Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Its like the elitist clubs forgetting how they got to the top themselves, by spending more than others, Football has always been that way, Charlton could have been no different had our owners decided to buy Stanley Matthews, and build on our success from the 40s, rather than let us stagnate.
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
I don't disagree.
Just that you also only have to look at United or Chelsea to see that you can spend millions/billions very badly too.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Its like the elitist clubs forgetting how they got to the top themselves, by spending more than others, Football has always been that way, Charlton could have been no different had our owners decided to buy Stanley Matthews, and build on our success from the 40s, rather than let us stagnate.
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
The only reason I brought it up was that Man City were being praised as being 'sensible' with their money.
If a rich owner wants to buy the league like many teams have done, be my guest, but don't praise them for being sensible when that club goes bust the moment the owner gets bored.
I hate state-owned clubs with a passion which is why Newcastle in particular; I hate the praise at how 'plucky' they are tackling the big boys when they're literally richer than some of the clubs combined and simply a front for a Saudi sportswashing operation.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
I don't disagree.
Just that you also only have to look at United or Chelsea to see that you can spend millions/billions very badly too.
If anything Chelsea under Russian rule gave Man City the blueprint for how to be a successful billionaire owned club, Man City simply had far bigger pockets. The Americans (and Americans as well in United's case) are the ones that don't understand how the game should be played.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
I don't disagree.
Just that you also only have to look at United or Chelsea to see that you can spend millions/billions very badly too.
If anything Chelsea under Russian rule gave Man City the blueprint for how to be a successful billionaire owned club, Man City simply had far bigger pockets. The Americans (and Americans as well in United's case) are the ones that don't understand how the game should be played.
I know right, all that talk about "endzones" and "time outs" ...... they haven't got a clue.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
But then there needs to be acceptance of that across the board.
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
But then there needs to be acceptance of that across the board.
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Which is the reason some of us have been against VAR from the start, it’s just not suitable for football. Sack it off, accept the imperfections and move back to a better time.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
But then there needs to be acceptance of that across the board.
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Same in cricket though.
Look at Headingley 2019, Joel Wilson's decision not to given LBW was terrible, but most blamed Tim Paine for wasting a review earlier.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
They also earned almost 300m in tv/prize money last season and sold over 100m of players in the summer. So they could've spent a lot more.
In todays market their only only big signing was Gvardiol, who like Doku is also 21 with his best years ahead of him. Compare that to United panic signing Varane and Casemiro.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
But then there needs to be acceptance of that across the board.
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Which is the reason some of us have been against VAR from the start, it’s just not suitable for football. Sack it off, accept the imperfections and move back to a better time.
Yeah you see, because of the imperfections, I don't care if VAR is used or not... Either option isn't going to change much... Few different calls which'll still upset the team that it doesn't favour
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Its like the elitist clubs forgetting how they got to the top themselves, by spending more than others, Football has always been that way, Charlton could have been no different had our owners decided to buy Stanley Matthews, and build on our success from the 40s, rather than let us stagnate.
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
The only reason I brought it up was that Man City were being praised as being 'sensible' with their money.
If a rich owner wants to buy the league like many teams have done, be my guest, but don't praise them for being sensible when that club goes bust the moment the owner gets bored.
I hate state-owned clubs with a passion which is why Newcastle in particular; I hate the praise at how 'plucky' they are tackling the big boys when they're literally richer than some of the clubs combined and simply a front for a Saudi sportswashing operation.
You're being ridiculous.
You seriously think if Sheikh Mansour walked away tomorrow, City would go bust? As if they wouldn't have a queue of investment funds looking to buy them? Or the Qatari guy who just tried to buy United. People said the same about Chelsea if Abramovich left and look how many interested buyers they had.
I'd say that behind Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man U and possibly Liverpool, Man City are probably the club who'd be worth the most today if put up for sale.
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Its like the elitist clubs forgetting how they got to the top themselves, by spending more than others, Football has always been that way, Charlton could have been no different had our owners decided to buy Stanley Matthews, and build on our success from the 40s, rather than let us stagnate.
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
The only reason I brought it up was that Man City were being praised as being 'sensible' with their money.
If a rich owner wants to buy the league like many teams have done, be my guest, but don't praise them for being sensible when that club goes bust the moment the owner gets bored.
