Dax777 said:
Sure Mangala will cost less than Sanchez if you add wages. But in one season we have now paid close to 80 million in Transfer fees that barely improved our squad. We are simply saying those fees and the wages could have gone to just for example, 2 players. Fabregas and Sanchez.
You're advocating that City should've ignored two position in which they required players because they were short and players had just left/been sold, and bought two players in positions where they really didn't need players, at the same time paying more in fees/wages than they wanted to pay and potentially falling foul of the FFP restrictions with regards to our net spend and the freeze on our wage bill. To me that seems a bonkers idea.
That would have greatly improved the squad and reduce the wage bill. Seeing as we wouldn't have had Fernando, Mangala, Caballero or, Sangna's wages. Perhaps not even Lampard's. We could have easily replaced this players with youth players who'd get games in spurts.
Again you're advocating the club should've ignored areas in which they needed players and bought players in positions they didn't need. This is bonkers pal.
The reality is our purchases (5 new additions) suggests exactly the opposite of what MA claims. We are still adding unnecessarily to the wage bill. Now we have 4 new foreign players taking up spots, while we have others (
Like Sinclair and Nastasic) who are still on the wages and not adding value coz they are not being played). So no! Even the argument of no more accelerated funding is bull.
Such confused logic I'm not sure where or how to start. We aren't adding unnecesarrily to the wage bill because we needed a centre half to replace Lescott, a DM to replace Garcia, and a back up g/k to replace Pants. We didn't need to reduce the wage bill in the summer just gone, we needed to keep at on par. Which is what we did.
Not sure what the point of the reference to Nastasic and Sinclair is. Neither player was wanted by the club, one's gone, and the other is on his way. But that's by the by because in terms of our spending last summer the club had planned for three positions/players and that's the business they did.
Seeing as 5of the 7 entrants this season, are over 27 and 3 are over 30. All on top salaries and most on short term additions. Clearly even at the simple no more "accelerated" buying, As in even ignoring performance all together, this is STILL a failed attempt.
Again you're making literally no sense whatsoever. The 'accelerated' spending was four years ago. Of the players we bought last summer both Fernando and Mangala were a very good age and have room to improve in the coming years.
if we were truly trying to build from within, then we would have simply kept our squad from last year, and added youth like the Argie midfielder we paid good money for who's now a cheerleader in Spain. At least one could then understand the ridiculous argument MA is trying to make. And frankly, I'd have been okay we that.
I have to say I'm biting my tongue. I'm on a promise to not be rude to people, so with that in mind, I'll do this as best I can. The reality was that City had scouted and wanted Fernando to replace Garcia and Mangala to replace Lescott. That's a decision they made being in possession of the full facts with regards what they required to improve the side. Transfers are always a lottery to a greater or a lesser degree, but unless you can point to a centre half and a defensive midfield player both with CL experience, who moved last summer and represented better 'value' in the market than we got, I'd suggest you're the one who's making ridiculous assertions.
I argued in the summer that we neither needed Mangala or the Roma kid that went to Bayern. I thought both were good but grossly overpriced for a position we were not even in need of. I suggested we go get Veltman, the Dutch kid at Ajax for 7 million (if the ich to get a CB) who wasn't gonna start, was that great. Veltman by the way is having a great season at Ajax so far.
Haha. That's pretty funny. I realise that scouts are not infalliable and clubs can often make poor purchases, but I'd still be backing my scouts over someone who watches football on TV when they get the chance. No offence as I'm also in a similar boat hence as much as I have personal preferences with regards incoming players, I accept that I'm not privy to the reams of data the club has when making that call.
The truth is quite simple: Club decision apologists continue to find one excuse after the other to justify what has been a poor summer of decision making. It didn't take rocket science to see it. We had done it once before and we failed miserably. And we are doing it again. And it would likely have the same outcome.
Maybe what you characterise as a club apologist, others would see as a realist with regards to our squad and our financial limitations last season. With regards as to whether it was a poor summer of "decision making", I can only say with respect, this season isn't over and we're not out of the two big cups which matter.
