Transfer spending last 5 years

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

There is a large case that could be argued that City, despite lots of Sales income, Competition income and sponsorship income, have been really tight fisted when compared to the free spending United’s, Arsenal’s, Chelsea’s and Liverpool’s.
And yet, we ‘have unlimited spending’, ‘buy whomever we want’, ‘if a buy doesn’t work out, doesn’t matter - buy again’, ‘pep chequebook manager’ thrown constantly at us.

It’s so much complete bollox when you actually look at the overall real facts, rather than biased blinkered hopeful lies spouted.

Walked away from deals such as Maguire, Sanchez, Jorginho, Fred, Cuccarela, Kane in the last few years. If we City had unlimited pots of cash these players would be in our team.

 

[Semper aggressus]

Looks like we’ve plenty of room to spend more then. Need Bellingham and a left back in summer.

 

[Bill Walker]

Spending £100m on Jack was clearly done to dodge paying tax and so money well spent. Maybe someone should tell the idiots on his performance thread.

For the avoidance of doubt I like Jack and what he brings to our team and don’t give a shit what we payed for him as we can clearly afford it.

You're not trying to start another "Jack, good or bad" thread are you ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This net spend stuff is all rubbish. It's a pointless argument and pointless metric to use. On football manager and fifa if you receive 10mil you can spend that 10mil and a 30mil player is better that a 20mil player on those games. In real life it doesn't work like that, transfer fees are worked out by numerous variables, example pogba might be worth 90 mil in market value but he isn't better than 24mil gundo. So that stops that use of net spend as a metric to determine if you spend less you have an inferior squad so therefore doing miracles as liverpool always suggest. The best way to look at it is adding in wages as well, so total cost of a squad, how much it costs to operate. Liverpool are not that far behind us in those terms and earn similar amounts of income, so they should be there or there abouts. Coutinho might have made them a net spend profit but you add in his wages and you will find he has only funded some of VVD total cost so far, not VVD and Alison and liverpool always suggest. People mention FFP against us but again it's on a 3 year audit period so we could spend 500 mil one year for example and sell 500mil over next 2 years. Which it seems we have done (500 mil is an example figure).

Bravo. Net spend is an utterly meaningless metric, plus the only truly reliable figures are in the accounts. As you say, wages is another key metric and the actual cost of the squad should be looked at as wages plus amortisation. Net spend doesn't take into account any wages or amortisation that goes off the books, via sales, for one thing. So if you buy a player for £50m and pay him £100k a week, that's £15m on your annual player costs. If you also lose 3 players on a free transfer who were on £100k a week, you've saved £15m in wages a year, which effectively covers the new player's cost. But the net spend wankers would see that as a £50m net spend when in reality it's had no impact on the bottom line at all.

So after that spending spree of over £200m in the summer of 2017, with net spend supposedly around £120m, our wages and amortisation only increased by £7m when all that was taken into account. And half of that was offset by a small increase in the profit on sale of players. That's just one illustration of how net spend is a meaningless metric.

Another is that clubs, particularly successful ones like us and Liverpool, and even united, generate significant amounts of cash even after paying wages and other expenses. Typically we'd generate around £120m of spare cash each year, before player sales, which will be available to spend on new players (and other things, such as infrastructure, debt repayment, etc). The real question should be, how much does each club generate and reinvest into its squad? We reinvest 100% while Liverpool only reinvest around 80%.

 

[bluetonium]

It's not what you've got, it's how you use it.

Or, would Sir like one Noony-ez to go or a full 4 courses of Akanji, Haaland, Alvarez and Gomes, with a complimentary Ortega thrown in?

 

[manimanc]

But I thought the motto was buying success?

Erm these clubs who have spent more than us have won nothing compared to us.
Ok ok, the scousers won two finals without scoring a goal, won the champions league against Spursy spurs and a first title in 500 years because the fa and the Premier league jim'll fixed it for them, but the others absolutely fuckall.

But it's us that are ruining football.

 

[bluenova]

The most important line in that thread: "...but the full story is often more nuanced."

At City - when Klopp was selling off younger players like Coutinho and Benteke, City were releasing older players like Clichy, Zabaleta, Sagna, or selling for small fees players the wrong side of 30. Taking the high wages of over a dozen players (either long serving players, or players who had come from other PL clubs) of the books, and replacing them with early 20s players more than balances out any profits from the likes of Coutinho.

Or for a simple single example, take Dominic Solanke. A failure at Liverpool, but because they got him on a free, £20m off the net spend.

Om the opposite side, you just have to look at the list of players City have sold since Pep arrived. There are around £200m from players who never played a game in England, or were only on ever on loan at other clubs, or who made a couple of appearances in the Carabou Cup. Pretty much nothing to do with Pep as a manager, but apparently it makes his better as it affects his net spend.

I'd suggest people look at the Swiss Ramble as it does show how close the clubs are - and I think it's ultimately fair to suggest City have spent more, but not hugely more - and certainly nowhere near enough for anyone to ever use the words "miracle" or "shoestring" in the same sentence as Klopp.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

City’s TV Revenue for 2020-21 = £152.5m

City’s Net Transfer Fees for Summer 2021 and Winter 2022 = £30.3m


TV 2019-20 = £163.4m
Transfers S20+W21 = £86.1m


TV 2018-19 = £150.9m

Transfers S19+W20 = £79.7m


TV 2017-18 = £149.4m
Transfers S18+W19 = £18.89m


TV 2016-17 = £146.9m

Transfers S17+W18 = £203.53



TV 2015-16 = £96.9m

Transfers S16+W17 = £161.68m


Total TV revenue during Pep’s tenure = £860m

Total Net Transfer Fees during Pep’s tenure = £581.97m


We haven’t even needed to touch any other revenue streams to pay for our transfers.

 

[trevorriley]

spent and invested very wisely, also less than people think.

Could we have a players out deal value over last 5 years ?

 

[dave_blue12]

You're not trying to start another "Jack, good or bad" thread are you ?

No I’m not. But in all seriousness the club make decisions based on all the facts known to them, then some criticise based on the small amounts of information available in the public domain.

It’s stupid.