I hate state-owned clubs with a passion which is why Newcastle in particular; I hate the praise at how 'plucky' they are tackling the big boys when they're literally richer than some of the clubs combined and simply a front for a Saudi sportswashing operation.
You're being ridiculous.
You seriously think if Sheikh Mansour walked away tomorrow, City would go bust? As if they wouldn't have a queue of investment funds looking to buy them? Or the Qatari guy who just tried to buy United. People said the same about Chelsea if Abramovich left and look how many interested buyers they had.
I'd say that behind Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man U and possibly Liverpool, Man City are probably the club who'd be worth the most today if put up for sale.
Worth more than Liverpool right now I reckon.
Having to be associated with Scousers must knock a couple hundred million off the price at least
Doku is some signing by City. Hadn't heard of him before he joined. Look af some of the shite Utd sign in comparison.
He's only 21 and cost 55m. So about 30m less than Antony and Mudryk, and also less than Havertz and Mount. But everyone will say City only win because they spend loads. No, they just spend well.
They spend 'well' because they've thrown money elsewhere to make transfers easier for them in the long run.
It's part of being another state-owned club with billions of pounds.
They also spent 200m this summer on essentially 4 players.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten the players they have sold or have left on frees? In terms of salaries, they've got off the books in the last two seasons the likes of Sterling, Gundogan, Mendy, Jesus, Zinchenko, Mahrez, Palmer, Trafford, Porro, Lavia, Itakura etc etc
Spend £288m. Sales £252m. Net spend £36m. Man United's net spend in the same period is over £300m!!!
Did they not also sign all of those players?
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
Palmer and Trafford were youth team players, Lavia and Porro sell on clauses etc.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Exactly my point.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
Its like the elitist clubs forgetting how they got to the top themselves, by spending more than others, Football has always been that way, Charlton could have been no different had our owners decided to buy Stanley Matthews, and build on our success from the 40s, rather than let us stagnate.
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
The only reason I brought it up was that Man City were being praised as being 'sensible' with their money.
If a rich owner wants to buy the league like many teams have done, be my guest, but don't praise them for being sensible when that club goes bust the moment the owner gets bored.
I hate state-owned clubs with a passion which is why Newcastle in particular; I hate the praise at how 'plucky' they are tackling the big boys when they're literally richer than some of the clubs combined and simply a front for a Saudi sportswashing operation.
You're being ridiculous.
You seriously think if Sheikh Mansour walked away tomorrow, City would go bust? As if they wouldn't have a queue of investment funds looking to buy them? Or the Qatari guy who just tried to buy United. People said the same about Chelsea if Abramovich left and look how many interested buyers they had.
I'd say that behind Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man U and possibly Liverpool, Man City are probably the club who'd be worth the most today if put up for sale.
No, but their revenue would take a nosedive as a lot of their major sponsors are from a certain area of the world. Who would then move onto the next club a royal family member fancied.
That second Forest goal did make me laugh. With goal-line technology there’s absolutely no ambiguity or guesswork necessary anymore. Yet Martinez still went to roll the ball out as if it hadn’t crossed the line, presumably hoping the ref would ignore the signal in his ear and assume it wasn’t a goal, based on Martinez’s actions.
These embarrassing club statements might be the thing that turns my opinion on scrapping VAR… first Liverpool, now Arsenal, who’s next?
I am missing the days where clubs accepted the result of a match after 90 minutes (even in cases where the ball clearly crossed the goal line for instance) rather than crying about it on the internet.
Imagine if the FA issued a statement on FIFA after the 2010 World Cup. 😂
It doesn't make it right - But the utter silence from Wolves, who have been screwed over so many times, makes Arsenal and recent Liverpool reactions even more embarrassing.
It doesn't make it right - But the utter silence from Wolves, who have been screwed over so many times, makes Arsenal and recent Liverpool reactions even more embarrassing.
Making clubs silent when it's clear that they've been screwed over (especially Wolves) is precisely the reason why refereeing performance doesn't improve. They're immune from criticism.
Why does tennis have Hawk-eye on the ball across the court but the Billion-pound Premier League can't find angles on whether a ball is out of play or not? It's a joke.
These embarrassing club statements might be the thing that turns my opinion on scrapping VAR… first Liverpool, now Arsenal, who’s next?
I am missing the days where clubs accepted the result of a match after 90 minutes (even in cases where the ball clearly crossed the goal line for instance) rather than crying about it on the internet.
