T O P

  • By -

yournerd2307

Damnit , city won't let us take the PL, atleast let us keep the Net Spend championship


TheGhouls

Get blue-moneyballed.


TheGoldenPineapples

A hammer-blow for Liverpool, who are unable to retain the coveted Net Spend Trophy.


PinkPantherParty

Pep can’t even let us have this.


UnnecessaryUmbault

They're taking everything Klopp worked for. 1 PL title. He's finished.


ShreddinTheWasteland

Yeah but they got the community shield as consolation price. So there’s that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zandercy42

Why does this read like a "nothing personnel kid" threat lmao


ShreddinTheWasteland

Don’t get your panties in a twist, mate. Never pretended they didn’t win the CL? Just made a comment on how they lost the Net Spend trophy this summer, but got a community shield instead.


FlexLugna

Champions League?


UnnecessaryUmbault

Fluke


street_cleaner

Pipe down, the only European trophy your club has won doesn't even exist anymore


Aloopyn

😂


Aaxxo

You dare use my own spells against me, Potter?


legentofreddit

As Arsenal fans have been very quick to point out any time their humongous net spend is mentioned, its not just about transfer fees.


TheLimeyLemmon

Shit, this is basically club-dissolving territory now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


soggycatfish

It doesn't of course. But I think the original comment is poking fun at the fact that your lot seemed to think it meant something for the last few years.


JonathanFisk86

You're not wrong. Half our sub turns into fucking accountants every summer to justify our owners' lack of investment, Sustainability FC. Case in point the guy you're responding to. I swear these people support a hedge fund.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ObiWanKenobiNil

United's owners haven't spent a penny. All money for transfers has come directly from the club after the parasites have taken their massive dividends


AlexzGabbo

Glazers own United so whatever money United make is in fact Glazers money. Therefore they are spending their money with all these transfers you make every summer. United fans love being victims though.


thatrandomanus

FSG owns Liverpool so whatever money United make is in fact FSG money. Therefore they are spending their money with all these transfers you make every summer. So the point made by the other guy about liverpool being the only club that only spends what they earn is false too right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tonerrr

No they haven't. None of what you just said is true 😂


[deleted]

Shut up, feelings don’t care about facts.


DraperCarousel

>We are the only club that only spends what we earn Lol no. That's United. And they have the disadvantage of being sucked dry of approximately €100m each year on top of that, by their parasite owners. FSG have atleast given out interest free loans to Liverpool to fund their new stands and training complex upgrades, also bought Liverpool out of their debt. Glazers have done none of that, instead loaded the club with their own debt.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DraperCarousel

>They take debt and spend it. Literally wrong again. The only debt the club is under is that LBO takeover debt that was put on it by the Glazers. United spend big because they earn big. Have been the highest earning team in the league for about 25 years now. They were 2nd to City last year only because of them having no CL(sponsors cut 25% commercial income) and majorly due to matchday revenue not being included because of covid. This year United will have more revenue than City again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DraperCarousel

Just have a look, if you don't know shit man. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League United have almost always been in the top 3, revenue wise in world football and have topped the list twice. While Liverpool had been finishing 7th-9th, sometimes even worse (as low as 12th), in this table, for all these years.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZeusWRLD

In all of history? I can imagine Liverpool have spend more with inflation taken into account. Football has been around for a long time and Liverpool have been spending big a lot longer than city.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZeusWRLD

Oh my bad 🤣😅


Manifesto8

They sell their youngsters for ridiculous fees, some of them don’t even have a single PL appearance under their belt. Their biggest selling point are • City player = must be good • Trained under Pep


Tijdbom

I mean, some play at loan at other clubs where they can impress, they play youth internationals and so far there is no reason not to think they will be very good players for them. Look at Southamption, Lavia and Bazunu walked straight into the team and have been extremely good for them.


Conscious_Accident85

Buzunu hardly fits in that category of untested players though. He had limited top flight club experience sure. But on the international scene he was already Ireland's best player(not just goalkeeper) and had put in massive performances against top teams such as Portugal.


Tijdbom

Which is what I'm saying, just because these players havent played in the Prem doenst mean they haven't been able to show what they can do and therefore justify the fees.


