Manchester City

[carmine]

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Probably only strange to you and other Spurs fans who seem obsessed with the money element.

 

Instead of complaing to us about how much you haven't spent, complain to your owner about spending more.

 

Who needs Messi when you have Sissoko.

[alfieconn]

20 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Probably only strange to you and other Spurs fans who seem obsessed with the money element.

 

Instead of complaing to us about how much you haven't spent, complain to your owner about spending more.

 

Where has anyone complained about how much we haven't spent ?  

 

To be fair it's impossible to compare the 2 managers when one has net spent 15m and in the same period of time your's have spent 310m !!!

Edited October 3, 2017 by alfieconn

[mrbojangles]

3 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

 

Where has anyone complained about how much we haven't  ?  your seeing things now  

 

Where I come from, when someone is constantly harping on about something it construed as complaining.

[alfieconn]

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Where I come from, when someone is constantly harping on about something it construed as complaining.

 

Ok where have we harped on about not spending money ?

[wilai]

45 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

 Yes 89 as you say. But Burnley at 41.5 the best value in the EPL. I have Everton sell at 56.

Yet you had the Trickies to beat Burnley 4-0 at the weekend? Make your mind up

[owl sees all]

13 minutes ago, wilai said:

Yet you had the Trickies to beat Burnley 4-0 at the weekend? Make your mind up

 

I'm not too blinkered on the footy. Reality normally kicks in when there's an actual wager. Everton were appalling on Sunday and although it's sad to see the blue half of Liverpool so awful, I was cheered up by the winnings both ways. 

[Bredbury Blue]

So the spurs fans have played the wembley excuse (pathetic)...then they bring up spending...then the manager (note that Poch has still to win anything)...you know what's coming next (give you a hint...youngsters). And a round and around and around we go!

 

Supposedly bringing up City's ownership/spending/youth is supposed to antagonise us City fans  

[BangrakBob]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

 

Where has anyone complained about how much we haven't spent ?  

 

To be fair it's impossible to compare the 2 managers when one has net spent 15m and in the same period of time your's have spent 310m !!!

If Poch was City manager and he thought he needed to spend and he was given the money to spend he would do the same. 

The spend part is more about how the clubs differ in how they are run and I guess how good Spurs academy is. 

[Rc2702]

Just now, BangrakBob said:

If Poch was City manager and he thought he needed to spend and he was given the money to spend he would do the same. 

The spend part is more about how the clubs differ in how they are run and I guess how good Spurs academy is. 

Pressure. Very simple. The pressure to deliver at man city is 100 times more than tottenham. More expectation too.

[mrbojangles]

5 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

Pressure. Very simple. The pressure to deliver at man city is 100 times more than tottenham. More expectation too.

 

No wonder Poch isn't under pressure. Spurs fans won't even admit to themselves they are in the pack. Therfore, no pressure to win anything

[mrbojangles]

11 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

If Poch was City manager and he thought he needed to spend and he was given the money to spend he would do the same. 

The spend part is more about how the clubs differ in how they are run and I guess how good Spurs academy is. 

 

Spot on Bob.

[owl sees all]

Maybe Poch sees that wasting money on over-rated players upsets the club's balance. Would Sterling get into the Spurs team?  Or Sturrige; or Benecke?

 

All clubs are different. Spurs used to be known as the millionairres; way back.

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, BangrakBob said:

If Poch was City manager and he thought he needed to spend and he was given the money to spend he would do the same. 

 

Correct Bobby, nothing like stating the obvious is there 

 

Quote

The spend part is more about how the clubs differ in how they are run and I guess how good Spurs academy is. 

 

   so nothing to do with City being owned by UAE , bobby you crack me up !

Edited October 3, 2017 by alfieconn

[mrbojangles]

I knew Leroy was quick but didn't realise he was that quick

 

Manchester City flyer Leroy Sane has clocked the fastest sprint since Premier League records began.

 

The Blues ace was recorded running at 35.48 kilometres per hour (22.05 mph) in the 1-0 win at Chelsea, which outstripped the previous fastest, by Jamie Vardy in 2015-16 season.

 

To put that in perspective, if Sane could sustain that pace over 100 metres, he would have qualified for the semi-finals at the last Olympics!

 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-fastest-player-sane-13709419

[Bredbury Blue]

Watched the rerun of the game earlier. It looked like a hammy for kdb at the end and now it's being reported he missed training with Belgium due to a hammy. Fingers crossed. 

