Jack Grealish

Mateka

Mateka

New member
The thread is about Grealish. I think City should sign him. But not for 100m.

City have not set the pattern for huge figures. PSG did. But Barca and RM followed. Look at top 10 transfer fees, PSG top two, but Spanish clubs dominate. Only Utd once in top 10.

Teams winning the EPL spent big, and bought several players. Look at Chelsea spending on 4 consecutive seasons they bought 34 players. Liverpool bought 14 players in 07/08 and finished fourth. These are not developing players loaned out.

City playing catch up did no difference to anybody else in buying several players at a time.
The difference was prices were up. Yes City are paying higher prices fir their 30,40,50m players but that’s because teams set higher figures because they knew City had money. They were not inflating the market, it already was. The highest prices paid for players was not be City.

Look again KDB highest signing number 25.

I am looking at the trend the decade before City got money.

1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: ?29.35m 6 players
The finish: 1st
It took until the seventh season of Premier League football for the campaign’s highest spenders to emerge as champions.
*

1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: ?35.9m. 9 players
The finish: 4th

2000/01
The biggest spenders: Leeds
The spend: ?48.7m. 6 players
The finish: 4th


*
2001/02
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: ?58.6m 6 players
The finish: 3rd

2002/03
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: ?30.6m 2 players
The finish: 1st
*
2003/04
The biggest spenders: Chelsea
The spend: ?121.5m. 14 players
The finish: 2nd

2004/05
The biggest spenders: Chelsea
The spend: ?94.45m. 9 players.
The finish: 1st

*
2005/06
The biggest spenders: Chelsea
The spend: ?54.4m 5 players

2006/07
The biggest spenders: Chelsea
The spend: ?56.5m. 6 players.
The finish: 2nd


*2007/08
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: ?69.3m. 14 players
The finish: 4th
Matt Stead 365

1. The sad moral of the story is find a shed full of money and a better manager.
2. Spending a shed full of money alone does not guarantee success.
3. City have simply been playing catch up to what everybody else was doing.
 
Last edited:
N

Newcomer

New member
serghei said:
PSG is the worst of the lot for me. Sure, City, and Chelsea before them, are doing similar stuff on the whole, but with more class and more football nous. For example, neither CL win by Chelsea was obtained with PSG's obnoxious model, neither 2012 or 2021, both are great underdog stories of fighting hard against all odds. Chelsea has an identity that exists outside of the spending stuff, that's the point. And I felt that when they played Barca too, signing superstars was never their calling card, for me at least. PSG don't have it, they are what they spend. That's how the Qataris made sure they are seen by the way they handle themselves.

Does anyone wonder how PSG will win CL when they will win it? They will basically spend their way to a CL. Buying and buying and buying until they will inevitably buy their way to the CL title. It's all pretty distasteful. These clowns sacked Tuchel, a top 3 manager... :lol: to preserve their galactico way of flamboyant superstars acting like spoiled brats. When in fact they should've seized that moment and built a real team around a world-class manager, rather than being seen as some sort of plastic football-equivalent of Harlem Globetrotters, buffoons that win fuck all when the pressure is on.

It's like they try to copy Barca and Madrid non-stop and achieve that status in record time, but end up only copying their worst parts.
Click to expand...

Lol, class is exaclty what i'm talking when i say fans romanticise clubs. Chelsea despite being created a whole lot earlier than PSG had the same domestic and european success than PSG. It all changed when Roman came and with his oil money went "Chelski" mode. Maybe you don't remember but Chelsea could go and buy relentlessly (and were taking all the prime talents of France). Mourinho was called checkbook manager at the time. They had Shevchencko flop, Torres too but he was important in their CL run win. Chelsea is the oil club that worked well because contrary to City and PSG that are hated by everyone, they were performing very well at CL level, often reaching semi finals. Why ? Because with that level of investment, it was enough at the time to always be in contention. Funnily enough, the two times they won were prolly when Chelsea were "far" from their strong.

PSG and City are spending more because the cost of players has skyrocketted from that time (and still Abramovich spent more than a billion) and you need to spend more to catch up to the already established clubs (Bar?a with 800 M revenues). Despite that, it is only in the last two years that PSG and City reached the finals.