So although you seem to be positively gleeful that your summer predictions are coming to fruition, careful you don't shoot your load a little prematurely.
When you are successful, you go out and improve your starting 11, which automatically improves your squad. This is common sense 101 for big clubs. Frankly I believe that is what they attempted to do but failed at it. Mangala was supposed to have an aging Demichelis on the bench in no time, and Fernando was supposed to takeover Garcia's position. The problem is our scouting and reports were porous. I am a casual fan, and I could see from my couch that Mangala wasn't gonna oust MDM. Better yet, I alread y noticed that MDM was the better CB for the majority of last season, so unless Mangala was going to be benching out captain, he simply wasn't gonna be a starter. Fernando also was the same, he simply didn't have enough in his game to be better than last years big money signing Fernandihno ( again another sign that the " no more accelerated buying" is bullocks) as Fernando was brought in to bench the big money signing of the previous window. But he simply doesn't have Dihno's tenacity or all round game.
Again the view from your couch might be a good one, but I'm not having for one second that you are more informed than a scouting set up which involves a half a dozen people including analysts who go to games and analyse performances in the flesh and those who analyse the data which is accumulated with regards players.
You mention Fernandinho's cost. Once again completely ignoring his wages. Fernandinho took a wage cut and took a hit on his loyalty bonus to move to City. His transfer fee was high because Shakhtar are a cash rich club who have no reason to sell, but the overall package wasn't on the scale of the top tier players. Anyway since he was integral to winning the league he was an inspired purchase. Not sure who we could've realistically signed to play alongside Yaya in a two man midfield who could've done the job he did.
Trust me, Fernando is a very good defensive Midfielder, actually contrary to popular opinion he is far superior to either De Jong or Garcia. His back pass error last nite papered over what was otherwise a very smart game. That he was even aware enough to immediately cover when Kompany decide to go Rambo, is testament to his defensive awareness - error thereafter not withstanding. But he simply doesn't have enough in his overall game to add a lot to the attack.
We all knew this. Why didn't they?
Erm, maybe the club bought him precisely because he's an accomplished defensive midfield player rather than a box to box/creative type. Again you're criticising the club for buying a player with the characteristics they required.
But the point remains:
Whether it's attempting to improve the squad to win this year, reduce the wage bill, end accelerated buying, or building for the future:
On all counts the acquisitions for this year failed. It also failed to even consider our condition. I mean how can we buy a foreign backup goalie in a year when we have been penalized and told we'd have a player restriction. Why? Why buy a future player on limited funds, why? Why add to a position that already has more than enough players, then freeze one of those players out, if we are trying to reduce our wage bill?
The paucity of common sense in your post is quite scary if i'm honest. Once again not only do I disagree with your lazy characterisations of the manner in which we approached last summer's window, but I find them to be staggeringly naive.
I'll give you signing a foreign keeper was a strange one but then you had to get something right in your post eventually. :)
And let's be clear, it silly and a 'red herring' to bring up claptrap like "show some appreciation for Mansoor and Khaldoom" that we appreciate them is a giving: without them we wouldn't even be talking about challenging or any of the players we have- but that's not the issue. It's simply an issue of did we make good decisions in light of the opportunities we had this summer? The answer is a resounding NO!
No mate, in your opinion it's a resounding "NO". The reason I mentioned respecting Khaldoon and Mansour is because the sense to entitlement contained within a lot of the postings in this thread are completely detached from the reality of what it means to support City. Yes the standards are different from the old days and we have a much higher benchmark however we are also in a deeply priviledged position with regards our ownership so any criticism of how THEY spend THEIR money BUYING PLAYERS FOR US, should be tempered.
And no amount of revisionist color coding or accusations of ungrateful ness changed that. Stop accusing and address the points raised. That is how discussions are teased out.
I've done my best to address the points you've attempted to raise. However one of my points remains that mouthing off like an entitled little kid because the club didn't buy Sanchez and Fabregas and attempting to hold yourself up as being a better scout than the people City pay to do that job is pretty fucking outrageous IMO.
