come out of We will not deliberately run at a loss anymore in order to grow. It's not what CFA want and we'd be setting ourselve sup to get fucked by UEFA and the CFCB. If we need to have cash at hand to sign a player it'll be given to us, but we'll have to pay it back.

As for Pogba/Koke, you don't seem to understand that these boys are the real deal, close to the finished articles and have been vital parts of first teams in the Champions League and in winning major domestic titles, that's why they would cost so much. Barkley has proven the sum total of fuck all.

Haha. With respect don't try and twist this around and imply I don't understand what you're posting. I understand perfectly well what you're saying - however I think you're wrong. For me the argument isn't about where the money comes from, it's about whether we have money or not. You said:

.It's no longer the owners money, it's the clubs money, we're surviving on our own revenues now as per the original business plan and won't see any more heavy investment in the playing squad from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG, that should be borne in mind when we talk about possible transfer targets even as a discussion on this forum, that we should only sign a player if they're actually worth or close to worth the money paid, we should be long past the stage of our development where we pay well over the odds for players.

I guess the point you were trying to make, albeit rather convolutedly, was that you think Barkley represents more of a risk than Koke and Pogba and since we're now operating in a new FFP driven climate we cannot lose money hand over first on poor transfer decisions. Fine, I've no problem with that.

With regards the quality of all the players we are discussing, please don't try and hold you subjective opinion up as more qualified than someone else's. I've seen Pogba, Koke, and Gundogon play enough over the last few years to know how good they are. I happen to think Barkley will develop into a player of equal quality even if he has proven "fuck all". Tricky proving anything when you're playing at Everton and have been in the first team for 12 months.

It seems the most likely conclusion when despite me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money, you taking it that we wouldn't invest.

Since we're discussing opinions, either we're both guilty of it or neither of us are. I don't think it's worth paying that money for Barkley now, you do.

 

[moh]

By Barkley's age, Toure had scored 6 league goals in Belgium and the Ukraine in over 100 games; Barkley currently has 7 in 56 appearances in the Premier League, yet some football masterminds on here seem sure that he will never reach or surpass Toure's level.

£60m is excessive and I'm sure a deal could be reached for a little more than half of that, but if we did sign him at £40m and get 10 years of service from him that's £4m a season. For a club willing to spend £34m on Sakho's back up in the French national team, it's a price worth paying.

Pretty useless comparison when you consider that players don't develop or mature at the same age.

Yaya Toure arrived at the age of 27, generally played behind lone striker in his first season like Barkley did last, and scored 6 goals in a team containing the likes of Silva and Tevez. Barkley's goalscoring output was exactly the same last year, despite making 7 fewer starts.

Beyond the goals, Barkley is more dynamic than Toure; factoring out the occaissional rampaging run, Toure looks on the verge of collapse 90% of the time. Barkley has a Rooney-esque enthusiasm for the game where he wants the ball and is willing to track and tackle for it. Furthermore, you get the impression Barkley would actually relish the chance to play for us, unlike everybody's favourite mercenary.

The Pogba/Barkley comparison is misinformed; if you'd put Barkley in Serie A for the team that has monopolised the league for 3 years, he'd at least match Pogba's productivity. Pogba's agent is Mino Raiola, a man who whored Ibrahimovic around Europe and did the same to Balotelli; after a year here he would be brokering deals to Real Madrid or Bayern for his latest asset. There is no value in that for us, neither from a financial or continuity aspect, as Raiola is an expert at engineering controversy to get his client the moves they desire.

It's interesting that you point out that players develop at different ages yet seem so sure that Barkley will not maximise his obvious potential based on what you've seen of him up to 21.....

And development isn't defined by age, it's defined by experience and opportunity; Zabaleta is a prime example of a player who's improved outrageously in his time with us, and why is that? It's playing with and against top players for a sustained period. Had he spent the past 6 years at Stoke or Villa, would he be the player he is now? No. The biggest issue young British players have is they aren't always afforded that opportunity to grow amongst the elite because clubs are too willing to import an established foreign player who has already been granted that crucial experience elsewhere. Would West Ham fans have foresaw the career Lampard had when he left them? He's a product of years playing at the top level, while John Terry accredits his spell as Desailly's disciple as vital to his success.

Taking into account Barkley's obvious raw ability and attitude, I'm sure he'd prosper in the elite environment we'd provide, and into one of the world's best in his role as well.

If he was German, Bayern would buy him. If he was Italian, Juventus would buy him. If Ferguson was still at United, he'd buy him; if we want to be the biggest British club and build a dynasty then we should pride ourselves on accommodating the best British talent. It's a formula that obviously works.

