5 hours ago, Stable said:

City fan here, he did say another 3-4, but currently we have 1 fullback (Walker) not counting Kolarov who was our 4th choice CB for last season rather than a LB (and is rumoured to be leaving also!) - as we've released 3, hence the Mendy/Danilo links. We have 2 natural wingers (Sane + Sterling) as we've sold/released Nolito/Navas & look like selling Iheanacho (hence the Sanchez links). And we'll only have 3 CB's if Kolarov leaves, and whilst no specific names have been mentioned there are talks of us hunting a CB also. The 4 will likely be Mendy (if Monaco eventually give in), Danilo (seemingly), a CB & some versatile forward (don't see Arsenal letting us have Sanchez for any amount of money). 

 

So whilst we are spending a lot & seemingly going for a lot of players I don't believe they're silly purchases, just a big transition couple of seasons last one & this one!

 

In terms of Danilo on paper it seems a weird one for us, having just spent £45m on Walker, but I expect he'll be covering for 3 positions rather than our benched RB; he can play LB & has on occasion played in midfield - he could well be our replacement for Sagna + Clichy + Fernando combined. So I expect he'll be our backup fullback for either side, and last resort as defensive midfielder. Will free up some wages, some squad places, and save us having to splash out another £30m on a second left-back after Mendy (or whomever we end up getting).

I was talking more about the money City are spending than the amount of players they are buying. Like I said it clearly shows FFP has gone out the window unless City have found a big loophole.

4 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

I was talking more about the money City are spending than the amount of players they are buying. Like I said it clearly shows FFP has gone out the window unless City have found a big loophole.

I think they did bud. I heard something about a grossly overpriced sponsorship deal from on of the brothers which ensured that they couldn't fall foul of FFP.

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by Frawdulant

If he does go to Citeh Seems like he's happy to sit on the bench picking up his wages cos no way is he starting ahead of walker, don't need players like that playing for the champions.

39 minutes ago, Frawdulant said:

I think they did bud. I heard something about a grossly overpriced sponsorship deal from on of the brothers which ensured that they couldn't fall foul of FFP.

They also have something where the wages are paid by a separate company if I recall btw did you know Roman was one of the advocates pushing for FFP I can only assume he spent all he wanted to spend and though wait I can't keep up with some of these guys let's put the breaks on...

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by DonAntonio

7 hours ago, doctorblue said:

Always happy to hear from other team's fans...looks like it'll be a big year in the transfer market for City...you have a great squad good forward but it's at the back that you're struggling...I can see you needing quite a few defensive players especially if Kompany can't keep fit...and Stones seems to have stagnated development wise...think he would have learnt so much from Conte...but that's water under the bridge...good luck to you next season mate...

 

Yeah that seems clear, feel Stones will develop well alongside Kompany, but a big risk as to whether he can stay fit for a season. If we don't sign another CB a lot of our season could well hinge on that risk. 

 

Good luck to your lot too, Chelsea are hard to pin down as to how it'll go next season, seem to have a few issues in the transfer window that are seemingly getting sorted (e.g. Morata coming in), but will be hard to repeat a season like last with Europe added in. Should be a good watch.

5 hours ago, didierforever said:

I feel that is a very Blue-tinted perspective.

City have 2 very good Strikers in jesus and aguero (Chelsea have morata and michy).

City have Jesus, Sane AND Bernardo Silva as wingers as well as KDB and Silva as Attacking Midfielders. Selling/keeping Iheanacho barely affects city at all. Compare that to our squad and we have Hazard, Pedro and willian for wings/inside forwards along with Musonda. Buying sanchez despite boasting these names is simply over-kill in my opinion.

For CM positions, City has Fernandinho, Ilkay, Yaya, Fernando and Delph. Compare it to our situation: Kante, Cesc, Bakayoko, Baker and Pasalic.

For Defence: I agree that City still needs a couple of full backs (one LB if danilo is confirmed) and maybe a CB. But still cant see how and where you need 4 signings. 

Hopefully this just confirms that Pep is not anything special. Just a manager who got very lucky with the best football player the world has ever seen coupled with one of the best ever midfield combo of Xavi-busquets-iniesta. As soon as the going got tough (xavi and puyol declining), he walked away and joined a team that can put their B team and still win the league comfortably. And now, in his first true test, he is simply doing what most TOP managers do. BUY great players to try and win trophies.

Most managers will want 2 players for each position. Currently City have 2 keepers (Ederson/Bravo), 1 RB (Walker), 0 LB, 4 CB (Kompany, Stones, Otamendi, Kolarov), 3 DM (Gundogan, Yaya, Fernandinho; Delph + Fernando are seemingly on the out), 3 CM (Silva, Silva, De Bruyne), 1 RW (Sterling), 1 LW (Sane), 2 ST (Aguero, Jesus).