Also, about Neymar, Bar?a themselves spent almost 100 millions on an "unproven" brazilian (wasn't that destroying the market aswell ?). You know very well why PSG spent 222 millions on him and Bar?a themselves aknowledged they messed up with his clause. He was worth that for a deep pocket PSG who cashed in the boost he provided to the brand. At the same time, don't forget that Real Madrid had agreed a bid of 180 millions for Mbapp? with Monaco. Mbapp? simply chose PSG over Real Madrid. So, even without PSG, Real Madrid was about to "ruin football" or "destroy the market" as they are used to do since the beginning of times. But no one cares about that because it is Real Madrid thing and they are allowed due to history, class or whatever.

Prices are only following club revenues. Club revenues are growing = price growing. Maybe it is because of PSG that Fulham from fresh from Championship can spend 100 millions in a summer (only to be relegated).

You like creating narrative also about Tuchel. Even on this forum, people were fearing that after Tuchel got the sack, the tie would be harder for Bar?a. Why? Because Tuchel's PSG were dogshit this year. The top class manager was 3rd in L1 when he got the sack. Neymar and Mbapp? didn't need no protecting from Tuchel because he liked them alot. As a matter of fact, this is what he said :

In an autocomplete challenge with Sky Sports, Tuchel was asked about the most talented players that he has coached so far in his managerial career. As expected, the German manager signaled out Neymar as one of the top talents that he has had managed.

?Then the obvious, is there more talented than Neymar, I don?t know if it exists, more talent, more natural, and easy looking talent than Neymar,? Tuchel said.

?He combines pretty much everything: speed, dribbling, passing, assisting, finishing and physical ability. This is absolutely the whole package.?

https://psgtalk.com/2021/05/tuchel-...the-most-talented-players-in-the-world-today/

PSG is totally copying Real Madrid model : Zidane y Pavones. This is how Real built their brand back to raise revenues. How do you expect PSG to raise their revenue in a selling league like L1 other than raising their brand ? Hence why you need to buy Neymar. You can't compare with PL clubs who are getting money just for being in PL.
 
Last edited:
R

Rory

Senior Member
If I buy 5 houses worth €200,000 as opposed to one house worth €1m I’ve still spent €1m, the 200,000 houses are just less of a risk. Is it okay that city have spent 350m+ on defenders in the last half a decade? Is it completely fine because they didn’t sign 1 Maguire or Van dijk for 80m+? Nothing to do with playing catch-up from the point pep joined. As I’ve stated they already had a solid squad full of world class players
 
Mateka

Mateka

New member
Rory said:
If I buy 5 houses worth €200,000 as opposed to one house worth €1m I’ve still spent €1m, the 200,000 houses are just less of a risk. Is it okay that city have spent 350m+ on defenders in the last half a decade? Is it completely fine because they didn’t sign 1 Maguire or Van dijk for 80m+? Nothing to do with playing catch-up from the point pep joined. As I’ve stated they already had a solid squad full of world class players
Click to expand...

Yes it is ok that City have spent on numerous defenders in the last 5 years. Because they have the money. They did not go into debt. The money stayed in football because they do not pay comparatively exorbitant wages. They are not paying the highest sums and backed out when VVD or others are too expensive.
Chelsea bought 34 players in 4 seasons. Liverpool 14 players in one season. What City are doing is nothing new, it is there in football history.
If City want to buy 5 houses at a going rate, that all other clubs are willing to pay for one of them, it is fine.
They have also transformed a region of Manchester. Invested big into the community. Well done City.
If City financial backers left them and decided to support your club, you would be praising them. As others would on this forum if it was their club.
My point being they are not PSG.
 
Last edited:
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
In theory clubs, like any businesses out there can spend their resources however they'd like, it is their money. Resource-wise, you have ultra rich clubs like PSG and City, very rich clubs like Chelsea and rich clubs like United, Liverpool, Milan, Inter, and you have so-called rich clubs like us and Real Madrid that are only rich in terms of revenue, asset and brand value, not so much when it comes to debt and stable source of income, since we are owned by the members. Of course, we are by no means at the bottom of the barrel, there are many, many, many more clubs that are far poorer than us.

One of the primary intents of the FFP, as far as I understand, is to create a level playing field so those that don't ever have to worry about money don't just outspend everybody else by so much that there is no real competition to speak of. Without it then clubs can spend however they like, as long as they have the money. We can complain about PSG and City etc. spending a lot of money, however those that are lower and poor than us can say the same about us, not to mention we are guilty of spending big too. It is all relative. Deep down, we are complaining because we don't have the money to spend and they do.
 