This bit is so true - GPC would spend an entire transfer budget to get him and he did do a few times over the years

You need to add that if he was Spanish then Real would buy him

Also these clubs would not shirk at the price or get embroiled in wranglings with agents/fathers/cousins

 

[BillyShears]

It seems the most likely conclusion when despite me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money, you taking it that we wouldn't invest.

You're right when i first read it, that's how I saw it. However even subsequently understanding what you were saying i'm was still none the wiser as to what your point was. The poster you replied to was simply saying that the money we spend is up to other people, not us as supporters. So we don't need to get ourselves tied up in knots about whether a player costs 20 million or 40 million. If the powers that be deem a player worth it they'll spend. You can't dispute any of that as it's fact rather than opinion.

The most important thing is we as a club can afford to spend 40/50 million on Barkley just as we can afford to spend that amount on Mangala, Fernandinho, etc.

I don't think it's worth paying that money for Barkley now, you do.

Which is the root of this. As I said yesterday, IMO your critique of him is as exaggerated as your praise of Gundogan in particular, and to a lesser extent Pogba and Koke. But we should leave it there as we're going round in circles!

 

[Matt the Giant]

This bit is so true - GPC would spend an entire transfer budget to get him and he did do a few times over the years

You need to add that if he was Spanish then Real would buy him

Also these clubs would not shirk at the price or get embroiled in wranglings with agents/fathers/cousins

I think so as well.
Those clubs, just like we should, probably know the potential is there in those kind of players, and knows it's up to them to turn the charcoal into a diamond. They have faith in their coaching and training techniques, as well as every other aspect of taking in a young bloke and nurturing him to hopefully greatness.
The willingness to take chances is probably related to self belief in ones own capacity to develop raw material.

 

[OB1]

It seems the most likely conclusion when despite me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money, you taking it that we wouldn't invest.

Since we're discussing opinions, either we're both guilty of it or neither of us are. I don't think it's worth paying that money for Barkley now, you do.

I'm sorry but how the #### do you know that Mansour will not invest more equity in MCFC in order to fund transfers? Can you provide the quotes from the accounts that definitively say that?

I know that it says this in the Strategic Report: "Consistent with the commitment made in 2009-10 that transfers of the scale seen in previous years would be unlikely to be repeated, significant benefit has been gained from greater stability in the first team squad resulting in reduced amortisation costs." And I know that the idea is to build a self sustaining business model - which I support - but that does not mean Mansour won't put more money in; especially if FFP gets kicked out or modified. "Unlikely" is not a definitive statement.

Let's not forget that putting / signing players on long contracts means that their cost is spread and can mean that with growing revenues a sizable capital investment can be affordable from a profitability point of view but from a cash perspective may require new upfront investment.

Ultimately, if Mansour wants the best team in the world - and my opinion is that he does - he can choose to do whatever he wants that is within the the rules to get there and if that means investing more in the first team, I can see him changing his plans. No business can produce a plan and then stick slavishly to every aspect of it for years and years.

 

[aguero93:20]

It seems the most likely conclusion when despite me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money, you taking it that we wouldn't invest.

Since we're discussing opinions, either we're both guilty of it or neither of us are. I don't think it's worth paying that money for Barkley now, you do.

I'm sorry but how the #### do you know that Mansour will not invest more equity in MCFC in order to fund transfers? Can you provide the quotes from the accounts that definitively say that?

I know that it says this in the Strategic Report: "Consistent with the commitment made in 2009-10 that transfers of the scale seen in previous years would be unlikely to be repeated, significant benefit has been gained from greater stability in the first team squad resulting in reduced amortisation costs." And I know that the idea is to build a self sustaining business model - which I support - but that does not mean Mansour won't put more money in; especially if FFP gets kicked out or modified. "Unlikely" is not a definitive statement.

Let's not forget that putting / signing players on long contracts means that their cost is spread and can mean that with growing revenues a sizable capital investment can be affordable from a profitability point of view but from a cash perspective may require new upfront investment.

Ultimately, if Mansour wants the best team in the world - and my opinion is that he does - he can choose to do whatever he wants that is within the the rules to get there and if that means investing more in the first team, I can see him changing his plans. No business can produce a plan and then stick slavishly to every aspect of it for years and years.

You should have read my posts, I said that I couldn't see us failing to get hard cash from CFG/ADUG if we needed it to fund a transfer. As for quotes, both Soriano and Khaldoon have said repeatedly in the last 12 months that we are now expected to live within our revenues and if we want to increase spending, we'll do it through growing revenues.
http://www.mcfc.com/News/Club-news/2014/December/Club-annual-report-2014

Speaking in the report, Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, comments on the on field achievements of the first team which secured the Premier League title and Capital One Cup in the reporting period, as well as the wider league and national tournament success of several of the Club’s Academy year groups.

