Lucas Perez (Out)

[krengon]

Yet their squad cost is over double of ours. Not to mention you got the wages wrong, but wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Just their spend over the years kills this pro-City argument, they are not a good example of getting value for your money. I'm trying to see the other side of the argument here, but it's not making sense to me. You can compare a select few transfers and fit it into whatever narrative you want, every club has their fair share of good and bad transfers to choose from, but City are in the position they are in now because they were able to spend as much as they needed until they got it right.

Then you have to compare the role of the player bought in, Perez was obviously a backup option, makes no sense to compare him to Sterling/Sane or someone like that who's obviously bought in to be key players.. Our equivalent would be Alexis, Özil, Mkhitaryan etc, players bought in as key players for the first team.
Perez, Welbeck, Elneny etc. for us is Navas, Nolito, Gundogan, B.Silva etc. for City(and I'm not even going to bother with the difference in price of the backups here).

The backup options are no big deal if they fail, but for us we obviously have to hit on our key signings if we want to challenge. People like to point to Cech, Mustafi and Xhaka and let's for this arguments sake say they are all flops, that's a mistake we can't afford to make without suffering, not the case for City..

 

[krengon]

Yeah, City have definitely had their fair share of misses. I just mean in terms of Wenger saying there's no value in the market in the past and things like that, there are still good players available for fees that we could theoretically pay. Gabriel costing the same amount as Toby Alderweireld is one such example.

Yeah we've not been good in the transfer market the last few years, I think I've complained about our failure there before, so this is not me trying to defend our transfers. Felt like Wenger had lost his competitive edge where his 'important' buys did not deliver as you'd want.. Wenger was recruiting better during the financial restriction years when you think about it, got more value for money on majority of players bought in back then..

However my point is there's nothing special in what City are doing in the transfer market and it's not because they've been able to identify the right players better than everyone else that they are so far ahead currently.. To close that gap we definitely have to be a lot better in the transfer market as we obviously can't compete financially, so it will be interesting to see what this new setup can come up with..

 

[bingobob]

Your sucking off of our rivals is beyond disgusting, Bob.



Yet their squad cost is over double of ours. Not to mention you got the wages wrong, but wouldn't expect anything else from you.



Jeez. Cech 16M, talk about making **** up

Really, unbearable reading your bollocks. You pick a few random names to suit your pathetic agenda and even then they're millions apart, yet you act as if you've found a life saving formula.

Their team cost over double of ours, that is the important thing here. We cannot compete with that in the market.

Not mention they're benefiting from the Arabs in their commercial deals... and not to forget they still got players like Aguero, Silva, Kompany contributing from the time they bought them where they were throwing money at any guy with a pulse.

It's true, their business model has improved over the years but it was bound to happen, FFP were on their ass, which they had to do something about and what they were doing wasn't sustainable long term.

http://dailycannon.com/2017/11/arse...f-tottenham-and-thats-not-even-the-worst-bit/

Noticed the date on it so it may be a bit off but I certainly didn't make it up to suit an agenda. I seen the figure and posted it.

I'm hardly sucking off anybody. I'm being critical of those like yourself who cannot see the wood from the trees. We've spent a ton of money. We have done all those things people are critical of others doing. And that's not a bad thing. We need to be doing that. Virtually everyone wants a new centre back yet two seasons ago we spent 35m on Mustafi. And it looks increasingly likely we will spend on more on a new CB and replace him. But that's only something City have the luxury of doing.

We spent 20m on Perez loaned him out and spent 100m on two strikers. The money is there compete for signatures if we want to. As mentioned if both us and City identify the same three players I'd fully expect them to get at least two of them because they do have deeper pockets than us. But we also have deep pockets as demonstrated when we handed Özil 300k per week and splashed 56m on Aubameyang. On one player we can go head to head.

http://7amkickoff.com/index.php/2017/05/23/if-wenger-were-a-player-he-would-have-sold-himself/

 

[bingobob]

Just their spend over the years kills this pro-City argument, they are not a good example of getting value for your money. I'm trying to see the other side of the argument here, but it's not making sense to me. You can compare a select few transfers and fit it into whatever narrative you want, every club has their fair share of good and bad transfers to choose from, but City are in the position they are in now because they were able to spend as much as they needed until they got it right.

Then you have to compare the role of the player bought in, Perez was obviously a backup option, makes no sense to compare him to Sterling/Sane or someone like that who's obviously bought in to be key players.. Our equivalent would be Alexis, Özil, Mkhitaryan etc, players bought in as key players for the first team.
Perez, Welbeck, Elneny etc. for us is Navas, Nolito, Gundogan, B.Silva etc. for City(and I'm not even going to bother with the difference in price of the backups here).

