comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
Our window (Arsenal's) is the only one I've really taken notice of, maybe Spurs too given the Kane saga.
On paper we should have improved a bit, Timber looked a good signing and with Raya we've weirdly landed a top GK to make us incredibly strong in that department.
Rice had/has all the stats to back up him being a guy you'd want in your midfield, whether that's deep or further forward. He's there breaking up play and passing the ball on, it certainly doesn't need to be as a DM and instead could work wonders further up, gaining back possession in more dangerous areas giving us chances to catch the opposition out. With our young, energetic front line and defence capable of squeezing right up, I'd much rather see us do that in certain situations than waiting to make inceptions deep.
At this point I'd prefer just to pretend we didn't buy Havertz, if he comes good great, if not it was a monumentally stupid signing as there's just no evidence he should be good so either our manager and scouts know something none of us know or it's a really facking expensive bin dive into Chelsea again.
Spurs have had the most exciting window, not because of signings but because they have a new manager and have lost their star man. They need a clinical finisher imo but it doesn't need to be a like for like Kane replacement, in fact that's just not going to be possible. That finisher could be a wide forward, not necessarily a striker but they need someone. Other than that they've addressed their weaknesses and the whole Ange system compliments the side better, taking pressure off the defence by being more proactive in defending from the front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of an individual signing that has the most impact in the window in Europse top 5 leagues, you cannot beat Harry Kane signing for Bayern,
But locally, for me Timber signins is just shadowed by Maddison si being up there. His injury means he had less imapact, But what a night and day diff in Arsenal's back four since Timber went down (sorry for the pun!).
He is a freaky signing imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maddison looks a brilliant signing, exactly what Spurs needed and for a very reasonable fee
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
Our window (Arsenal's) is the only one I've really taken notice of, maybe Spurs too given the Kane saga.
On paper we should have improved a bit, Timber looked a good signing and with Raya we've weirdly landed a top GK to make us incredibly strong in that department.
Rice had/has all the stats to back up him being a guy you'd want in your midfield, whether that's deep or further forward. He's there breaking up play and passing the ball on, it certainly doesn't need to be as a DM and instead could work wonders further up, gaining back possession in more dangerous areas giving us chances to catch the opposition out. With our young, energetic front line and defence capable of squeezing right up, I'd much rather see us do that in certain situations than waiting to make inceptions deep.
At this point I'd prefer just to pretend we didn't buy Havertz, if he comes good great, if not it was a monumentally stupid signing as there's just no evidence he should be good so either our manager and scouts know something none of us know or it's a really facking expensive bin dive into Chelsea again.
Spurs have had the most exciting window, not because of signings but because they have a new manager and have lost their star man. They need a clinical finisher imo but it doesn't need to be a like for like Kane replacement, in fact that's just not going to be possible. That finisher could be a wide forward, not necessarily a striker but they need someone. Other than that they've addressed their weaknesses and the whole Ange system compliments the side better, taking pressure off the defence by being more proactive in defending from the front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of an individual signing that has the most impact in the window in Europse top 5 leagues, you cannot beat Harry Kane signing for Bayern,
But locally, for me Timber signins is just shadowed by Maddison si being up there. His injury means he had less imapact, But what a night and day diff in Arsenal's back four since Timber went down (sorry for the pun!).
He is a freaky signing imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maddison looks a brilliant signing, exactly what Spurs needed and for a very reasonable fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, can't add to that
I do think after this week-end, this will be the most competitive season for a while.
I believe teams that may have additional commitents, may have to ensure they have quality in depth to last the season.
Not good anymore having a quality 11. It has to be deeper as it's going to be a very intense season with niggly injuries galore.
I would be happy if we got 2 more players. One CB and a CF.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, that's what makes Boris feel happy about that table...Keep it to last 5 years
City have built a castle with gold, and now spending the odd millions to add doors or replace the windows, but forget that castle cost them billions to start with
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 30 minutes ago
West Ham done well but Antonio is such a disappointing player in that he looks like the player of the league for a month or so, then poor the rest of it.