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Watched the rerun of the game earlier. It looked like a hammy for kdb at the end and now it's being reported he missed training with Belgium due to a hammy. Fingers crossed. 

 

I believe it's "minor" BB. As you say, fingers crossed

[carmine]

15 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

Pressure. Very simple. The pressure to deliver at man city is 100 times more than tottenham. More expectation too.

 

What a load of <deleted> you talk.

[carmine]

20 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Carm, i consider that to be quite a feat to be called rivals when we have spent 295m less than them over the last 2 seasons alone !

 

No no, apparently if you're good enough you're good enough.  

 

(No need to mention the 295m because as all City fans know its got nothing to do with it.  No need to mention the obscene wages they pay to have top drawer players sitting on their bench whilst City fans sit and debate other sides not having a strong enough squad.  Thats got nothing to do with it either)

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, carmine said:

 

No no, apparently if you're good enough you're good enough.  

 

(No need to mention the 295m because as all City fans know its got nothing to do with it.  No need to mention the obscene wages they pay to have top drawer players sitting on their bench whilst City fans sit and debate other sides not having a strong enough squad.  Thats got nothing to do with it either)

 

Does make me laugh is that they talk like all teams are playing are on a level playing field !

Edited October 4, 2017 by alfieconn

[carmine]

13 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

 

Does make me laugh is that they talk like all teams are playing are on a level playing field !

 

What on earth do you mean Alfie........money has nothing to do with it!!!   

 

And don't forget, small clubs aren't given an extra boost playing at Wembley either.....thats a "pathetic" argument apparently.

 

Just couldn't write it..............

[smokie36]

50 minutes ago, carmine said:

 

What on earth do you mean Alfie........money has nothing to do with it!!!   

 

And don't forget, small clubs aren't given an extra boost playing at Wembley either.....thats a "pathetic" argument apparently.

 

Just couldn't write it..............

 

 

Its all about the pride of pulling on the shirt.

 

Lifelong City fans most of those players there now!

[mrbojangles]

My goodness. You lot really have it in for City don't ya. We weren't the first club to start paying big money for players. For decades we were the poor relatives while United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea were spending big. We have had to spend big just to catch upwith them. We are very lucky to have rich owners, cos if we didn't we'd still be dog average and we appreciate the money they are putting in. Before they bought us I never thought I would see the day City would lift the Prem title, they have made dreams come true for us and we appreciate it. 

 

If your club can't/won't spend more money it isn't our fault and we didn't start it. Never have we said that money has nothing to do with it. Smaller teams (Huddersfield, Brighton etc) must be looking at Spurs wishing they had your money to spend.

 

BTW. Man United still hold the Prem League record for the top 3 transfers. Pogba £93.25m, Lukaku - £75m and Di Maria – £59.7m. Maybe go and have a whinge on their thread.

[alfieconn]

10 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

My goodness. You lot really have it in for City don't ya. We weren't the first club to start paying big money for players. For decades we were the poor relatives while United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea were spending big. We have had to spend big just to catch upwith them. We are very lucky to have rich owners, cos if we didn't we'd still be dog average and we appreciate the money they are putting in. Before they bought us I never thought I would see the day City would lift the Prem title, they have made dreams come true for us and we appreciate it. 

 

If your club can't/won't spend more money it isn't our fault and we didn't start it. Never have we said that money has nothing to do with it. Smaller teams (Huddersfield, Brighton etc) must be looking at Spurs wishing they had your money to spend.

 

BTW. Man United still hold the Prem League record for the top 3 transfers. Pogba £93.25m, Lukaku - £75m and Di Maria – £59.7m. Maybe go and have a whinge on their thread.

 

They have net spent more than us over the last 5 year's and have a look at whose top  

 