The backup options are no big deal if they fail, but for us we obviously have to hit on our key signings if we want to challenge. People like to point to Cech, Mustafi and Xhaka and let's for this arguments sake say they are all flops, that's a mistake we can't afford to make without suffering, not the case for City..

I get what you're saying but you seem to be ignoring our financial history. The spend has to be relative to the team. 15-25m was a big fee for us because at the time our spend was relatively low. Now that's what our squad players cost because we've moved up a bracket. In the season gone by both signings cost over 50m. In the previous season two 35m buys and a 20m buy. When we signed Özil that was insane relative to what we were spending. We followed that up with Alexis but all the other signings (Welbeck ,Chambers , Debuchy) at the time were big out lays for us in the context of the history of the club to that point. As time has gone on and we've paid consistently bigger fee's but that can't take away what those signings represented. Chambers and Welbeck at that point could easily be in the top 10 and certainly in the top 20 transfer fees for us.

And we are starting to rack up players the way City did or Chelsea did before them. The only difference is for us we are in the infancy of doing it. Another two or three years from now we will be signing new players and replacing expensive flops.

 

[Furious]

http://dailycannon.com/2017/11/arse...f-tottenham-and-thats-not-even-the-worst-bit/

Noticed the date on it so it may be a bit off but I certainly didn't make it up to suit an agenda. I seen the figure and posted it.

I'm hardly sucking off anybody. I'm being critical of those like yourself who cannot see the wood from the trees. We've spent a ton of money. We have done all those things people are critical of others doing. And that's not a bad thing. We need to be doing that. Virtually everyone wants a new centre back yet two seasons ago we spent 35m on Mustafi. And it looks increasingly likely we will spend on more on a new CB and replace him. But that's only something City have the luxury of doing.

We spent 20m on Perez loaned him out and spent 100m on two strikers. The money is there compete for signatures if we want to. As mentioned if both us and City identify the same three players I'd fully expect them to get at least two of them because they do have deeper pockets than us. But we also have deep pockets as demonstrated when we handed Özil 300k per week and splashed 56m on Aubameyang. On one player we can go head to head.

http://7amkickoff.com/index.php/2017/05/23/if-wenger-were-a-player-he-would-have-sold-himself/

You're using Daily ****ing Star as a source.


Wages are a smaller part anyway. You don't have to pay players like Sane big wages. Look how much they paid for the players just in the last two seasons, probably as much as our whole team cost, we can't compete with that.

Yes, you're sucking them off big time. You were doing the same bollocks with Chelsea last year, but no surprise we ain't hearing anything from you on them after they wasted money on rubbish like your boy Barkley( )and the likes of Morata and Drinkwater.

Yes,we've loads of money we can spend. I've never disputed that. Only problem here is bullshiters like you using selective player cost to suck off our rivals.

 

[Furious]

Couldn't post this in the above post:

 

[Stannis]

I know there are zero links, but I wouldnt mind Felipe Anderson coming the other way

 

[Trilly]

That's 2 examples out of what 8+ players City have paid 50m+ for?

And they weren't even cheap. We pay that kind of money for proven players.

So?

I don’t get the point you’re trying to make at all.

 

[bingobob]

@Furious big and man enough to admit I made a mistake on the wages. Genuine mistake I read it and assumed it was picked up accurately from somewhere else.

There is nothing wrong with looking at another club and seeing how they operate and wishing we done the same. That's not sucking off that's simply recognising that clubs can and do operate better than us. Chelsea done it in 16/17 with good business notably in Kante and fortunately this season they lost Costa and never replaced him. As for my boy Barkley I still maintain he is a good player and for the money quoted is someone we should have been in for.

Anyway. If I am to such of a strategy it's the one ive advocated since seeing Real Madrid sign Ronaldo, Benzema and Alonso and that's sell assets to buy assets. Same thing they done to buy Bale and the same thing Barcelona done to buy Suarez and finally it's the same thing we done this season to buy Lacazette and Aubameyang.

 

[Furious]

So?

I don’t get the point you’re trying to make at all.

They can afford taking chances with expensive youngsters. We can't.

 

[A_G]

However my point is there's nothing special in what City are doing in the transfer market and it's not because they've been able to identify the right players better than everyone else that they are so far ahead currently.. To close that gap we definitely have to be a lot better in the transfer market as we obviously can't compete financially, so it will be interesting to see what this new setup can come up with..

