The Banter Thread

[BaZ87]

Saying we spent a lot on players is true but should we consider when all this happened?

That's exactly what Moses's link does. It converts the value of historic signings at todays rate. £30m 10 years ago in real terms is considerably more than £30m today. There's more money in the game now than there was 10 years ago and as a result transfer values are a lot higher than they were.

Your are mentioning players we signed 10 years ago, my point being City spent pretty much double what we have in the last 3 seasons.

City have spent fortunes but they were/are catching up on the squad building that others have done over a longer period. What's more relevant - how much City have spent in the past couple of years compared to Utd or the total cost of each squad?

 

[Biz.Kid09]

So you're not thought of as a great footballing team then are you, Stoke didn't concede many one season, you on a par with them?

I try not to no.

I never said we were.

You said we don't play attacking football when we clearly do as I have proven.
Did Stoke also score 93 goals and in IIRC every game have the most possession and create the most chances? major parts of playing attacking football I would say?

Well you must do as you like replying to them, frequently and quickly.

 

[G|mp]

That's exactly what Moses's link does. It converts the value of historic signings at todays rate. £30m 10 years ago in real terms is considerably more than £30m today. There's more money in the game now than there was 10 years ago and as a result transfer values are a lot higher than they were.


City have spent fortunes but they were/are catching up on the squad building that others have done over a longer period. What's more relevant - how much City have spent in the past couple of years compared to Utd or the total cost of each squad?

You can't compare that though as they were years apart, there isn't a comparison to be made other wise you would have miles of little old ladies complaining about the price of milk.

They are improving and that's great but the original point was that they had failed in Europe, Moses pointed out it's not a failure if you get knocked out by decent teams, my point being it is when you have spent more on players than possibly every other club in the group. They finished dead bottom remember without a win?

 

[G|mp]

You said we don't play attacking football when we clearly do as I have proven.

I said attractive not attacking.

 

[Biz.Kid09]

Ok. Attractive, point still remains. Would you say scoring a lot of goals, not conceding many, creating a lot of chances and dominating the possession basically every game isn't attractive?

Reminds me of the time people were raving over Tottenham's kick and run style of play that was adopted simply because the players they have lack the technical skill but have bundles of physical attributes that was lauded as being awesome football and a revelation by Redknapp.

 

[BaZ87]

You can't compare that though as they were years apart, there isn't a comparison to be made other wise you would have miles of little old ladies complaining about the price of milk.

I think you've missed the point. It's not about old ladies complaining about the price of milk, it's about recognising that £30m on Rooney in 2005 is a hell of a lot more than £30m on somebody now. In the same way that if you bought your house for £200k 15 years ago, it's more than paying £200k now.

They are improving and that's great but the original point was that they had failed in Europe, Moses pointed out it's not a failure if you get knocked out by decent teams, my point being it is when you have spent more on players than possibly every other club in the group. They finished dead bottom remember without a win?

Agree regarding City's performance in Europe but it's not as simple as they spent more in the last few years. Dortmund aside, most of the sides challenging or expecting to challenge for the CL have got squads costing £200m+. City have spent more in the last few years because they've been playing catch up.

 

[G|mp]

Ok. Attractive, point still remains. Would you say scoring a lot of goals, not conceding many, creating a lot of chances and dominating the possession basically every game isn't attractive?

Reminds me of the time people were raving over Tottenham's kick and run style of play that was adopted simply because the players they have lack the technical skill but have bundles of physical attributes that was lauded as being awesome football and a revelation by Redknapp.

I think our opinion on attractive, exciting football differs.

Tottenham were awesome to watch back then much like Newcastle years ago who seemed to win every game 4-3. Man City may have great stats but as a neutral who would you rather watch? City beating someone 1-0 or Tottenham beating someone 4-3 with end to end football?

It's like having sex with Scarlett Johannson and Rodney Marsh, they both get the job done but one is a lot more attractive.

 

[G|mp]

I think you've missed the point. It's not about old ladies complaining about the price of milk, it's about recognising that £30m on Rooney in 2005 is a hell of a lot more than £30m on somebody now. In the same way that if you bought your house for £200k 15 years ago, it's more than paying £200k now.



Agree regarding City's performance in Europe but it's not as simple as they spent more in the last few years. Dortmund aside, most of the sides challenging or expecting to challenge for the CL have got squads costing £200m+. City have spent more in the last few years because they've been playing catch up.

I understand that completely, it is the time frames involved we didn't buy 3-4 Rooney's each season, City spent 150 million + in one summer, there's rebuilding and then there's trying to win as much as you possibly can as quickly as you can which I think we all know was the intention.

In that respect they have failed in Europe, they finished below Dortmund like you say who are a freak of nature but they also finished below Ajax, I don't know how much they spent but I doubt it was even a David Silva leg.

 

[FrankJH]

By all means put a value on both squads - but then you have to equate the number of years of service each of those players have given the club at the same time otherwise its meaningless.

Torres (leaving Liverpool) or Falcao this summer, where at /near the top of their game and cost/expected to cost ~£50m - Im sure around the same time Rooney was sold they would have cost around about what Utd paid for him.

Even the players that blatantly don't work for Utd - for different reasons - (whether its Berba, Anderson, etc etc) they are all given a good length of time to prove their worth (4 seasons +). Before last summer City were chopping and changing high value players nearly every season (and even Sinclair looks like he will be moved on after a single year at City, although I don't think he cost that much)

 

[BaZ87]

I understand that completely, it is the time frames involved we didn't buy 3-4 Rooney's each season, City spent 150 million + in one summer, there's rebuilding and then there's trying to win as much as you possibly can as quickly as you can which I think we all know was the intention.