The lack of interest around JWP and Maddison was very strange, considering how they are both ahead of Mount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They signed Kudus who will do well for them. In many ways Rice leaving might be a massive addition by subtraction.
Still living in the past I see.
You're worse than the Dips.
Maybe we should go back to the days when yokels kicked a pig's bladder from village to village.
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, that's what makes Boris feel happy about that table...Keep it to last 5 years
City have built a castle with gold, and now spending the odd millions to add doors or replace the windows, but forget that castle cost them billions to start with
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They live in the land of delusion
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring net spend as a business is about as retarrrrded as you can get.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More like 2 guys have the same car collection buy the same car for 1 million.
1 buys it outright 1 million cash
The other trades 10 cars from their collection in to buy it.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring net spend as a business is about as retarrrrded as you can get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool, I am sure the businessmen aren't ignoring it. But in terms of the discussion net spend isn't that relevant.
In response to the last five years spending equating to replacing doors and windows on a castle made with gold, to be fair only six players from 2018 are still at the club (and one of those is Phil Foden, who came through the ranks).
So a net spend since then of £250m in comparison to other clubs during the same period isn’t bad, especially considering what City have won since.
Net spend was the rage a few years ago when City went on a spending spree.
Now confined to the anals of history since other clubs have started spending like drunken sailors.
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
Can't really see it working out for Chelsea this season.
I reckon 4 players is the max you can sign in 1 window if you want to maintain any rhythm you might have had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We never had any rhythm to maintain.
I saw a stat over the weekend that showed we'd signed 9 players. Unlike many other reports though it also covered the fact that 19 have moved on through sales, end of contracts etc.
From the games I've seen so far I would say we have more rhythm than last season.
I wouldn't put us forward for window of the season though. I also think it's too soon to judge anyway and not just because it hasn't closed yet.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 seconds ago
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say it was because Chelsea have a team full of £100m+ midfielders, mega expensive forwards and expensive defenders.
Liverpool expectations went up when they signed an £80m keeper and £80m centre back, even though they did it at a profit from the sale of Coutinho.
A club could put out an 11 that cost £1bn against a team that cost £10m - yet the team that cost £10m could have a net spend of £10m and the one that cost £1bn could have a net spend of £0. Why would you expect the £10m team to beat the £1bn team?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 seconds ago
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say it was because Chelsea have a team full of £100m+ midfielders, mega expensive forwards and expensive defenders.
Liverpool expectations went up when they signed an £80m keeper and £80m centre back, even though they did it at a profit from the sale of Coutinho.
A club could put out an 11 that cost £1bn against a team that cost £10m - yet the team that cost £10m could have a net spend of £10m and the one that cost £1bn could have a net spend of £0. Why would you expect the £10m team to beat the £1bn team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still if you constantly have to sell your best players it's harder to maintain success than being able to spend without consequence.
Liverpool had a star player, sold him and invested well, if they hadn't, there was no do-over for them. Plenty of clubs have sold stars and drifted back to mediocrity.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
In response to the last five years spending equating to replacing doors and windows on a castle made with gold, to be fair only six players from 2018 are still at the club (and one of those is Phil Foden, who came through the ranks).
So a net spend since then of £250m in comparison to other clubs during the same period isn’t bad, especially considering what City have won since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep we’ve bought and sold very well the past few seasons.
Sign in if you want to comment
Who has had the best window??
Page 2 of 2
posted on 28/8/23
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
Our window (Arsenal's) is the only one I've really taken notice of, maybe Spurs too given the Kane saga.
On paper we should have improved a bit, Timber looked a good signing and with Raya we've weirdly landed a top GK to make us incredibly strong in that department.
Rice had/has all the stats to back up him being a guy you'd want in your midfield, whether that's deep or further forward. He's there breaking up play and passing the ball on, it certainly doesn't need to be as a DM and instead could work wonders further up, gaining back possession in more dangerous areas giving us chances to catch the opposition out. With our young, energetic front line and defence capable of squeezing right up, I'd much rather see us do that in certain situations than waiting to make inceptions deep.