	#	Net Spend last 5 Years	Purchased Gross	Sold	Nett	Per Season
	1	Manchester City	£723,850,000	£184,000,000	£539,850,000	£107,970,000
	2	Manchester United	£611,800,000	£174,550,000	£437,250,000	£87,450,000
	4	Arsenal	£298,740,000	£116,850,000	£181,890,000	£36,378,000
	3	Liverpool	£396,300,000	£251,080,000	£145,220,000	£29,044,000
	5	Chelsea	£544,459,000	£410,450,000	£134,009,000	£26,801,800
	6	Leicester	£179,750,000	£62,750,000	£117,000,000	£23,400,000
	7	Crystal Palace	£166,035,000	£56,700,000	£109,335,000	£21,867,000
	8	West Ham	£188,450,000	£81,870,000	£106,580,000	£21,316,000
	9	Watford	£144,200,000	£51,650,000	£92,550,000	£18,510,000
	14	Everton	£277,600,000	£200,100,000	£77,500,000	£15,500,000
	10	Brighton & Hove Albion	£75,805,000	£12,000,000	£63,805,000	£12,761,000
	11	AFC Bournemouth	£88,450,000	£24,830,000	£63,620,000	£12,724,000
	15	West Bromwich Albion	£117,850,000	£62,209,000	£55,641,000	£11,128,200
	12	Newcastle United	£200,300,000	£145,150,000	£55,150,000	£11,030,000
	15	Stoke City	£101,700,000	£53,250,000	£48,450,000	£9,690,000
	16	Huddersfield  Town	£41,615,000	£14,400,000	£27,215,000	£5,443,000
	17	Burnley	£85,150,000	£61,450,000	£23,700,000	£4,740,000
	18	Southampton	£222,800,000	£210,550,000	£12,250,000	£2,450,000
	19	Swansea	£133,325,000	£138,060,000	-£4,735,000	-£947,000
	20	Tottenham	£329,450,000	£339,400,000	-£9,950,000	-£1,990,000

Edited October 4, 2017 by alfieconn

[carmine]

31 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

My goodness. You lot really have it in for City don't ya. We weren't the first club to start paying big money for players. For decades we were the poor relatives while United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea were spending big. We have had to spend big just to catch upwith them. We are very lucky to have rich owners, cos if we didn't we'd still be dog average and we appreciate the money they are putting in. Before they bought us I never thought I would see the day City would lift the Prem title, they have made dreams come true for us and we appreciate it. 

 

If your club can't/won't spend more money it isn't our fault and we didn't start it. Never have we said that money has nothing to do with it. Smaller teams (Huddersfield, Brighton etc) must be looking at Spurs wishing they had your money to spend.

 

BTW. Man United still hold the Prem League record for the top 3 transfers. Pogba £93.25m, Lukaku - £75m and Di Maria – £59.7m. Maybe go and have a whinge on their thread.

 

We didn't need to spend that sort of money to catch up with them yet you state City had to!!  If we didn't why did you?

 

 

Think you've really just bolstered Alfie's arguement.  

[mrbojangles]

14 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

 

They have net spent more than us over the last 5 year's and have a look at whose top  

 

	#	Net Spend last 5 Years	Purchased Gross	Sold	Nett	Per Season
	1	Manchester City	£723,850,000	£184,000,000	£539,850,000	£107,970,000
	2	Manchester United	£611,800,000	£174,550,000	£437,250,000	£87,450,000
	4	Arsenal	£298,740,000	£116,850,000	£181,890,000	£36,378,000
	3	Liverpool	£396,300,000	£251,080,000	£145,220,000	£29,044,000
	5	Chelsea	£544,459,000	£410,450,000	£134,009,000	£26,801,800
	6	Leicester	£179,750,000	£62,750,000	£117,000,000	£23,400,000
	7	Crystal Palace	£166,035,000	£56,700,000	£109,335,000	£21,867,000
	8	West Ham	£188,450,000	£81,870,000	£106,580,000	£21,316,000
	9	Watford	£144,200,000	£51,650,000	£92,550,000	£18,510,000
	14	Everton	£277,600,000	£200,100,000	£77,500,000	£15,500,000
	10	Brighton & Hove Albion	£75,805,000	£12,000,000	£63,805,000	£12,761,000
	11	AFC Bournemouth	£88,450,000	£24,830,000	£63,620,000	£12,724,000
	15	West Bromwich Albion	£117,850,000	£62,209,000	£55,641,000	£11,128,200
	12	Newcastle United	£200,300,000	£145,150,000	£55,150,000	£11,030,000
	15	Stoke City	£101,700,000	£53,250,000	£48,450,000	£9,690,000
	16	Huddersfield  Town	£41,615,000	£14,400,000	£27,215,000	£5,443,000
	17	Burnley	£85,150,000	£61,450,000	£23,700,000	£4,740,000
	18	Southampton	£222,800,000	£210,550,000	£12,250,000	£2,450,000
	19	Swansea	£133,325,000	£138,060,000	-£4,735,000	-£947,000
	20	Tottenham	£329,450,000	£339,400,000	-£9,950,000	-£1,990,000

 

Alfie, you go on about net spend because it suits your argument. It seems to be the only argument you have. Reality is, your the 5th biggest spender and are lucky to get money back for selling players. There is an argument to be had that you may be selling them too soon and not getting most out of them. I don't want to sell Aguero and David Silva at all. I want them to stay at City for as long as possible until we eventually put them out to pasture on a free.

