City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches

[Fingeredmouse]

The presumption is then United wouldn't spend so much were City not there but the correlation with tv money and the leagues spending as a whole suggest transfer spending would be the same regardless, as its been consistent to the tv deals, unless we're implying a much smaller tv deal without City (which is weird given we have no fans) or Chelsea before them.

The more the PL makes, the bigger the tv deal, the more money clubs get, the more they can spend, the more prices get bumped up. With City or no City.

I appreciate the point that you're making, but correlation ≠ causation. Obviously, greater income = greater spend but you must be able to see that state funded clubs, like yourselves and PSG, had a disproportionate influence on fee inflation?
That is, of course, leaving aside the fact it seems you've been cooking the books on salaries which is also going to be an inflationary factor.

The argument that, if City and Chelsea's windfalls hadn't occurred, then we'd have likely steamrollered the league financially unopposed is one which I'd have some sympathy with but you're on shaky ground with nigh on limitless funds in certain clubs is a minor impactor in spend inflation.

 

[Bluelion7]

You’ve got it backwards. The reason transfer outlay has ballooned is because clubs who are expected to balance their books are being forced to compete with teams who theoretically can’t go bankrupt, and as such you’ve got teams who’ve earned their money over decades like Barca actively destroying themselves to beat out the likes of City & PSG, and even financial titans like United bargain shopping for Burnley strikers because they’ve had to spend so much to catch up…. The reason United have spent as much as City IS a product of their financial doping. Not the other way around.

Not to mention that if a lot of these allegations are true, City have been paying people off the books, and therefore spending a lot more than is on the official record… that’s kinda the whole point!

Also, it’s sport, not ‘the open market’ …A department store might not get accused of financial doping when a billionaire ploughs loads of money into it, but a sports club in a league with a notion of fair sporting competition might.

Well, that’s the thing: I don’t care why transfers have ballooned or what people have to do to compete.

Either should FFP really. It was created to keep people from creating bad debt. The stuff I listed about people worrying it would be used to restrict competition, and the lawsuits that happened are all record.

If people want to cap spending, then cap it across the board.

It’s not like it was “fair” back when United were paying nearly 30m for Rio. Most teams probably couldn’t compete with that. The only thing that has changed on that front is the number of teams that joined the party.

People were GREAT with the idea of disparity when it was only their teams.

 

[Bluelion7]

You miss the point.

They signed up to the rules. Then cheated, lied, didn't cooperate with investigations. Think of all the other teams who would've finished top 4 / top 5 if City hadn't broken the rules. It impacts every club long term.

Any club can grow success, increase fanbase and spending power. But over time and through good development of youth players and sound investments over decades, not over a few fecking years blowing the transfer market wide open.

Also many of the allegations are on City wages/fees not being on the books so you are not comparing true figures. That's also the point.

I did t miss the point: I said they should be punished … but for lying, fraud, etc.

I said it was stupid of them to create false business fronts and break the law (because they probably did break general, non footballing law in doing this), because they should have just challenged FFP directly.

 

[acnumber9]

@The Irish Connection @TheReligion @caid
Shit don't wanna be arguing with everyone but instead of oil clubs maybe this is the real factor in transfer spending.
Just look at the curves from 2004 to 2019. Only overlap I could get. Can people really look at that and say City are the reason for transfer spending and inflation?




Cheats? Very likely. Inflated costs? thats tv money. The idea clubs would still be paying 30-40m for players without oil clubs is rubbish. Its not strange transfer spending is still roughly 5-6 times the tv money like in 2004?

Mmmm, TV money has gone up 300% from 07 in those figures. Transfer spend has increased by 430%. Seems like it’s more than tv money at play here. Unless you think owners just decided they wanted to be more liberal with their cash for shits and giggles.

 

[padr81]

So 09/10 most expensive transfers in world football features Tevez, Adebayor, Lescott, Santa Cruz, Kolo Toure (ranked 7,8,10,16,24)

The following season it was Dzeko, Yaya Toure, Balotelli, Silva, Kolorov and Milner (ranked 4,6,7,8,10 and 13)

Then Aguero and Nasri (2 and 7).