At this point I'd prefer just to pretend we didn't buy Havertz, if he comes good great, if not it was a monumentally stupid signing as there's just no evidence he should be good so either our manager and scouts know something none of us know or it's a really facking expensive bin dive into Chelsea again.
Spurs have had the most exciting window, not because of signings but because they have a new manager and have lost their star man. They need a clinical finisher imo but it doesn't need to be a like for like Kane replacement, in fact that's just not going to be possible. That finisher could be a wide forward, not necessarily a striker but they need someone. Other than that they've addressed their weaknesses and the whole Ange system compliments the side better, taking pressure off the defence by being more proactive in defending from the front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of an individual signing that has the most impact in the window in Europse top 5 leagues, you cannot beat Harry Kane signing for Bayern,
But locally, for me Timber signins is just shadowed by Maddison si being up there. His injury means he had less imapact, But what a night and day diff in Arsenal's back four since Timber went down (sorry for the pun!).
He is a freaky signing imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maddison looks a brilliant signing, exactly what Spurs needed and for a very reasonable fee
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
posted on 28/8/23
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
Our window (Arsenal's) is the only one I've really taken notice of, maybe Spurs too given the Kane saga.
On paper we should have improved a bit, Timber looked a good signing and with Raya we've weirdly landed a top GK to make us incredibly strong in that department.
Rice had/has all the stats to back up him being a guy you'd want in your midfield, whether that's deep or further forward. He's there breaking up play and passing the ball on, it certainly doesn't need to be as a DM and instead could work wonders further up, gaining back possession in more dangerous areas giving us chances to catch the opposition out. With our young, energetic front line and defence capable of squeezing right up, I'd much rather see us do that in certain situations than waiting to make inceptions deep.
At this point I'd prefer just to pretend we didn't buy Havertz, if he comes good great, if not it was a monumentally stupid signing as there's just no evidence he should be good so either our manager and scouts know something none of us know or it's a really facking expensive bin dive into Chelsea again.
Spurs have had the most exciting window, not because of signings but because they have a new manager and have lost their star man. They need a clinical finisher imo but it doesn't need to be a like for like Kane replacement, in fact that's just not going to be possible. That finisher could be a wide forward, not necessarily a striker but they need someone. Other than that they've addressed their weaknesses and the whole Ange system compliments the side better, taking pressure off the defence by being more proactive in defending from the front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of an individual signing that has the most impact in the window in Europse top 5 leagues, you cannot beat Harry Kane signing for Bayern,
But locally, for me Timber signins is just shadowed by Maddison si being up there. His injury means he had less imapact, But what a night and day diff in Arsenal's back four since Timber went down (sorry for the pun!).
He is a freaky signing imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maddison looks a brilliant signing, exactly what Spurs needed and for a very reasonable fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, can't add to that
I do think after this week-end, this will be the most competitive season for a while.
I believe teams that may have additional commitents, may have to ensure they have quality in depth to last the season.
Not good anymore having a quality 11. It has to be deeper as it's going to be a very intense season with niggly injuries galore.
I would be happy if we got 2 more players. One CB and a CF.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, that's what makes Boris feel happy about that table...Keep it to last 5 years
City have built a castle with gold, and now spending the odd millions to add doors or replace the windows, but forget that castle cost them billions to start with
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 30 minutes ago
West Ham done well but Antonio is such a disappointing player in that he looks like the player of the league for a month or so, then poor the rest of it.
The lack of interest around JWP and Maddison was very strange, considering how they are both ahead of Mount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They signed Kudus who will do well for them. In many ways Rice leaving might be a massive addition by subtraction.
posted on 28/8/23
Still living in the past I see.
You're worse than the Dips.
posted on 28/8/23
Maybe we should go back to the days when yokels kicked a pig's bladder from village to village.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Biggest spenders so far:-
1. Chelsea €401.1m
2. Arsenal €234.94m
3. Tottenham €193.6m
4. Man Utd €191.7m
5. Newcastle €153.2m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, City are not top of that list -- makes ya feel all thingly inside does it Boris?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't been top of the list for years, United usually take that accolade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You've spent more money than every single PL club since your owner took over there. Or you had until Chelsea lost their minds recently. Not sure where we are up to now with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That old chestnut.