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that City have such a good squad due to scouting. I know that their wealth means they can stockpile big signings, they've had games where their bench is worth close to £200m. The point that @Trilly @bingobob and I are making is that we are constantly told we can't sign top class players due to money, but there's a number of players our rivals boast that would improve us and were in our range financially:

GK/Defence:
Lloris: £15m (Cech and Ospina a combined £14m)
Alderweireld: £11.5m (same as Gabriel Paulista)
Bailly: £30m (£5m less than Mustafi)

Midfield:
Dembele: £15m
Matic (to Chelsea): £21m
Fernandinho: £34m

Attack:
Son Heung-Min: £18m
Gabriel Jesus £27m
Sadio Mane: £34m
Mohammed Salah: £37m
Leroy Sane: £37m

I agree we can't sign a Bernardo, Sterling and Sane all together, but we need to be more efficient in the market to combat this disparity in funds. For example, we could have paid £34m for Fernandinho in 2013. Instead we signed Flamini for free who barely contributed and five years later we're still looking for reinforcements in midfield. We signed Gabriel who flopped then compounded the problem by paying £35m for Mustafi, which wouldn't have been necessary if the club had gone for Alderweireld.

 

[Goonerozil33]

You're using Daily ****ing Star as a source.


Wages are a smaller part anyway. You don't have to pay players like Sane big wages. Look how much they paid for the players just in the last two seasons, probably as much as our whole team cost, we can't compete with that.

Yes, you're sucking them off big time. You were doing the same bollocks with Chelsea last year, but no surprise we ain't hearing anything from you on them after they wasted money on rubbish like your boy Barkley( )and the likes of Morata and Drinkwater.

Yes,we've loads of money we can spend. I've never disputed that. Only problem here is bullshiters like you using selective player cost to suck off our rivals.

That reply was furious, like the name

 

[Furious]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that City have such a good squad due to scouting. I know that their wealth means they can stockpile big signings, they've had games where their bench is worth close to £200m. The point that @Trilly @bingobob and I are making is that we are constantly told we can't sign top class players due to money, but there's a number of players our rivals boast that would improve us and were in our range financially:

I agree we can't sign a Bernardo, Sterling and Sane all together, but we need to be more efficient in the market to combat this disparity in funds. For example, we could have paid £34m for Fernandinho in 2013. Instead we signed Flamini for free who barely contributed and five years later we're still looking for reinforcements in midfield. We signed Gabriel who flopped then compounded the problem by paying £35m for Mustafi, which wouldn't have been necessary if the club had gone for Alderweireld.

This doesn't make much sense. At best it's captain hindsight stuff.

No, we couldn't sign Fernandinho in 2013, City signed him.

I'm sure the other teams wish they found Bellerin or signed the likes of Alexis and Mesut instead of us but it's wishlist thinking at best, and selective player choosing to paint the desired picture.

 

[A_G]

This doesn't make much sense. At best it's captain hindsight stuff.

No, we couldn't sign Fernandinho in 2013, City signed him.

I'm sure the other teams wish they found Bellerin or signed the likes of Alexis and Mesut instead of us but it's wishlist thinking at best, and selective player choosing to paint the desired picture.

I'm simply talking about the transfer fees.

 

[Captain Hindsight]

This doesn't make much sense. At best it's captain hindsight stuff.

No, we couldn't sign Fernandinho in 2013, City signed him.

I'm sure the other teams wish they found Bellerin or signed the likes of Alexis and Mesut instead of us but it's wishlist thinking at best, and selective player choosing to paint the desired picture.

If you had not mentioned me, I would not have made it here, and American_Gooner would have succeeded in this false identity scheme of his hmmm...

If we signed Fernandinho in 2013, City would not have been able to sign him then. We would subsequently have not signed Özil and would be languishing in 9th currently hmmmm..

If selective player choosing didn't exist then many tabloids would go out of business hmm..most pundits would also never have their jobs and analysis could be fairer but less entertaining

Remember people I will always be at your aid when you call my name!

Hindsight!

 

[Furious]

If you had not mentioned me, I would not have made it here, and American_Gooner would have succeeded in this false identity scheme of his hmmm...

If we signed Fernandinho in 2013, City would not have been able to sign him then. We would subsequently have not signed Özil and would be languishing in 9th currently hmmmm..

If selective player choosing didn't exist then many tabloids would go out of business hmm..most pundits would also never have their jobs and analysis could be fairer but less entertaining

Remember people I will always be at your aid when you call my name!