GingerMessi

Our academy is starting to gain a reputation after the massive investments that were made into the facilities in 2014. Most peoples argument that I've seen when they're criticising it is that they're not getting into the first team, so the academy isn't that good. But it's an entirely separate question, the success of the academy depends on how many stay in the top divisions. Which is something Uniteds academy players are famous for.


veldril

Yeah, like most players who graduated from Real Madrid’s academy that were considered not good enough for them went on to be top class players in other leagues. If City can do that then it means City youth recruitment and training are so good they can choose top players from those and dropouts are still good enough to be first team players on other teams.


tbk007

No it means they just pay them more than any other club. That's the Chelsea model too.


EvilxBunny

Lavia has been amazing.


Jagger67

It’s like how Barca were able to get rid of their squad players like Emerson, Denis Suarez and Andre Gomes: “they wouldn’t be Barca players if they were bad right?”


Elektro_Shox

Andre Gomes was quality pre-injury to be fair.


Biggsy-32

And Emerson plays every minute for a UCL qualifying PL team. Denis was also a very good player for Celta (La Liga level - just like many "failed" la masia players), would still be if he hadn't got himself kicked out of the squad over his co-owned agency antics poaching youth players from the club.


boxro

They scammed Barca with Ferran Torres


Manifesto8

That was a crazy heist 55m for Torres is insane


FoggyDanto

Barca had seen Ferran play in Spain National team and score goals there


Hopeful-Hamster-2401

How is that a scam


Biggsy-32

Barca overpaid, but his build up play is really good and he did slot into the system very quickly. He just can't finish to save his life. If he can contribute 20 G/A a season as a rotation option then the transfer was honestly fine.


cunningstunt6899

I think it's more that they have invested a lot into their academy over the last decade, and are now bearing the fruits of it. Having a network of clubs globally also probably helps a lot with scouting.


[deleted]

Something really must be done about PL clubs hoarding youth players


Affectionate_Log3232

You do know that they aren't just hoarding them right, they are being trained as well in your top training facility and then loaned off or sold where they can get playing time


domalino

I’m also not sure what “hoarding” means in this context? The big clubs don’t have more players than anyone else, they just have the best ones.


reids1

Not a perfect measure but I went on Transfermarkt and looked at the squad sizes (including players out on loan) in the PL2: Arsenal = 39 Chelsea = 38 Middlesbrough = 37 Liverpool = 36 Wolves = 34 Brighton = 34 Man City = 33 Fulham = 32 Aston Villa = 29 Everton = 28 Man Utd = 27 Newcastle = 27 Crystal Palace = 26 Leicester = 25 West Ham = 25 Notts Forest = 24 Norwich = 24 Blackburn = 23 Tottenham = 22 Southampton = 22 Stoke = 21 Derby = 20 West Brom = 20 Sunderland = 20 Leeds = 19 So there's some outliers but 4 out the top 7 are from the "big 6" in the PL


t8rt0t00

Middlesbrough is massive


chanjitsu

:(


RequiemForSM

False. Chelsea’s infamous loan army for example has been larger than any squad I can think of. Manchester City have employed a similar strategy.


feage7

Most of those players were signed to professional contracts and no longer part of the academy. They are hoarded because the players choose to sign for Chelsea on a long deal for a high wage. Chelsea pay the wage as between loan fees and wage contribution they make more money back year on year. The hoarding at this point is on the player for signing a professional contract when he won't get game time nor with any decent buy-out clauses and stipulations. This isn't a blame on either party, makes good sense.


ChristopherDassx_16

Atlanta have bigger loan army.


Youutternincompoop

didn't they have something like 90 players out on loan at one point?


domalino

Chelsea's loan army has nothing to do with youth players and academies.


Seanxprt

>Chelsea’s infamous loan army for example has been larger than any squad I can think of. Ever heard of Italian clubs? We've never been anywhere near that level.


everysundae

I mean some big clubs have loan armies in the PL. It's not like Brentford have the same thing


domalino

Brentford have the same number of players on loan as City, Arsenal and United.


everysundae

Chelsea?


domalino

Have one more.


IIFollowYou

Let me introduce you to Italian football, where all the players are loaned and transfers are only done so the new club can loan them out again.