R

Rory

Senior Member
Mateka said:
Yes it is ok that City have spent on numerous defenders in the last 5 years. Because they have the money. They did not go into debt. The money stayed in football because they do not pay comparatively exorbitant wages. They are not paying the highest sums and backed out when VVD or others are too expensive.
Chelsea bought 34 players in 4 seasons. Liverpool 14 players in one season. What City are doing is nothing new, it is there in football history.
If City want to buy 5 houses at a going rate, that all other clubs are willing to pay for one of them, it is fine.
They have also transformed a region of Manchester. Invested big into the community. Well done City.
If City financial backers left them and decided to support your club, you would be praising them. As others would on this forum if it was their club.
My point being they are not PSG.
Click to expand...

City spending the amount they have spent has inflated the prices of players. Think that was the original point being discussed?

Never said they were PSG, can’t stand PSG and think they’re a stain on football tbh. But we can’t just ignore city spending what they have and pretend they haven’t impacted the market. Just because pep is there who’s a Barca saint or just because they’ve done good things in the area of Manchester. They didn’t do these things out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to make money, which is absolutely fair enough but we can’t pretend it’s some noble deeds being done. Same for any club, this isnt specific to city. The stuff about them throwing hundreds of millions into the transfer market for several years is something worth criticising though.

If you can’t agree on their spending influencing the market then let’s agree to disagree.
 
R

Rory

Senior Member
Luftstalag14 said:
Deep down, we are complaining because we don't have the money to spend and they do.
Click to expand...

This bit is a poor take. I think a lot of fans can’t stand the money we’ve spent. I for one think it’s ridiculously unfair to the other la liga teams. Tv money should be spread out far more evenly across the league and we shouldn’t be able to poach all the top performing players from the rest of the league whenever we fancy. Same for Real Madrid.

There’s also a difference between spending lots of money compared to 5th/6th place like us and spending the most amount of money in world football in the same time span.

City have a net spend of nearly 200m more than PSG in the last 5 years, despite them signing Neymar and Mbappe. City have spent the most and by far, that’s what I mostly think should be addressed.
 
bismp

bismp

Well-known member
As if Barca has not contributed a lot to the market inflation with astronomical transfer fees for Coutinho,Dembele and Griezmann.....
 
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
Rory said:
This bit is a poor take. I think a lot of fans can’t stand the money we’ve spent. I for one think it’s ridiculously unfair to the other la liga teams. Tv money should be spread out far more evenly across the league and we shouldn’t be able to poach all the top performing players from the rest of the league whenever we fancy. Same for Real Madrid.

There’s also a difference between spending lots of money compared to 5th/6th place like us and spending the most amount of money in world football in the same time span.

City have a net spend of nearly 200m more than PSG in the last 5 years, despite them signing Neymar and Mbappe. City have spent the most and by far, that’s what I mostly think should be addressed.
Click to expand...

It is the nature of the business, the big always feast on the small and the biggest feast on anybody below them. It is not going to change.

With the FFP you can buy as long as you have enough revenue and especially revenue from selling to support and justify your spending. Without it it is an open game.
 
P

Porque

Senior Member
Wasn't the FFP initially introduced anyways to curb the Oligarch spending in the Russian league. An indirect way of targetting the Russian billionaires with the political pressures at the time.

Because those were the ones spending big in transfer fee's without the league and sponsors (not linked to the clubs ownership) to support it.

PSG getting caught was a by-product of this because of their massive spending relative to the TV rights and sponsorships at the time, which they tried to manoever with BeInSports tv rights acquisition and QTA. Uefa did go after PSG as they did City, but the target was the growth of money into Russia and Russian football.
 
N

Newcomer

New member
I wouldn't mind an hard low cap and obligation to field like 7 national players in the team.

All the people calling Ligue 1 a farmer league would see how strong it becomes when you remove the money factor.
 
G

gnrfan

Banned
These city directors could just give the 100 mill to the real messi instead of buying this cheap Tesco version...yes it'll be for 2 years but Messi still is 5x the player Grealish is. Also they'll open up huge new markets in places like south america, bangladesh, middle east etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Home of Barca Fans

Top