Imagine if the FA issued a statement on FIFA after the 2010 World Cup. 😂
You think the likes of Fergie or Wenger never criticised refereeing performances? Or Mourinho? Living in a dream world.
Q: Should there be so many reviews allowed by captains or managers in matches and Video refs only gets involved off their own bat for the "clear and obvious" 🤔
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Absolutely the very obvious thing they should do - one challenge a match, captain decides, you keep it if you're right.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
But then there needs to be acceptance of that across the board.
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Which is the reason some of us have been against VAR from the start, it’s just not suitable for football. Sack it off, accept the imperfections and move back to a better time.
Yeah you see, because of the imperfections, I don't care if VAR is used or not... Either option isn't going to change much... Few different calls which'll still upset the team that it doesn't favour
Except VAR absolutely ruins the flow of the game and has the important people, fans in the ground, standing around like a bunch of lemons having no idea what’s going on.
Comments
Exactly what I mean, easy to 'make money' by removing other £50m signings you've made in previous seasons. That's why the net spend argument is bogus for city.
They're 'sensible' now because they were able to throw money in previous seasons.
I get where you're coming from but they are very well run - spend wisely on the youth team, and in the first team they buy 22, 23 year olds, get the best years out of them and sell (pretty often at a profit) at 29, 30.
They also set a price and if the selling club go too high, walk away - Cucurella as an example.
Yes the oil money lets them have the amazing youth facilities, and gives them the chance to go and buy promising players with less financial risk, but they spend very well.
Yes they're 'sensible' but without the billions they can't do things like build a literal town of facilities or spend a billion pounds in transfer fees over the previous decade.
People are seeing the end point and praising how sensible they are, ignoring the billions ploughed into the club over the previous decade.
You can say that again 😀
How some owners have made money isn't right (Newcastle like you've said) - But the fact that others shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into a closed shop is ridiculous - If clubs want to take the risk, they should be allowed... Same goes for the consequences of failure.
How many of us would complain if Bezos and Gates joined forces and purchased Charlton, copying the Man City model?
Just that you also only have to look at United or Chelsea to see that you can spend millions/billions very badly too.
If a rich owner wants to buy the league like many teams have done, be my guest, but don't praise them for being sensible when that club goes bust the moment the owner gets bored.
I hate state-owned clubs with a passion which is why Newcastle in particular; I hate the praise at how 'plucky' they are tackling the big boys when they're literally richer than some of the clubs combined and simply a front for a Saudi sportswashing operation.
A: "Its just not cricket, Harry."
Q. "Howzat"
A. We don't want League games going on for 120 minutes and more stoppages than just past Junction 10 on the M25, Clockwise.
Teams will only use it for big mistakes as they'll want to keep the review (and probably stuff late in games if they haven't used it).
It won't stop fans / pundits / managers from saying that the referee should have got X decision right, without the need for review... There is too much Human element in the game, to decipher the rules, as too much is subjective.
One week a referee / lino will feel something is handball / offside / a foul
The next week it wont.
No amount of technology will ever change that, or perfect it.
Look at Headingley 2019, Joel Wilson's decision not to given LBW was terrible, but most blamed Tim Paine for wasting a review earlier.
And is Raya better than Ramsdale?
In todays market their only only big signing was Gvardiol, who like Doku is also 21 with his best years ahead of him. Compare that to United panic signing Varane and Casemiro.
You seriously think if Sheikh Mansour walked away tomorrow, City would go bust? As if they wouldn't have a queue of investment funds looking to buy them? Or the Qatari guy who just tried to buy United. People said the same about Chelsea if Abramovich left and look how many interested buyers they had.
I'd say that behind Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man U and possibly Liverpool, Man City are probably the club who'd be worth the most today if put up for sale.
Having to be associated with Scousers must knock a couple hundred million off the price at least
They should be seriously punished for this sort of statement imo. Utter garbage and a total embarrassment for the club.
I am missing the days where clubs accepted the result of a match after 90 minutes (even in cases where the ball clearly crossed the goal line for instance) rather than crying about it on the internet.
Imagine if the FA issued a statement on FIFA after the 2010 World Cup. 😂
Why does tennis have Hawk-eye on the ball across the court but the Billion-pound Premier League can't find angles on whether a ball is out of play or not? It's a joke.