Just looking at those early three transfer windows you spent more money than anyone else in Europe in terms of transfer fees. Even worse when you just look at PL clubs.

Of course you contributed to inflating the market @padr81 and that’s not even looking at the spend volume during Peps tenure.

We were the biggest spenders but that doesn't drive up the prices and we were shopping for a whole new squad.

Are United of the last 10 years (biggest spenders) and def the biggest the last 5 years driving up the market now? The answer to that is equally a no. Did Paul Pogba drive up Bernardo Silva's price? Nope.
The logic that team x paid y for z means team a is going to have to pay b for c is false except maybe on the high end transfers.

Does Grealish going for £100m bump up the price of some other average winger? Or the average spend for wingers? I'd wager Antony still sets you guys back £70m or whatever it was.

Bayern won't stump up €60m for Cancelo and will make sure they get him for €40m or so come seasons end (maybe free if we have to void contracts), which is far less for example than you guys paid Palace for AWB (not trying to pick on you guys but you are big spenders and one of the only clubs to compare these kinda prices with). If we tried to buy Cancelo from Bayern (vice versa, we'd have to stump up a hell of a lot more).

Teams will pay relative to their budget, which is relative to their income (or in our case their fake income).

Theres a reason people say things like United tax, City tax, Barca tax etc.. and our teams constantly have to overpay for average players and its cause when wealthy PL clubs come knocking other clubs light up knowing they're getting paid. As the tv money gets bigger and bigger and the PL becomes stronger and stronger this will only increase, if the tv money was halved from next season, I guarantee transfer spending and prices would too, even if Todd Boehly is still going crazy.

 

[TheReligion]

Well, that’s the thing: I don’t care why transfers have ballooned or what people have to do to compete.

Either should FFP really. It was created to keep people from creating bad debt. The stuff I listed about people worrying it would be used to restrict competition, and the lawsuits that happened are all record.

If people want to cap spending, then cap it across the board.

It’s not like it was “fair” back when United were paying nearly 30m for Rio. Most teams probably couldn’t compete with that. The only thing that has changed on that front is the number of teams that joined the party.

People were GREAT with the idea of disparity when it was only their teams.

Spoken like a true Chelsea fan

 

[BristolRuss]

This investigation has been going on for four years right? That's around the time that Hart was pretty unceremoniously ditched by Pep...

 

[jm99]

Me too, which is why if found guilty I hope we're punished.
Now correlation between Cities spending and transfer inflation thats more accurate than tv money? I'll wait.

Uniteds spending is purely down to United and wasted by incompetent eejits. Nothing to do with City sadly.

Who we spent the money on is totally down to us. How inflated the transfer market is, is down in a large part to city, psg and chelsea. Chelsea never broke any transfer record, until torres broke the British one, but there spending in 2004 massively inflated the market, then city coming in and throwing 50m at defenders like its nothing, inflated it further. Psg signing neymar and mbappe totally fecked it all, but it was on that trajectory before those two outliers, football inflation has vastly outpaced real world inflation, and its in large part down to the oil clubs

 

[padr81]

I appreciate the point that you're making, but correlation ≠ causation. Obviously, greater income = greater spend but you must be able to see that state funded clubs, like yourselves and PSG, had a disproportionate influence on fee inflation?
That is, of course, leaving aside the fact it seems you've been cooking the books on salaries which is also going to be an inflationary factor.

The argument that, if City and Chelsea's windfalls hadn't occurred, then we'd have likely steamrollered the league financially unopposed is one which I'd have some sympathy with but you're on shaky ground with nigh on limitless funds in certain clubs is a minor impactor in spend inflation.

Minor absolutely, I should have clarified, but when people say United only spent 1bn cause you did, thats the issue cause its completely unfounded. If you guys steam rolled the league it is what it is. Until we know the full extent of what we're guilty of, its rough to call. I agree correlation isn't causation but in same cases its so damn close it might as well be.

You steamrolling the league is a different discussion and its hard to know, exactly cause if Kun and KDB etc.. didn't end up at City, no one knows where they'd be playing.

Its too easy to say team x spending y, is why a has to spend b. The same correlation isn't causation argument applies I guess.