You've named the same player a few times for multiple positions (e.g. Jesus as a striker & a winger), which while great to have versatility, it doesn't work like that in reality - an injury to that versatile player & suddenly your down a winger AND a striker if that's how you see the player - it's also important to distinguish D. Silva/De Bruyne as having a deeper role under Pep than their past positions, they're now CM's for City in our 4-3-3 rather than grouped in with our forwards. 

You need to take formations into account, with your formation you only play 2 CM's & 3 forwards, we'll have an extra body in there. So you've got Cesc, Kante, Matic & Bakayoko for 2 spots (or replace Matic with the names you mentioned; I'm not up to date on Chelsea ins/outs happening currently), and Willian, Pedro, Hazard for 2 positions, Michy & Morata for 1 position - I'd say you're also one winger short of ideal (or of course use someone like Kenedy as option #4). 

 

Like you say B. Silva can play wide, and so can KDB, but I can certainly see the logic in us wanting another natural wide forward player - an injury to Sane/Sterling & we're already having to play players out of position. 

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by Stable

Can we just work out a deal with City where each club gets either Danilo or Mendy without trying to gazump each other for both? I'd be happy with either

5 minutes ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

Can we just work out a deal with City where each club gets either Danilo or Mendy without trying to gazump each other for both? I'd be happy with either

That's easy let them buy take who's left worked with our striker 

4 hours ago, Ernie_blue said:

I was talking more about the money City are spending than the amount of players they are buying. Like I said it clearly shows FFP has gone out the window unless City have found a big loophole.

 

4 hours ago, Frawdulant said:

I think they did bud. I heard something about a grossly overpriced sponsorship deal from on of the brothers which ensured that they couldn't fall foul of FFP.

Etihad sponsoring both their shirt and stadium well above market value ensured that they don't have trouble. FFP also doesn't take into account infastructure and academy related spending but fair play to them for recognizing that and building world class facilities 

2 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

That's easy let them buy take who's left worked with our striker 

I think they'll try for both. Walker plus those two for RB/LB and they're set

Just now, TheChelseaBlues said:

I think they'll try for both. Walker plus those two for RB/LB and they're set

Think we are in a better position for either one having concluded deals with both those clubs in the window 

1 hour ago, DonAntonio said:

Think we are in a better position for either one having concluded deals with both those clubs in the window 

That may be true and conversely may have made it harder to sign Lukaku from Everton

I don`t know why so many people want Danilo. He is not a top signing. He is not even close. He is just average. A lot better to spend less money or some young RWB, which could become top player after 2-3 years.

Danilo is not fast, make mistake often, forget to cover his zone, and the only real good thing in his arsenal is his crossing, which is important, but you need more qualities for top team.

Everytime he play for Real, he was the weak link.

Some people should stop watching youtube clips and make opinion for a player from them.

Carvajal is the real deal, but we could never get him.

 

Man City and PSG are allegedly the two clubs that Monaco are possibly reporting to FIFA for tapping up Mbappe...could alter a few things maybe...but ultimately money talks....

10 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

They also have something where the wages are paid by a separate company if I recall btw did you know Roman was one of the advocates pushing for FFP I can only assume he spent all he wanted to spend and though wait I can't keep up with some of these guys let's put the breaks on...

Makes sense. He caught us up with the big dogs and tried to close the door behind him. FFP needs to be scrapped though as the biggest clubs have all found ways rounds it and those behind are the ones that will pay in the end.

On 19/07/2017 at 22:40, Ernie_blue said:

I take it FFP has gone out the window with the way City are buying players. Pep says he wants another 4 players 

Nope. uefa have passed their business model as fitting within the rules so, as long as they can report enough revenue to satisfy the three year break even rule they'll be OK to shop till they drop.

8 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

 

Etihad sponsoring both their shirt and stadium well above market value ensured that they don't have trouble. FFP also doesn't take into account infastructure and academy related spending but fair play to them for recognizing that and building world class facilities 

In fact only some academy spending is excluded. For example, recruitment costs and player wages, do count against FFP. Recruitment costs include transfer fees and money spent on the scouting operation.

12 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

They also have something where the wages are paid by a separate company if I recall btw did you know Roman was one of the advocates pushing for FFP I can only assume he spent all he wanted to spend and though wait I can't keep up with some of these guys let's put the breaks on...

Yes some staff are employed by City Football Group and, notionally at least, have responsibilities across the organisation which includes 5 men's, and two women's, teams around the globe. Accordingly, the salary, and other, costs of employing those staff are shared by the whole group. I said notionally but City's structure has satisfied uefa so they must be able to support the claim they make. That means my expression is probably unfair. It does though reflect how many people, including some City fans, feel about the arrangement.

Edited July 21, 20178 yr by OhForAGreavsie

12 hours ago, Frawdulant said:

I think they did bud. I heard something about a grossly overpriced sponsorship deal from on of the brothers which ensured that they couldn't fall foul of FFP.

Since City previously failed FFP, we can be sure that uefa have gone through their accounts with a fine tooth comb and they say that City's income does not breach regulations, including in regard to related party sponsorships.

