re: City lost £195 Million in 2010-2011

quote:

---

That's an interesting link, but I still question the quality of the signings. Henderson, Downing, and Carroll haven't lived up to their price tags in my opinion.

---

Well no doubt. But I think that is an entirely different argument.

quote:

---

I suppose it is.

---

I just think it is interesting how much stock is put into transfer prices in arguments like this. Not enough emphasis is put on wages.

It is easy to say "Aguero and Carroll cost the same. Lol Liverpool got the short end of the stick" or "Mata and Downing cost the same, lolz at Liverpool over paying for shite talent." And while I do think each player is significantly better than their Liverpool counterpart, Liverpool paid nowhere near the amount Chelsea and City did for their player.

quote:

---

'Pool was put in a weird place by Benitez who brought in a lot of shitty players.

---

I think he also did a lot of good for the club. Excellent youth squads, and the resale value of the players he bought has helped tremendously (particularly Torres, I don't remember what we paid for Alonso). Liverpool had good teams under him, but our owners drove us into the ground.

quote:

---

They might need one more spending spree.

---

Probably so.

quote:

---

It is easy to say "Aguero and Carroll cost the same. Lol Liverpool got the short end of the stick" or "Mata and Downing cost the same, lolz at Liverpool over paying for shite talent." And while I do think each player is significantly better than their Liverpool counterpart, Liverpool paid nowhere near the amount Chelsea and City did for their player.

---

While that's true, the wage bills of all the top teams will have to adjust to the ability of teams to pay crazy wages. At some point for some teams, those wages are worth it.

In regards to the OP, I just get frustrated with these same articles since city have started spending. The media like to run these articles that tell us what we already know. Headline: City lost 195 million pounds! In other news, the sky is fricking blue. I already know we are spending a lot of money, but according to mgmt the faucet is closing. On top of that, people want to pretend that city are the only ones spending money when lots of other clubs have been doing it for years. After that xavier and I were talking about parity as he said that big spending was hurting the game.

In an unrelated response to thenry, beast linked an article with some good points. A lot of people just look at transfer fees and don't consider wages. Many times its the wages that kill you and hurt a clubs ability to transfer assets as we have seen with city.

Now, addressing crazy, see my above explanation for why this article is pointless and why I brought up anzhi. If you want to debate if aguero would have moved if city didn't want him that's fine.

quote:

---

What you mean to say is that these types of teams attract more attention they wouldn't otherwise get. These teams will sell shirts, make fans of impressionable kids, but don't pretend like it's universal. I can guarantee that most people didn't like it, and complained about Real's spending this last decade like they complain about Man City's spending this decade.

---

Of course supporting high powered teams is not universal. I was making more of an unrelated point of what teams one might remember. An example, Fiorentina with batistuta were a good team with some moderate success. The average soccer fan would only really remember Batigol while they would probably remember the ronaldo, beckham, and zizou years of real.

quote:

---

The Invicibles cost about £100 mil spread out over 7 years. Man City's forward line costs about £105 mil spread over 3. There isn't a comparison.

---

Believe me I wasn't diminishing the accomplishment of the invincibles. I was ranking them up there with some of the greatest teams of all time and probably the best value team of all time. Now again, it didn't hurt that henry went fricking altered beast after an 11 million pound transfer.

quote:

---

While I agree in general, the most successful of the modern teams have been teams with great managers and extremely strong youth systems that were augmented by world-class players. Chelsea and Man City have been thrown together with very little help from their youth systems and a lot of cash thrown around. It's worked, but it isn't a sustainable model, even for the biggest clubs in the world.

And that's the point that City fans, and Chelsea fans before them miss. It's not a sustainable model for the sport as a whole to have an owner who doesn't care if he loses money. I don't see what is so controversial about stating that.

---

I have never disagreed with any of those points. We all know that United have had such long term success because of scouting, player development, and fantastic management.