 

[padr81]

This investigation has been going on for four years right? That's around the time that Hart was pretty unceremoniously ditched by Pep...

Pep's been at City 6 and a half years or something. Hart was the first one he booted.

 

[TheReligion]

We were the biggest spenders but that doesn't drive up the prices and we were shopping for a whole new squad.

Are United of the last 10 years (biggest spenders) and def the biggest the last 5 years driving up the market now? The answer to that is equally a no. Did Paul Pogba drive up Bernardo Silva's price? Nope.
The logic that team x paid y for z means team a is going to have to pay b for c is false except maybe on the high end transfers.

Does Grealish going for £100m bump up the price of some other average winger? Or the average spend for wingers? I'd wager Antony still sets you guys back £70m or whatever it was.

Bayern won't stump up €60m for Cancelo and will make sure they get him for €40m or so come seasons end (maybe free if we have to void contracts), which is far less for example than you guys paid Palace for AWB (not trying to pick on you guys but you are big spenders and one of the only clubs to compare these kinda prices with). If we tried to buy Cancelo from Bayern (vice versa, we'd have to stump up a hell of a lot more).

Teams will pay relative to their budget, which is relative to their income (or in our case their fake income).

Theres a reason people say things like United tax, City tax, Barca tax etc.. and our teams constantly have to overpay for average players and its cause when wealthy PL clubs come knocking other clubs light up knowing they're getting paid. As the tv money gets bigger and bigger and the PL becomes stronger and stronger this will only increase, if the tv money was halved from next season, I guarantee transfer spending and prices would too, even if Todd Boehly is still going crazy.

You’re picking a strange hill to die on here mate.

Your opening line is a contradiction in itself.

The likes of City, Chelsea and PSG have massively inflated the market. Of course there’s other factors at play but going out season after season and buying 5/6 of the most expensive players in the world is going to have an impact on the market.

You did it when they first took you over as I pointed out and you did it regularly for the first few seasons of Pep until he got what he needed.

 

[padr81]

Who we spent the money on is totally down to us. How inflated the transfer market is, is down in a large part to city, psg and chelsea. Chelsea never broke any transfer record, until torres broke the British one, but there spending in 2004 massively inflated the market, then city coming in and throwing 50m at defenders like its nothing, inflated it further. Psg signing neymar and mbappe totally fecked it all, but it was on that trajectory before those two outliers, football inflation has vastly outpaced real world inflation, and its in large part down to the oil clubs

Again theres nothing that correlates that opinion. It general one or two outliers don't have a huge effect on the average unless its something like someone suddenly dropping 1bn on 1 players etc.. given the huge amounts spent everywhere by everyone.

 

[MiceOnMeth]

Any chance they get points deducted?

 

[antk]

Who we spent the money on is totally down to us. How inflated the transfer market is, is down in a large part to city, psg and chelsea. Chelsea never broke any transfer record, until torres broke the British one, but there spending in 2004 massively inflated the market, then city coming in and throwing 50m at defenders like its nothing, inflated it further. Psg signing neymar and mbappe totally fecked it all, but it was on that trajectory before those two outliers, football inflation has vastly outpaced real world inflation, and its in large part down to the oil clubs

It's in large part due to overall revenue in football absolutely exploding over the last 25 years. For example, Real Madrid:

 

[cyberman]

Well, that’s the thing: I don’t care why transfers have ballooned or what people have to do to compete.

Either should FFP really. It was created to keep people from creating bad debt. The stuff I listed about people worrying it would be used to restrict competition, and the lawsuits that happened are all record.

If people want to cap spending, then cap it across the board.

It’s not like it was “fair” back when United were paying nearly 30m for Rio. Most teams probably couldn’t compete with that. The only thing that has changed on that front is the number of teams that joined the party.

People were GREAT with the idea of disparity when it was only their teams.