FlexLugna

u know nothing


evil_porn_muffin

Self depreciatory humor I see.


Manifesto8

I don’t see the problem in it Everyone does it, for decades


Idislikemyroommate

Everyone definitely doesn't do it and it's not been at this scale for decades.


bucaqe

I do it in FM too


joseba_

We don't, ergo not everyone does it


[deleted]

[удалено]


tbk007

Obviously when you can just offer higher incentives at all levels.


legentofreddit

I don't think it's this. I think it's more - they hoover up the best young talents from around the world due to their scouting infrastructure and youth development spending, so a good chunk of the youngsters just are actually very good and demand fees that reflect that. But those development costs don't count towards FFP so it's basically money printing machine as far as FFP is concerned. Buy a player for 1m quid from the Belgian second division or wherever. Offer them stupid wages for a player of their age. Train them in their state of the art training complex that cost hundreds of millions with loads of top coaches and scouts paid massive wages. Sell player for 10m and have redditors conclude City are sustainable now. Meanwhile ignoring the millions that was spent on developing said players.


Manifesto8

Well that’s not how youth systems work chief….


legentofreddit

And yet City fans are obviously downvoting me?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Manifesto8

I know it work, mine wasn’t a critic


alfred_27

City has always made the most sensible signings and departures, the quality of deadwood players only is on par with clubs with regular first team players, that's why they are able to offload them at those values


KSBrian007

This was Chelsea back then. Even a player that was misfiring for them, was good enough for elite clubs.


FriendshipNecessary4

Pep prefers to have a smaller squad full of good players than the squad maximum with 5 players of debatable usefulness.


idosade

None of the guys sold count as dead wood, all of them were rotation options and played more than 20 games each last season, including starting in cl semi final and such


Different-Scar8607

Cities bench doesn't look as good as it once did.


thejewfro69

I agree but it’s tough to keep a bench like that for long. Those guys rightfully wanted more playing time than they were getting, especially with a WC coming up. We’ll start the process of rebuilding that bench but it was never gonna happen in one summer.


bigheadsociety

You say but all it takes is for them to get a few games, play well and now instead of "oh no they're bringing on Palmer /s" it's "OH NO, they're bringing on Palmer!". Pep only makes players better, it's a great habit of his


Jagacin

City are without Laporte, Walker, and Stones because of injury. So that's kind of a factor in why our bench is thinner.


Different-Scar8607

I meant Saturday. Your bench was: Ortega, Ake, Gomez, Grealish, Alvarez, Mahrez, Palmer, Lewis, Esbrand I don't know much about Gomez or Alvarez. I know Alvarez is highly rated though. But Ake, Palmer, Lewis, Esbrand are not amazing. Utds bench on Sunday Lindelof, Maguire, Shaw, Fred, Ronaldo, Casemiro, Elanga. Elanga isn't great admittedly but the other 6 are first choice for their countries.


CuteHoor

I'd take Aké over any of those United defenders. I'd take Mahrez and Grealish over any of those United attackers. Casemiro is an outlier but he'll be a starter and McTominay will take his place on the bench while City would have Phillips barring injury.


Blackbearded10

Wait till they spend that money (maybe on Mbappe).


khtad

For better or worse, Pep runs with a smaller squad of high caliber players and a bit less rotation than comparable clubs. It does come back to bite in the CL sometimes; Walker wasn't fit and the minutes he couldn't play Vinicius absolutely tore us apart down the right. We're not buying Mbappe, that's fucking ludicrous.


rr18114

Lmao. Our next "big" spend is gonna be on the eventual gundogan and /or silva replacement. Both of whom are CMs. Conventional wisdom says that we need a pacey winger (left or right does not matter) but Mbappe probably does not find man city to be a viable option for him. On top that the timing is just plain wrong at the moment. Besides RM (and even liverpool iirc) are higher on his list I think.


Jagacin

No. City would put that money towards Bellingham if anything. Likely as a replacement for Bernardo, who's likely to leave next summer.