Premier League five-year net spend table:
Chelsea: £-616.92m.
Manchester United: £-602.86m.
Arsenal: £-582.91m.
Newcastle: £-418.28m.
Tottenham: £-398.56m.
Aston Villa: £-337.35m.
Manchester City: £-251.65m.
West Ham: £-208.91m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year. I see what you did there.
Let's forget the first 9-10 years where your owner practically signed every player on earth.
If expect us to spend more money than you Boris. We are an actual big club with authentic revenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, that's what makes Boris feel happy about that table...Keep it to last 5 years
City have built a castle with gold, and now spending the odd millions to add doors or replace the windows, but forget that castle cost them billions to start with
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They live in the land of delusion
posted on 28/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring net spend as a business is about as retarrrrded as you can get.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More like 2 guys have the same car collection buy the same car for 1 million.
1 buys it outright 1 million cash
The other trades 10 cars from their collection in to buy it.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Net spend isn't what you have spent tbf.
It is like someone asking how much you spent on your car and you saying nothing because your wages were more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring net spend as a business is about as retarrrrded as you can get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool, I am sure the businessmen aren't ignoring it. But in terms of the discussion net spend isn't that relevant.
posted on 28/8/23
In response to the last five years spending equating to replacing doors and windows on a castle made with gold, to be fair only six players from 2018 are still at the club (and one of those is Phil Foden, who came through the ranks).
So a net spend since then of £250m in comparison to other clubs during the same period isn’t bad, especially considering what City have won since.
posted on 28/8/23
Net spend was the rage a few years ago when City went on a spending spree.
Now confined to the anals of history since other clubs have started spending like drunken sailors.
posted on 28/8/23
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
Can't really see it working out for Chelsea this season.
I reckon 4 players is the max you can sign in 1 window if you want to maintain any rhythm you might have had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We never had any rhythm to maintain.
I saw a stat over the weekend that showed we'd signed 9 players. Unlike many other reports though it also covered the fact that 19 have moved on through sales, end of contracts etc.
From the games I've seen so far I would say we have more rhythm than last season.
I wouldn't put us forward for window of the season though. I also think it's too soon to judge anyway and not just because it hasn't closed yet.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 seconds ago
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say it was because Chelsea have a team full of £100m+ midfielders, mega expensive forwards and expensive defenders.
Liverpool expectations went up when they signed an £80m keeper and £80m centre back, even though they did it at a profit from the sale of Coutinho.
A club could put out an 11 that cost £1bn against a team that cost £10m - yet the team that cost £10m could have a net spend of £10m and the one that cost £1bn could have a net spend of £0. Why would you expect the £10m team to beat the £1bn team?
posted on 28/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 seconds ago
If Chelsea and Brighton finish on equal points in 5th/6th place the reason it's considered a success at Brighton and failure by Chelsea is because of net spend.
It's far more important in terms of qualifying expectations and judging the players and management than simply how much is spent gross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say it was because Chelsea have a team full of £100m+ midfielders, mega expensive forwards and expensive defenders.
Liverpool expectations went up when they signed an £80m keeper and £80m centre back, even though they did it at a profit from the sale of Coutinho.
A club could put out an 11 that cost £1bn against a team that cost £10m - yet the team that cost £10m could have a net spend of £10m and the one that cost £1bn could have a net spend of £0. Why would you expect the £10m team to beat the £1bn team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still if you constantly have to sell your best players it's harder to maintain success than being able to spend without consequence.
Liverpool had a star player, sold him and invested well, if they hadn't, there was no do-over for them. Plenty of clubs have sold stars and drifted back to mediocrity.
posted on 28/8/23
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
In response to the last five years spending equating to replacing doors and windows on a castle made with gold, to be fair only six players from 2018 are still at the club (and one of those is Phil Foden, who came through the ranks).
So a net spend since then of £250m in comparison to other clubs during the same period isn’t bad, especially considering what City have won since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep we’ve bought and sold very well the past few seasons.
Page 2 of 2