Why are you including the sale of ronaldo from three years ago in man utd, but none of the sales from the past 3 seasons for man city (47m in announced fees (on soccerbase), plus 15 others that were undisclosed fees)?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
City v QPR
- Thread starter Mutts Nuts
- Start date
Why are you including the sale of ronaldo from three years ago in man utd, but none of the sales from the past 3 seasons for man city (47m in announced fees (on soccerbase), plus 15 others that were undisclosed fees)?
Mate off the top of my head I couldn't think of any Man City sales, who were they? (Genuine question)
Going back to sumer 2009 when Ronaldo moved, according to soccerbase:
Jerome Boatang for 12.3m to bayern munich
Shay Given for 3.5m to Villa
Javier Garrido for 2.75m to Lazio
Stephen Ireland for 8m to Villa
Daniel Sturridge for 3.5m to Chlsea
Ched Evans for 3m to sheff utd
Elano for 8m to Galatasaray
Rishard Dunne for 5m to villa
Free transers are noted as free. Undisclosed fee transfers are noted as 'signed'. These are the ones noted as 'signed' (may also include out of contract players).
Craig Bellamy Liverpool
Shaun Wright-Phillips QPR
Keiran Trippier Burnley
Chris Chantler Carlisle
Nedum Onuoha QPR
Frederic Veseli Man Utd
Adam Clayton Leeds
Robinho Milan
David Ball Peterborough
James Poole Hartlepool
Adrian Cieslewicz Wrexham
Gelson Fernandes St-Etienne
Kasper Schmeichel Notts Co
Valeri Bojinov Parma
(I've ignored the transfers that were noted as 'free').
Latest Man City Transfers | Full Transfer History | Soccer Base
Northstandite
New member
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,260
ManC, have just joined ManU and Chelsea in spending big on players transfers fees & wages.
The myth of the Fergie youth system feeding the first team with half a dozen home grown youngsters, was largely replaced by spending, many seasons ago.
ManC have ruffled the feathers of southern 'reds' who never/rarely go to OT.
The myth of the Fergie youth system feeding the first team with half a dozen home grown youngsters, was largely replaced by spending, many seasons ago.
ManC have ruffled the feathers of southern 'reds' who never/rarely go to OT.
5mins-from-amex
New member
why are you defending city? teams and owners like that are killing football!!
5mins-from-amex
New member
where do i start with posts like this?, utd get there money from there turnover from being one of the most recognised brands in world football. city? rich suger daddy that has bought the leauge... FACT
Don't give a shit who wins the premiership
Don't give a shit who gets relegated.
Don't give a shit who wins the Champions' League.
Looking forward to the Euros, the Test series against South Africa (both in cricket and Rugby) and of course the new season at the Amex.
Don't give a shit who gets relegated.
Don't give a shit who wins the Champions' League.
Looking forward to the Euros, the Test series against South Africa (both in cricket and Rugby) and of course the new season at the Amex.
They aren't doing anything other teams and owners haven't done before them. I think TV money did more damage than any rich man investing in a team, and because of both TV and rich men, football is continually changing and evolving. I respect that some people prefer it as it was, and for them this means football is dying. I neither agree nor disagree with the sentiment.
However, in discussions of the potential premier league win for City, the accusation from man utd fans is that man city (and chelsea before them) are buying the title. This is a hypocritical argument, and I have no problem pointing that out when it is made.
There is quite a difference between assembling a squad of expensive players over a period of time (man united) to buying the worlds best players in bulk at the same time (man city and chelsea before them)
That is what I dislike, it IS buying the title no matter how people try to dress it up.
Player x transfer value is rated at around £20-23 million pounds. Arsenal and Liverpool put bids in of £23 million, United and Barcelona tempt club with a very respectable offer of £25 million to seal the deal. Then man city come along and blow everyone out the water with a outrageous bid of £40 million and offer to pay player x double what the others offer him. THIS is why I dislike them and Chelsea so much.
Last edited:
danish seagull
Active member
As long as all the top players come to the premier league and the English teams do well in Europe that's all I care about. Not mine or the Albions money being spent but I'm selfish like that. Just wanna see the best players week in week out on telly
Football's elite clubs have all the power. That grip on football maintains the status quo, and ensures the big money goes to the same teams to keep them at the top. It's what has made scottish football so poor, and is doing the same around the world in various leagues. A team or two dominating a league every year is what kills football, not someone investing in another team and helping them break that monopoly.
With Man City, and chelsea before them, the only chance they have is to spend money. They need to pay more because they don't have the protection of being established. Chelsea were not welcomed in to europe's elite, they had to fight, and spend, to get there and stay there. They need to overspend to attract the top players who would otherwise go to teams who already have european football. A new business, or one that is trying to break into a market with an established leader, will always have to overspend initially to get a foothold.
With Chelsea and Man City, unlike Portsmouth and Palace, the money is there. This is some rich man giving the money club, not a club mortgaging it's future on a gamble that it might eventually be able to afford it. After this initial investment, they will be able to start offering the sane sorts of wages as utd and arsenal etc. because they will be a team playnig european football, they will be a team that is seen to have a good chance of success.
Even if man utd make money, as the club owners that money is the glazers' money and they then decide if they want to invest it into the playing budget, in the same way that roman on monsour decide if they want to put money they could put into their savings into the club instead.
With Man City, and chelsea before them, the only chance they have is to spend money. They need to pay more because they don't have the protection of being established. Chelsea were not welcomed in to europe's elite, they had to fight, and spend, to get there and stay there. They need to overspend to attract the top players who would otherwise go to teams who already have european football. A new business, or one that is trying to break into a market with an established leader, will always have to overspend initially to get a foothold.
With Chelsea and Man City, unlike Portsmouth and Palace, the money is there. This is some rich man giving the money club, not a club mortgaging it's future on a gamble that it might eventually be able to afford it. After this initial investment, they will be able to start offering the sane sorts of wages as utd and arsenal etc. because they will be a team playnig european football, they will be a team that is seen to have a good chance of success.
Even if man utd make money, as the club owners that money is the glazers' money and they then decide if they want to invest it into the playing budget, in the same way that roman on monsour decide if they want to put money they could put into their savings into the club instead.
Mutts Nuts
New member
- Oct 30, 2011
- 4,918
- Thread starter
- #73
Just got back from the pub,the place was full of plastic red shirts celebrating at full time ,then empty pub fcuking classic i realy cannot stand the southern plastics that support the big 2 from up north.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Another hypocrite our sugar daddy has bought us a ground
D
Deleted member 18477
Guest
Arsenal 3rd! Well done Arsene... Again. Gutted 'arry! And pardew.
Also gutted Fergie! City win in Fergie time, LOVE THAT!!
Also gutted Fergie! City win in Fergie time, LOVE THAT!!
D
Deleted member 18477
Guest
Wrong. He has loaned us the money to build a ground. We are paying the money back. He hasn't bought us millions of pounds worth of players like city's and Chelsea's owners have done.
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,135
Just got back from the pub,the place was full of plastic red shirts celebrating at full time ,then empty pub fcuking classic i realy cannot stand the southern plastics that support the big 2 from up north.
Thats a nice scene you've painted there.
falmer seagull
New member
- Apr 28, 2012
- 57
Well done City. Hope UTD never win another league or cup again.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
What is the difference, without TB's money we would forever have been flirting between the lower two leagues with a odd season in the championship at the worst ground in the country - its not as if the loan is likely to be repaid
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Great game, great end to the English season... who says this isn't the best league in the world?