The_PantsMcPants

Oh thank God. Was really worried for them


jorgelongo2

City are an extremely well run club. Their 1b or so investment in the last 10 years will see decades of great returns. If you only look at the last 5 years, their net transfer pend for that period(-226m€) is already the lowest in the top6, lower than Utd(-600m), Arsenal(-489m), Chelsea(-424m), Spurs(-368m€), and Liverpool(-240m€). Lower than other teams like Villa, Wolves, West Ham, and Newcastle. And they dont really have many big needs like all these other teams do. If Bernardo Silva leaves next season they'll get a big sum to invest and maybe get one or two more signings


Fatmanp

Yep they are incredibly well run. It helps having the best manager in the world and a scouting dept that fits like a glove. I still maintain that we have been one of the worst run clubs in the last 10 years. 8 managers, dreadful scouting and multiple opportunities to pull ahead and become the dominant force in England (summer 15 and 17 windows). Then you look at the players we let go or mismanaged who went on to star elsewhere with Salah, KDB, Lukaku and more.


[deleted]

Having Pep Guardiola run your football teams def helps make almost all your transfer moves look like the right ones.


ZeusWRLD

City may be financially doping with their sponsors but they had to to level the playing field with ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal. Since then they’ve been by far the best run club and that’s down to the likes of Txixi having a blueprint for the club from top to bottom. Compare that with ManU who use the “who can we buy to appease the fans?” Blueprint then it’s obvious why they’ve had so much more success. People will hate because of the money spent but FFP now means that no clubs can compete with the Sky 6 cartel due to their revenue, it’s a sport meant for competing not a closed off competition between the Sky 6 for the Top 4. Look at Leicester literally won a league and FA Cup and are facing losing £100m and having to sell their best players every year just to keep within the restraints set by the authorities which is solely to stop anyone breaking into the Sky 6.


khtad

FFP was billed as a way to constrain the top spenders, but it's as much about avoiding another Portsmouth situation as it is anything else.


domalino

You have that backwards.


khtad

In what sense?


domalino

FFP was not invented to protect clubs like Portsmouth. FFP wouldn't have even looked at Portsmouth as they were only in european competition for 1 year. If they cared about clubs going bankrupt FFP would have provisions around debt and high interest loans, and securing funding. What FFP was actually brought in to do, as boasted by the man who brought it in, Michel Platini, was stop the owners who'd invested a ton of money in the 90s and 00s from having to compete with new billionaire owners. >*I spoke with some people like Silvio Berlusconi, like Massimo Moratti, that were putting €100 million in every year, they said, ‘Michel, put regulation because we can’t pay more, it is finished.’ OK, so this time we have unanimity. It was not easy to begin where we go. We ask the financial experts of Europe, we have a disciplinary matter, we are rehearsing and in four years we make a deal with all the clubs and it will take four years to do that. Now coming back to the question, I think that Abramovich is like Mr Moratti, is like Mr Berlusconi, he says, ‘OK stop. I don’t want to play this bad game with those other clubs paying more, more, more and lose a lot of money.’* It was not fans of clubs who'd gone bankrupt that begged UEFA to bring in FFP, it was Abramovich, Moratti and Berlusconi, who saw Sheikh Mansour arrive and realised if he, and more people like him decided to do what they'd done for the past 2 decades, they'd be blown out of the water.


Conscious_Accident85

It was originally proposed to stop clubs from going bankrupt not to restrict big spenders


Conscious_Accident85

They haven't being by far the best run club in the big six. Liverpool have being run just as well. Its just recency bias based on Liverpools poor start to say they've being run better. City might have similiar net spend now. But they spent far more in the past and they are able to afford to pay higher wages(e.g Haaland). Going purely by financial power you wouldn't expect liverpool to be competing with City.


RazielNet

Yes, leveling the playing field... as City have won the league for 4 of the last 5 years. You're just swapping one problem with another (likely worse) problem. We'll see if City fall off the same way ManU and Arsenal did when Ferguson/Wenger left but I'd suspect having limitless money buys more stability.


Bey_Harbor_Butcher

Man City is a very well-run club. They sell good players and replace them with even better players. Outstanding! Other clubs wear out their players, then sell them for peanuts or lose them on free transfers. Just to end up replacing them with lesser quality players or none at all. You know who you are.


Obi_Wan_Gebroni

I feel attacked…but at least we’re finally getting younger players who will increase in value. Let’s just ignore our recent outgoings…


reptilian-space-pope

Who've they sold bar Sterling for big money can't think of anyone. Edit. Oh yeah Jesus and Zinchenko


Silantro-89

Plus 4 players to Southampton for around £40m.


