Manxst

Can’t see us getting the same as Arsenal and Chelsea?

Chiesa scores for Juve after a minute- good finish from outside the area.

I know nothing about it, but is the ‘elite’ status (and therefore non template designs) thing a term related to on field success, or units of shirts sold, or instagram ‘likes’ or what?

So how does that work for international members who might go to one or two games a year? They don’t go?

Klopp’s teeth come in joint 3rd-34th places.

Not to mention they only finished a place higher, yet with a GD of -20. Plus having started in a much stronger position both on and off the pitch, AND having a €-704m net transfer spend for the last 5 years compared to our own €-486m (according to transfermrkt).

Luck, seeing as most were signed well before him.

He did.

Not sure what point you’re making here, but all those players bar Foden were multi capped internationals when they signed for City, for fees of Dias £65m, KDB £54m, Rodri £63m, and Bernardo £44m? They’ve probably been improved a little under Pep, but Man City were already buying great players with them. for non elite or expensive signings if you’d have said Alvarez for example, I’d have agreed wholeheartedly.

Just depends how bad the other teams are around them. You’d have thought Luton and Sheffield would go, then who knows?!

Just one of the unluckiest players ever with injuries. Seems never fully fit.

Think I read that Howe didn’t fancy him and wasn’t convinced. The others in the recruitment team were for him.

DCL injured and going off. Needs putting down. edit- managed to stay on for the time being

Pickfords such a dick. Obvious yellow for time wasting.

Aye, best wishes to you. As I said, I appreciate your club and playing style. Just don’t agree with your financial irregularities. Take away any selling/spending from any club, and you’re left with sponsorship which plays a huge part in being able to buy. Sponsorship AND selling allows you to simply buy MORE. Some clubs are unable to sell players or rely on selling, so their major income and spending ability is based on sponsorship. Your club has allegedly illegally inflated and added to your sponsorship in order for you to help buy. Which is NOT the same as Newcastle. It’s not difficult to understand. but yeah, lets leave it there. Enjoy the pint 🍻 👍

But we all play by the same rules. The rules we helped introduce once we’d spent a shit load of money and wanted to remain at the top of the money tree along with the other (at the time) perceived ‘big’ clubs. Then, when we decided we actually wanted to have even GREATER income and spending ability, we did illegal things to manufacture it. Oh, and wanted to be in both the PL AND the ESL, again, to coin the cash in. But yeah, the same rules.

There’s nothing wrong per se, except you stated “city ability to spend is nothing to do with sponsorship deals”. It is. And not only is it, but you’ve allegedly over inflated deals and put money into the club in order to spend via nefarious and illegal means.

And you’re making the classic mistake of having unwavering confidence in your club to be above board in everything. We’ll agree to disagree and await the outcome (in years to come probably because Man City will use their unlimited wealth to throw every obstruction they can at the investigation).

Selling players is a part of having money to spend under ffp, yes. But so is sponsorship. By a huge amount. You get £55m from your shirt sponsorship and £18m for a sleeve sponsor. That’s huge money.

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11679/12912312/man-city-uefa-probe-ruled-30m-payment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship “Man City: UEFA probe ruled £30m payment from owners was disguised as sponsorship. UEFA's decision to suspend Man City from European competition for two years in 2020 was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, meaning report was never published, but it has been obtained by YouTube filmmakers and seen by The Times newspaper. UEFA's investigation into Manchester City concluded that two £15m payments from a broker was funding from the club's owners disguised as sponsorship revenue. The report by the adjudicatory committee of UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is effectively the written reasons behind the decision announced in February 2020 to suspend City from European competition for two years. The report was never published because the club appealed against the decision and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later overturned the CFCB verdict, but it has been obtained by the makers of a YouTube film released on Thursday, and has also been seen by The Times. The report said City's lawyers had told a UEFA disciplinary hearing that two £15m sponsorship payments from telecommunications firm Etisalat in 2012 and 2013 were made by a man called Jaber Mohammed, who was described as a broker, and that Etisalat repaid the money to City's owners in 2015. The Times reports that the adjudicatory committee of the CFCB concluded: "Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour) but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totalling £30million. "The management of the club was well aware that the payments totalling £30million made by Jaber Mohamed were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.” CAS overturned the two-year suspension in July 2020, and in its judgement it said UEFA should not have dealt with the charges related to Etisalat because they had passed the five-year time limit. In the same judgement, the CAS panel also stated it was "not comfortably satisfied" that City had disguised equity funding from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from the Etihad airline. It said in relation to the Etihad sponsorship: "There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM (Sheikh Mansour) and/or ADUG, or between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad, or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad's sponsorship obligations directly. "In the absence of a link being proven...the majority of the panel finds that UEFA's theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated." But, you know…we’re all playing by the same rules here… “I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle”.

But your ability to spend is also driven by your sponsorship income which has been alleged to be super inflated due to association, and has also been installed in parts prior to ffp. Hence your current five charges of breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations, and 25 profitability and sustainability breach charges.

If you can throw money at the problems without any thought of consequences like Man City did pre FFP, then there’s no issues for them at all. They had failures and simply spent more after transferring their badly bought players out again. They’ve also spent billions on off the pitch improvements which generate success too. We obviously can’t do the same now because of the restrictions so have to ensure EVERY transfer is a good one. As you state, you simply HAVE to have that spending (just to improve year on year, let alone have success).

Of course it is. No one has denied that. But to throw a record load of money at transfers, if you’re run half decently, then you ‘should’ do very well. I’ve never denied Man City are a powerhouse off the pitch. Everton etc aren’t run decently and Man Utd are clearly inept in their management/recruitment departments.

Because the staff assigned to recruitment are doing badly and they’ve overpaid for the players they’ve signed.

Signing elite players for mega money at the top of their game is hardly rocket science. Haaland, Grealish, Dias, Rodri, Gvardiol, Cancelo- all massively over our transfer record. They not exactly speculating on ‘maybe’ transfers.