High value players sold/released since they did their previous report (Rooney, Schneiderlin, Schweini, Depay etc...).

And City having to add the likes of £42m Mangala to their squad, who they were able to leave off when they were assessed this time last year. The players City got rid of this summer weren't particularly of high value were they?

Should have said, liked to know

How can you state that Rooney and Schwerin are high value players when both left for free

comment by SpanishJo (U20099)
posted 1 minute ago
How can you state that Rooney and Schwerin are high value players when both left for free
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the purchase price of the player they count. So Rooney was bought for something like £27-30m, and Schweini supposedly cost £15m. So this was knocked of the total value of the squad.

If you look at the players City sold/released, many of them had a low purchase price (Cabellero £6m, Clichy £7m, Sagna £0, Zabaleta £7m-ish). These 4 were replaced by nearly £170m worth of players, adding around £150m to the squad value there.

I'd take it all with a pitch of salt, their valuations aren't particularly accurate.

No excuses for City not winning the league this year after having the most expensive squad in history.

posted 4 minutes ago



I'd take it all with a pitch of salt, their valuations aren't particularly accurate.

------------

are the values based on what the club payed for the players or the imaginary value of what the player is now, based on what someone who makes up these figures thinks

I think the CIES value players actual worth, rather than their actual transfer fees.

What the article is saying is you have the most valuable squad, not the highest paid in transfer fees.

comment by Charlag (U1717)
posted 16 minutes ago
I think the CIES value players actual worth, rather than their actual transfer fees.

What the article is saying is you have the most valuable squad, not the highest paid in transfer fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it is based on the transfer fee paid by the club.

Make your minds up. Does money buy success or not as I keep hearing conflicting theories?

One squad was largely paid for by a football club, the other largely by a billionaire's vanity project.

Last season the United squad was the most expensive (partly due to City and Chelsea hiding their expensive investments at other clubs), and some opposition fans were quite happy to bring this up at every opportunity.

City never reveal what they actually pay for players so a lot of this is guess work.

I wonder if they factored in agents fees as well?

comment by Eric_the_king (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
One squad was largely paid for by a football club owned by Americans who love to take money away from football, the other largely by a billionaire's who likes to invest in football.

Fixed for accuracy


----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City never reveal what they actually pay for players so a lot of this is guess work.

I wonder if they factored in agents fees as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Transfer fees paid to acquire the playing squad. The same as the first half of last season when United had the most expensive side ever assembled. Now its City.

If these clubs were "hidng" these signings at other clubs, then they were not part of that seasons squads.

comment by SpanishJo (U20099)
posted 14 seconds ago
If these clubs were "hidng" these signings at other clubs, then they were not part of that seasons squads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite correct. But when City and Chelsea can just dismiss £100m's of players and let them play for another team because they've bought some shiny new ones, it's not exactly fair to have a pop at United as having splurged lots of money on their squad, which is what happened.

Their figures don't add up at all looking at it as it is the cost to assemble the squad, so that would mean that it should be factoring in the original transfer fees of who we got rid of in the summer.

CIES state that City's squad is valued at 853 million euro. I have just scrolled through another site, and the current squad purchased since 2008 is costed at 743 million euro at today's currency rates

I've read their article, it's gross, not net spend.

Makes a big diference this season as City shifted about 15 players.

Mbappe is now a member of PSG's squad, have they included him in their totals?

Both Manchester clubs have spent enough to be winning major trophies. City can point to some very good signings like kdb,hey zues with others yet to prove value. United could look at Bailly only in my opinion as a real success and you don't win the big fish relying only on centre halves.

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 19 minutes ago
Mbappe is now a member of PSG's squad, have they included him in their totals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably not. He's on loan, and he's not actually their player. If anything, the fee added to their total for Mbappe will be any loan fee they've paid.

It's hardly 'squad value' then.

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's hardly 'squad value' then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends. If they've added any loan fee that PSG have paid to acquire Mbappe, then yes it is.