In that respect they have failed in Europe, they finished below Dortmund like you say who are a freak of nature but they also finished below Ajax, I don't know how much they spent but I doubt it was even a David Silva leg.

Of course City tried to win as much as they could as quickly as they could. Every club tries to do that. The difference is that City could do it on a much larger scale.

As I said, I agree that they've disappointed in Europe. All I was trying to say is that you can't simply look at what they've spent over 2-3 years in comparison to other clubs, you have to look at the total cost of the squads.

 

[G|mp]

Of course City tried to win as much as they could as quickly as they could. Every club tries to do that. The difference is that City could do it on a much larger scale.

As I said, I agree that they've disappointed in Europe. All I was trying to say is that you can't simply look at what they've spent over 2-3 years in comparison to other clubs, you have to look at the total cost of the squads.

Which you can do, they paid 26 million pound for James Milner.

Like I say there is building a squad and there is spunking money on the flavour of the month in search of silverware, in that regard they have failed, they should have literally cleaned up with the money they have spent and the size of their squad. They didn't get close.

The whole argument was about if they have failed, Moses said no they got knocked out by better teams! Better teams that didn't spend anywhere near what they did. That's failure in my eyes.

 

[Steedie]

Quite suits it I think

 

[G|mp]

Erm, apologies, I've right ****ed the banter thread up :/

 

[Yas786]

Would you be criticising them if they'd get to the semi-finals and lost to Dortmund?

No i wouldnt as they would gone a lot farther than they did the previous season. Not saying that City should win the CL due to their squad but honestly they should be getting to the semi or finals at least.

Shut up you.

Oh how ive missed you Gimp

 

[BaZ87]

Which you can do, they paid 26 million pound for James Milner.

Like I say there is building a squad and there is spunking money on the flavour of the month in search of silverware, in that regard they have failed, they should have literally cleaned up with the money they have spent and the size of their squad. They didn't get close.

The whole argument was about if they have failed, Moses said no they got knocked out by better teams! Better teams that didn't spend anywhere near what they did. That's failure in my eyes.

It's not as simple as that though is it. As soon as anybody knows you've got money the price goes up. City couldn't attract the very best players right away so had to go after players a rung or 2 below but because clubs knew they were loaded and were happy to spend what it took to improve as quickly as they could, they forced City to spend big. From City's point of view, would it have been better had they refused to pay what it took to get the player they were after and ended up with 3rd or 4th choice? Money was no object to them after all.

 

[G|mp]

It's not as simple as that though is it. As soon as anybody knows you've got money the price goes up. City couldn't attract the very best players right away so had to go after players a rung or 2 below but because clubs knew they were loaded and were happy to spend what it took to improve as quickly as they could, they forced City to spend big. From City's point of view, would it have been better had they refused to pay what it took to get the player they were after and ended up with 3rd or 4th choice? Money was no object to them after all.

Is that not what has been happening to United since the Premier League started? We have had to deal with that for years before Citys money.

Fergie years ago was bemoaning the fact that as soon as United show an interest the price goes up which is why we have left deals dead in the water before now.

Seek out all of NickG's posts where he's moaning because we missed out on XYZ players because Fergie wouldn't spend the extra to secure them.

And that is exactly the point, they went all out to spend whatever it took to get the players in, there really was no excuse not to succeed when they had there pick of pretty much any player (barring the obvious ones) in that respect there is no excuse for them failing to do better than they have done, all their multi million pound signings from the last few years haven't turned up at all this season, is that not failure?

 

[cm1179]

Quite suits it I think

aren't united dropping that chequer pattern?

i wonder if any united players did swap shirts with bale when we drew? i know modric went one further and actually bought him a madrid shirt as a gift when croatia played wales.

chesney hawk ****

 

[G|mp]

 

[BaZ87]

Is that not what has been happening to United since the Premier League started? We have had to deal with that for years before Citys money.

Fergie years ago was bemoaning the fact that as soon as United show an interest the price goes up which is why we have left deals dead in the water before now.

Seek out all of NickG's posts where he's moaning because we missed out on XYZ players because Fergie wouldn't spend the extra to secure them.

And that is exactly the point, they went all out to spend whatever it took to get the players in, there really was no excuse not to succeed when they had there pick of pretty much any player (barring the obvious ones) in that respect there is no excuse for them failing to do better than they have done, all their multi million pound signings from the last few years haven't turned up at all this season, is that not failure?

In terms of getting ripped off it is the same but to a different degree. City's biggest issue wasn't just being ripped off but being ripped off when going after 2nd rate players. They couldn't go after the very best players to begin with because they weren't in the CL.

You can't just look at what City have spent and say they have to have won everything. They couldn't attract the players other sides could and they weren't competing against squads built on a shoe string either.

 

[G|mp]

I'm not saying they had to have won everything, I'm saying they should have done a whole lot better they have so far.

They won the PL, just, a couple of FA cups possibly, that's nowhere near good enough for what they have spent, second rate players or not, they have spent massively and not achieved anywhere near as much as they should have. They were also attracting decent enough players before the CL because of the money. I agree they also bought extremely badly but that's because money doesn't always buy you class. It's still a failure, just on a wider scale.