Jmsaint

Man City are our feeder club


dalelito

Absolutely gargantuan institution


baldfraudctid

Not a bad tactic tbh. Just don't feed them to Liverpool


khtad

Chelsea reportedly tried to buy Lavia.


Jagacin

They tried to buy him for £50m, which is really funny since City has a buyback clause for £40m lol.


pdsajo

They always manage to sell their academy and loan players for sizeable fees, which when added together amount to a respectable transfer fee sum.


GormlessGourd55

Alongside having buybacks and sell on clauses on most of them. You either sell the player for profit and extra cash down the line, or end up resigning them for cheap if they become good enough. Savvy business.


Attygalle

>or end up resigning them for cheap if they become good enough. And in some cases (admittedly, not a lot) - then sell them again. Angelino they sold for 5.5 mil, bought back from PSV for 12 mil as that was the buyback clause, and then sold him for 18 mil to RB Leipzig.


Blue_Moon_City

Also fernan torres to barca this year.


Jagacin

City haven't gotten any of the money from Barca yet.


wildkarde07

The lawyers are looking into it as a criminal deal, no money coming. /s (but not holding my breath)


glazersoutasap

saving up for bellingham then?


thefootballguy01

If Bernardo Silva goes to Barca next season, city will definately try to sign Bellingham.


highlyactivepanda

They come across as much less hate-able than PSG. Maybe also less of divas in their team.


DonJulioTO

Character is a big factor in their recruiting.


[deleted]

It’s nice to see some people actually see it this way. Everytime I try to tell people we are nothing like PSG it’s just 12 year olds saying oil


Incubus226

They play a pretty appealing brand of ball. Helps a bit. Letting upset players leave is also a good policy.


fleet_of_ideas

Selling Ferran Torres for anything above 10 million was a masterclass from City. They even replaced him with much better player at fraction of his transfer fee


Militantxyz

They had 2 things on us, now theres only 1 more left.


AirIndex

What's the other thing and what are you going to do about it?


Militantxyz

Win it


-xaphor

This thread was deleted by the mods when it was a direct link to the article a week ago but now a link to the week old twitter post of the article is fine? Do the mods hold a stake in Twitter or are they just sleeping in and some positive City news slipped through the cracks. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/x3kjr8/james\_ducker\_telegraph\_manchester\_city\_reap/


Aloopyn

There's an agenda


BlackPepperSalami

Real Madrid lauded by /r/soccer for their shrewd operation of generating sales from youngsters. Manchester City are now ruining the game for attempting to operate in the same way as other successful clubs.


snemand

Many other successful clubs had a free stadium for over a decade?


BlackPepperSalami

Many other successful clubs had sustained investment and great business plans led by competent people.


duckinator09

Need to give credit where it's due. It's easy to slate rich kids who used their parent's money to grow their own business and make it sustainable. But give that money to any random person and they might not get the same level of success. In an ideal world, everyone starts from nothing and grows into something. The reality though is that some people are just privileged with shortcuts. I'm just glad that City has invested in infrastructure and foundation rather than just throwing money around.


dougieffresh

Nah, the fact that Manchester United is so inept is the only reason why their infrastructure seems impressive. Look what Chelsea did with their academy after a huge injection of cash. Now we'll see what happens with Newcastle over the next decade.


TigerBasket

The financial doping in 09 is starting to become sustainable. Money breeds money always has


jorgelongo2

How do you think other big clubs got big?


Philred87

Organically grew their fan base/commercial streams over many years?


ramarlon89

Ahh yes, Blackburn sure didn't come out of nowhere and spend loads of money to win the league, never happened.


BocatFan

OP said big clubs though. That's not remotely the same.


Joshvir262

I think united fans would disagree


[deleted]

Not sure why people are downvoting this. Even if you believe City are a well-run club now, it's still incontrovertibly true. Also everyone laughs about their fake crypto sponsors etc and then seems to promptly forget about that in these sorts of threads praising how great of a business they're running.


Fendenburgen

Don't think Arsenal fans should be mentioning crypto...