Furthermore he outlines his commitment to Manchester City Women’s FC which competed in its first season in the FA Women’s Super League.

He also emphasizes the progress made off the field and global expansion of the wider City Football Group organisation, referencing the deep ties between Manchester City FC and its sister clubs in New York, Melbourne and Yokohama and looks ahead to the imminent opening of the City Football Academy, planning for which began at the outset of His Highness’ investment.


...Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak...

"We have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future."

The Chairman concludes that today the Club “is where we hoped it would be when we began this transformation six years ago” and eagerly looks to what lies ahead for the Club and its supporters.

Chief Executive Officer Ferran Soriano, supporting the thoughts of the Chairman points to “a new level of financial sustainability” and outlines that not only has the Club halved losses for three consecutive years, but that it has budgeted for a profit in 2014-15 and the club expects to be entering the 2015-16 season with no outstanding sanctions or restrictions.

This year’s annual report is accompanied by an “At a glance” supplement, designed to give fans and all interested parties a more condensed and concise guide to the Club’s progress in the same period.

 

[bluetoby]

First time i saw Barkley play I thought this boys got it same with Silva Aguero and Yaya his value will always be over the top because he is English (home grown) and got it, value is whatever you are willing / can afford to pay.

 

[OB1]

It seems the most likely conclusion when despite me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money, you taking it that we wouldn't invest.

Since we're discussing opinions, either we're both guilty of it or neither of us are. I don't think it's worth paying that money for Barkley now, you do.

I'm sorry but how the #### do you know that Mansour will not invest more equity in MCFC in order to fund transfers? Can you provide the quotes from the accounts that definitively say that?

I know that it says this in the Strategic Report: "Consistent with the commitment made in 2009-10 that transfers of the scale seen in previous years would be unlikely to be repeated, significant benefit has been gained from greater stability in the first team squad resulting in reduced amortisation costs." And I know that the idea is to build a self sustaining business model - which I support - but that does not mean Mansour won't put more money in; especially if FFP gets kicked out or modified. "Unlikely" is not a definitive statement.

Let's not forget that putting / signing players on long contracts means that their cost is spread and can mean that with growing revenues a sizable capital investment can be affordable from a profitability point of view but from a cash perspective may require new upfront investment.

Ultimately, if Mansour wants the best team in the world - and my opinion is that he does - he can choose to do whatever he wants that is within the the rules to get there and if that means investing more in the first team, I can see him changing his plans. No business can produce a plan and then stick slavishly to every aspect of it for years and years.

You should have read my posts, I said that I couldn't see us failing to get hard cash from CFG/ADUG if we needed it to fund a transfer. As for quotes, both Soriano and Khaldoon have said repeatedly in the last 12 months that we are now expected to live within our revenues and if we want to increase spending, we'll do it through growing revenues.
http://www.mcfc.com/News/Club-news/2014/December/Club-annual-report-2014

Speaking in the report, Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, comments on the on field achievements of the first team which secured the Premier League title and Capital One Cup in the reporting period, as well as the wider league and national tournament success of several of the Club’s Academy year groups.

Furthermore he outlines his commitment to Manchester City Women’s FC which competed in its first season in the FA Women’s Super League.

He also emphasizes the progress made off the field and global expansion of the wider City Football Group organisation, referencing the deep ties between Manchester City FC and its sister clubs in New York, Melbourne and Yokohama and looks ahead to the imminent opening of the City Football Academy, planning for which began at the outset of His Highness’ investment.


...Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak...

"We have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future."

The Chairman concludes that today the Club “is where we hoped it would be when we began this transformation six years ago” and eagerly looks to what lies ahead for the Club and its supporters.

Chief Executive Officer Ferran Soriano, supporting the thoughts of the Chairman points to “a new level of financial sustainability” and outlines that not only has the Club halved losses for three consecutive years, but that it has budgeted for a profit in 2014-15 and the club expects to be entering the 2015-16 season with no outstanding sanctions or restrictions.

This year’s annual report is accompanied by an “At a glance” supplement, designed to give fans and all interested parties a more condensed and concise guide to the Club’s progress in the same period.

I'm busy so you will have to forgive me for not reading every last word of yours but the most recent that I responded to was:

"...me saying we would invest from club revenues and not Mansour's own money"

which was consistent with:

"Mansour won't be investing, you're out of your mind if you don't understand that any investment in the first team will come from our own revenues from now on."


So are you now saying that Mr A is not mad to think that Mansour might actually invest more of his own money in the first team?

I have read plenty of our senior managements' pronouncements on the club and its finances, I have a copy of the full annual report downloaded on my computer, and I fully understand them. I am also sure that these guys are serious about what they say but I do not recall one definitive statement that precludes Mansour putting his hand in his very deep pockets if he decides he wants to or needs to.

Never say never :-)