Hindsight!

good stuff, will make use of your service more often in the future.

 

[krengon]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that City have such a good squad due to scouting. I know that their wealth means they can stockpile big signings, they've had games where their bench is worth close to £200m. The point that @Trilly @bingobob and I are making is that we are constantly told we can't sign top class players due to money, but there's a number of players our rivals boast that would improve us and were in our range financially:

I agree we can't sign a Bernardo, Sterling and Sane all together, but we need to be more efficient in the market to combat this disparity in funds. For example, we could have paid £34m for Fernandinho in 2013. Instead we signed Flamini for free who barely contributed and five years later we're still looking for reinforcements in midfield. We signed Gabriel who flopped then compounded the problem by paying £35m for Mustafi, which wouldn't have been necessary if the club had gone for Alderweireld.

I agree with the bolded and we've been lacking in that area the last few years no doubt..The same goes for us though. Koscielny, Sanchez, Özil, Cazorla, Monreal were all great steals that others either didn't see or couldn't get done.

How many of those players were already thought of as top class before they were bought? Most you hope are good players who could potentially take the next step with you or youngsters with potential and that comes with an inherent risk, lots of players who will fail to make that transition that clubs gamble on.. Not like buying already established players guarantees that they'll deliver, but players that have already proven their class on the big stage is less of a gamble and more likely to be of the quality you want.

Also I don't think it's fair to say we missed out on x player after they already have proven their quality. You could say that with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I don't think many rated them as potentially world class or thought they'd be as good as they are now(except for some youngsters maybe). Some we definitely did miss out on though and should have done more, others was just not meant to be(timing, needs/priority of the squad, competition, didn't rate/rated others higher etc). I guess you could say that's where we need to do a better job identifying the right player, which I don't disagree with and looking forward to see if the new setup can rectify that.

Take Sane for example. Only way we were getting him is if we moved before City did. The season he moved to City he played 40 games(29 starts) and he got 9 goals/7 assists for Schalke. If we were to have a chance on him we would have had to make a move before he proved himself that season, so a season where he played 14 games(7 starts) 4 goals and 0 assists.. Let's say we did see the potential in him from that limited sample and bought him, now we would have to make up that step he took at Schalke the following season at Arsenal. He's not going to develop similar playing u-21 football, you don't know how he'll react to PL football at that age with such limited experience etc, so now you are taking a risk on a player who has yet to show what he's capable of at the big stage, and without the progression he made at Schalke before moving to City, he could very well have turned out to struggle here even if we got him.

edit: ffs this turned into an essay, I'll try to be more concise..

 

[bingobob]

To be concise. We have players other teams would like. Other teams have players we would like. All teams have spent lots of money and no fan is ever happy.

Oh and @Furious another apology no idea where I for Cech @16m from. Face palm again for moi.

 

[Furious]

To be concise. We have players other teams would like. Other teams have players we would like. All teams have spent lots of money and no fan is ever happy.

Oh and @Furious another apology no idea where I for Cech @16m from. Face palm again for moi.

No probs bro. No need to apologize.

 

[Trilly]

Just their spend over the years kills this pro-City argument, they are not a good example of getting value for your money. I'm trying to see the other side of the argument here, but it's not making sense to me. You can compare a select few transfers and fit it into whatever narrative you want, every club has their fair share of good and bad transfers to choose from, but City are in the position they are in now because they were able to spend as much as they needed until they got it right.

Then you have to compare the role of the player bought in, Perez was obviously a backup option, makes no sense to compare him to Sterling/Sane or someone like that who's obviously bought in to be key players.. Our equivalent would be Alexis, Özil, Mkhitaryan etc, players bought in as key players for the first team.
Perez, Welbeck, Elneny etc. for us is Navas, Nolito, Gundogan, B.Silva etc. for City(and I'm not even going to bother with the difference in price of the backups here).

The backup options are no big deal if they fail, but for us we obviously have to hit on our key signings if we want to challenge. People like to point to Cech, Mustafi and Xhaka and let's for this arguments sake say they are all flops, that's a mistake we can't afford to make without suffering, not the case for City..

Think you read too deep into it, trying to counter an argument that wasn't there.

Yes, City have more money and so can have more attempts at finding value in the market but the fact remains that there is value to be found in the market. And I think that we haven't done well at finding said value. That's all.

Just because City have loads of money doesn't change the fact they've made some good signings and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some measure that equated for budget yet still showed they've made better use of their resources.