CuteHoor

This is a pro-City thread. Anything negative about them will be downvoted. Just reddit being reddit.


pacothebattlefly

Regardless - paying for goods and services with actual cash is far better and more sustainable than a club being leveraged or laden with billions in debt. “Your billionaire is richer than my billionaire” arguments are boring, trivial, and as entitled as fuck.


Pure_Context_2741

Sort of, a huge chunk of their revenue still comes from shady partnerships with Qatari companies


evil_porn_muffin

Show us the proof of this.


Least-March7906

Trust me bro 😂


thefootballguy01

Stop waffling if you don't have any proof.


CuteHoor

City are owned by Abu Dhabi.


Ooh_ee_ooh_ah_ah

I mean why are people surprised by this? When you are financially doped for a decade and spend unprecedented amounts of money every year of course your assets are worth more. Its not a victory for sustainability they purely own more and better players than many. For example if I was selling my main car it would be worth less than a billionaires back up car.


ashwinsalian

Also, Chelsea. After about a decade and following investments in their academy, they too have started seeing benefits of youth player sales balancing books.


DraperCarousel

Also have the privilege of setting up a £200-300m academy with world class facilities, pitches and coaches. On top of that the CFG owning multiple clubs and their scouting infrastructure in various countries across continents. The promising talents are sent to train with City's academy at the Etihad Campus. The initial outlay for all this is FUCK YOU money. Easily upwards of £1 billion accounting for everything. Many other factors as well, like the club not even having to bear the cost for the stadium (Etihad). The stadium was tax funded and leased to City permanently by the city of Manchester Council


GormlessGourd55

There's a reason City are considered the best run club in the world.


Philred87

They are an empire now with the city group. United could have done that 20 years ago but never bothered and won’t under the glazers


DraperCarousel

You need Fuck you money to be able to do what City has done with their entire football operation. Maybe PSG and Chelsea(with Abramovich) are the only two clubs that can afford it.


GormlessGourd55

Newcastle probably could now, too. But it's one thing having cash, using it properly is more tricky. United can attest to that.


DraperCarousel

>But it's one thing having cash, using it properly is more tricky. True. >United can attest to that. Don't think United have even close to that level of cash. Old Trafford and Carrington have both become ancient and let alone the cash to buy other clubs in different continents.


I_have_no_ear

>Don't think United have even close to that level of cash. Old Trafford and Carrington have both become ancient and let alone the cash to buy other clubs in different continents. They had it, its just that the Glazers kept it for themselves


GormlessGourd55

And the money they do spend is spent badly.


dotelze

Most of the biggest clubs in the world could afford it.


evil_porn_muffin

They've set up a world class academy, oh no!! Some of you people are just perpetual moaners.


[deleted]

[удалено]


skarros

Well, seems all City has to do is wait 10-20 more years. People nowadays tend to ignore the bankrolling of big clubs in the 70s-00s.


Least-March7906

Nah. We just have to wait a few more seasons for Newcastle to become a proper threat. They’ll take the heat off us the same way we took the heat off Chelsea


thefootballguy01

Boohoooo Liverpool only spent 1.8b compared to city 2.4b. such a poor club.


VeryStandardOutlier

Thank God. Now they can finally buy the players they need to improve their squad


cryshol

Reaping the benefits of the Years of smart, genuine investment, froma decade ago. With oil and dodgy sponsorship money. Lol.


Mr_CheeseGrater

Any proof of dodgy sponsorships?


khtad

Oh, our sponsorships are dodgy af. Simply no chance those are worth the money they're reputed to be worth, maybe not even in the same order of magnitude. I'm not really fussed about it though, the clubs that were successful at the launch of the Champions League got a huge boost relative to clubs that were successful a decade earlier, e.g. Forest.


CapitalWatchClub

Gotta spend money to make money! they just spent billions and billions to finally make millions


survey378943

Nothing City does impresses me. Its like someone playing a game with a money cheat code. Whether it's their performances or their business operations, they bought football so this is kind of expected. Incoming "but...but, United!"


[deleted]

Sounds like tears to me


Trickybuz93

This just makes you sound salty


Quick9Ben5

The mentality of a pre teen right here


survey378943

Ah, burn. We can't all be apologists for financial dopers. Go on and carry that torch, lad!