Edited July 21, 20178 yr by OhForAGreavsie

UEFA investigated the City's £400m sponsorship and naming rights deal they had with Etihad Airways...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

 

8 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

Can we just work out a deal with City where each club gets either Danilo or Mendy without trying to gazump each other for both? I'd be happy with either

I'll take that deal if we get Medy but no chance if it's the other way around. :)

16 minutes ago, doctorblue said:

UEFA investigated the City's £400m sponsorship and naming rights deal they had with Etihad Airways...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

 

Wow can't believe they exploited a loophole like that. An Abu Dhabi royal family owner having a club being sponsored by the Abu Dhabi govt. Impressive groundwork.

9 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I'll take that deal if we get Medy but no chance if it's the other way around. :)

If we have that option, I say bite it off their hands.

Unless Sandro becomes available which is almost impossible by now.

2 hours ago, Frawdulant said:

Makes sense. He caught us up with the big dogs and tried to close the door behind him. FFP needs to be scrapped though as the biggest clubs have all found ways rounds it and those behind are the ones that will pay in the end.

When Roman first bought the club the BBC football website selected me to give some views about his takeover. One of the points I made in the comments I sent them, although it was edited out of the published piece, was that I hoped Roman's spending would force the big clubs to introduce regulations which encourage a level playing field. I hoped they would feel they were unable to match his budget and would therefore join those wanting a fairer system. I long for American style parity regulations but I reckoned without the weakness of Michael Platini, a man who was simply not bright enough for the position he held, and who allowed himself to be completely out manoeuvred by Europe's most powerful clubs.

Those clubs got Platini to introduce so called fair play regulations which in fact are no such thing. FFP is an horrendous misnomer*. It should really be called, as we fans tend to dub it, financial unfair play. As a result, Roman's activity has made no difference. Not only are big money clubs the ones who are able to spend big, they are now the only ones who are even allowed to do so. How a governing body can set up rules which mean that only certain clubs can sustain a competitive team over the long term, is utterly beyond me. It's nothing short of disgusting. When the money came into City & PSG, I commented that I hoped they'd drive a double decker bus through FFP, and I'm delighted that they appear to be doing so.

That Roman was, and is, one of the chief supporters of FFP is well known and, for me, personally disappointing. As you say, he has made in through the door and is trying to shut it behind him. What I want to see is all clubs restricted to a fixed maximum annual budget. A budget which is the same for all clubs. Then we'll see who the best talent spotters, and the best coaches, are. It's one thing to recognise that the young lad racing against Usain Bolt in a first round heat can't afford the mega high tech running shoes which are provided to Bolt by his sponsors, but it's another thing to tell that kid no one is allowed to buy him a good pair of shoes so he can at least go out there and show his best. In athletics no one would dream of saying such a thing. Why's it different in football? We know the answer.

 

*Steve Claridge please note I've just used the word misnomer correctly. You should try doing the same sometime.

Edited July 21, 20178 yr by OhForAGreavsie

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

In fact only some academy spending is excluded. For example, recruitment costs and player wages, do count against FFP. Recruitment costs include transfer fees and money spent on the scouting operation.

I was referring to their set up. They've put tens of millions into their youth and training facilities around their stadium. To your point I imagine thats why they pull in the talent around Manchester ahead of United nowadays 

11 hours ago, Stable said:

Most managers will want 2 players for each position. Currently City have 2 keepers (Ederson/Bravo), 1 RB (Walker), 0 LB, 4 CB (Kompany, Stones, Otamendi, Kolarov), 3 DM (Gundogan, Yaya, Fernandinho; Delph + Fernando are seemingly on the out), 3 CM (Silva, Silva, De Bruyne), 1 RW (Sterling), 1 LW (Sane), 2 ST (Aguero, Jesus).

You've named the same player a few times for multiple positions (e.g. Jesus as a striker & a winger), which while great to have versatility, it doesn't work like that in reality - an injury to that versatile player & suddenly your down a winger AND a striker if that's how you see the player - it's also important to distinguish D. Silva/De Bruyne as having a deeper role under Pep than their past positions, they're now CM's for City in our 4-3-3 rather than grouped in with our forwards. 

You need to take formations into account, with your formation you only play 2 CM's & 3 forwards, we'll have an extra body in there. So you've got Cesc, Kante, Matic & Bakayoko for 2 spots (or replace Matic with the names you mentioned; I'm not up to date on Chelsea ins/outs happening currently), and Willian, Pedro, Hazard for 2 positions, Michy & Morata for 1 position - I'd say you're also one winger short of ideal (or of course use someone like Kenedy as option #4). 

 

Like you say B. Silva can play wide, and so can KDB, but I can certainly see the logic in us wanting another natural wide forward player - an injury to Sane/Sterling & we're already having to play players out of position. 

My bad on naming a player twice. But it was an honest mistake and just once - Jesus instead of Sterling.

 

9 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

That may be true and conversely may have made it harder to sign Lukaku from Everton

What's your thinking behind it making Lukaku harder?