 

Are you really trying to compare your spending power to Burnley and Huddersfield? Huddersfield have spent a fraction of what you have and never had the quality players to be able to demand big fees when they sell. I repeat "they must be looking at Spurs wishing they had your money to spend"

 

I don't know why you insist on coming up with the same droll every time, I KNOW we have spent a lot. I am not in denial of the fact.

[alfieconn]

2 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Alfie, you go on about net spend because it suits your argument. It seems to be the only argument you have. Reality is, your the 5th biggest spender and are lucky to get money back for selling players. There is an argument to be had that you may be selling them too soon and not getting most out of them. I don't want to sell Aguero and David Silva at all. I want them to stay at City for as long as possible until we eventually put them out to pasture on a free.

 

Are you really trying to compare your spending power to Burnley and Huddersfield? Huddersfield have spent a fraction of what you have and never had the quality players to be able to demand big fees when they sell. I repeat "they must be looking at Spurs wishing they had your money to spend"

 

I don't know why you insist on coming up with the same droll every time, I KNOW we have spent a lot. I am not in denial of the fact.

 

 

 

 

Everytime i put up the net spend table you seem to get wound out about it and have to respond with a few points that are irrelevent, doesn't matter how much you try and waffle round things the figures are there in black and white and Spurs are punching above their weight in regards to net spend and have spent 540m less than yourselves over that period and your just have to get over it. Look at the current League table against the net spend table and it's no coincidence that the top 5 in the spend table are in the top 7 in the League table so do you not see the relationship between the two ? anyway  you even confirmed exactly what we are saying when you said 

Quote

We are very lucky to have rich owners, cos if we didn't we'd still be dog average and we appreciate the money they are putting in.

 

That's exactly what we saying, Spurs don't have owners throwing 100s of millions of pounds at the the team and we are not dog average !!

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by alfieconn

[mrbojangles]

4 minutes ago, carmine said:

 

We didn't need to spend that sort of money to catch up with them yet you state City had to!!  If we didn't why did you?

 

 

Think you've really just bolstered Alfie's arguement.  

 

Carms. It's getting tiring writing it constantly. Our owners have a totally different business model to Spurs and we have attempted to explain the situation several times on here.

 

When our owners bought us, they had a vision, which was to make us a top club, challenging for Prem title and Champs league. To do this took a lot of investment and due to FFP, the project had to be hastened at a faster pace than the owners initially wanted. It was either spend big then or not be able to do it at all. They chose the former and since they took over, we have won the prem twice and going further in the champs league. We have also grown our revenue beyond belief and have entered the top 5, yes top 5 richest club's in the world by turnover.

 

This means that the huge investments they have made, are paying off in increased revenues. You guys keep using net spend figures alone and your net spend is admirable but I personally don't agree that net spend on players alone is a mark of success.  To me, footballers are assets that you buy to win you things and then sell when you have had the best out of them. Therefore, if you bought players for a total of 300m but they have generated 500m of revenue by winning titles and then got back 25% of the original purchase price, it's good business. I don't believe that's better to use them as a commodity that you buy for as cheap as possible, to then sell on to other clubs when they are at their peak for big money. What message are you sending out? Some may say that you are a selling club with no ambition.

 

You have your beliefs how a club should be run and I have mine

[mrbojangles]

38 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

That's exactly what we saying, Spurs don't have owners throwing 100s of millions of pounds at the the team and we are not dog average !!

 

 

We haven't "thrown" money at the team, it's called investment and my post above explains why.

 

You play great football and have had some great youth come through the academy but you gotta start doing something differently (and no, I'm not saying do the same as us) if you want to win something. Or are you happy finishing in the top 4 year on year, with the odd top 6 and then the odd top 2?

[mrbojangles]

22 hours ago, alfieconn said:

   so nothing to do with City being owned by UAE , bobby you crack me up !

 

I think that your rolling about emoticons show that you don't understand. Bob isn't a City fan but can clearly see the difference as to how both clubs are run.

[Rc2702]

Your net spend will get bigger soon too. -150m bigger once kane is gone and no matter how big the youth conveyor belt is, kanes do not appear so often and without his exploits it is back to average.