Yeah, spent so much on Rio that we couldn’t afford his defensive partner and had to resort to cheap options like Blanc and Silvestre. Like we had a budget or something.
Almost like having a world class academy that produced players for over a decade freed up money from having to invest in those positions so we could spend money on a player like Rio every so often.
What stopped other clubs competing with us for Vidic? Evra? We had one expensive defender in a back 4 / 5 but it’s Rio being brought up like it was a constant financial cheat code. I’d put the cost of Rio / Vidic / Evra and academy graduates Neville’s, O Shea and Brown over any Chelsea defence at the time.
Without looking a the costs, I swear I’m not cheating, I’d say there were many more expensive back 5 /6 than the options we had there. Then we had fecking Pique come through for nothing with Johnny Evans right beside him. Add them to the cost going forward. I bet there’s mid table clubs with more expensive defences than that over the 4/6 year period. A bit longer even. The fecking Da Silva twins can be thrown in there as well. Smalling and Jones as well
But yeah.. Rio huh?

edit feck me SAF could develop a defender. That’s actually ridiculous looking back at it

 

[padr81]

You’re picking a strange hill to die on here mate.

Your opening line is a contradiction in itself.

The likes of City, Chelsea and PSG have massively inflated the market. Of course there’s other factors at play but going out season after season and buying 5/6 of the most expensive players in the world is going to have an impact on the market.

You did it when they first took you over as I pointed out and you did it regularly for the first few seasons of Pep until he got what he needed.

We've never had one of the 5 or 6 most expensive players in the world ever. Maybe Grealish is there now? Or was last season but thats it. Just checked Grealish is 7th of all time.

Theres literally nothing in the data that suggest either Chelsea or City are bumping up fees.

 

[crossy1686]

 

[TheReligion]

We've never had one of the 5 or 6 most expensive players in the world ever. Maybe Grealish is there now? Or was last season but thats it.
Theres literally nothing in the data that suggest either Chelsea or City are bumping up fees.

Yeah you’re still obsessing over singular record fees.

I’ve just shown you the spend in the first three years of Mansour and how each summer you bought multiple players who were amongst the most expensive transfers in world football that season.

Even present day you have a player bought for over £100m (Grealish) and the highest paid player in the PL (KdB)

 

[Tarrou]

I thought that was related to our number of loanees not money.

And probably also conveniently chaired by Arsenal members maybe?

What bothers me about all of this pseudo indignation is the fact that we aren’t talking about City outspending United and other teams.

United fans and others are Indignant they were allowed to spend essentially the same amount as them.

Gross spend over the last decade (not net, so sponsors, etc not an issue) … United 1.3 billion, City 1.4 billion.

So in essence the argument is: you can’t spend as much as us to have success and earn fans because you don’t already have the same number of fans….

None of it really seems open market and competitively fair.

And it seems more like an attempt to mollify and artificially manipulate things for Madrid, Barca, and La Liga after the Superleague trials went against them more than anything else.

The Premiere league teams can match spending and, frankly, play on the field. This is an attack on the Premiere League, driven by historic leagues and teams that understand they are falling irreparably behind, and the parties involved need to understand that.

Mostly, because artificial means for “punishing” investment simply don’t work in the long run. They need to worry about why people don’t want to invest there. Maybe they used fake fronts to send in money, but they could have done the same thing to buy and dominate with Real Betis ir someone like that …. and chose not to do so. It’s still investment. People want to invest in the PL, and NOT in other leagues… and UEFA is trying to artificially stop that from happening.

its cute that you believe this

 

[eire-red]

It's in large part due to overall revenue in football absolutely exploding over the last 25 years. For example, Real Madrid:

Nice graph, thanks. And worth noting Sky don't televise La Liga anymore. So you can imagine how this has ballooned for the likes of, say, Leicester or Southampton in recent times.

Which is primarily why VVD and Maguire cost the bones of 80m. Mid tier teams didn't need to sell their prized assets anymore (at least this held true pre-Covid anyway).

 

[padr81]

Well, that’s the thing: I don’t care why transfers have ballooned or what people have to do to compete.

Either should FFP really. It was created to keep people from creating bad debt. The stuff I listed about people worrying it would be used to restrict competition, and the lawsuits that happened are all record.

If people want to cap spending, then cap it across the board.

It’s not like it was “fair” back when United were paying nearly 30m for Rio. Most teams probably couldn’t compete with that. The only thing that has changed on that front is the number of teams that joined the party.

People were GREAT with the idea of disparity when it was only their teams.

There has to be some kind of fairness in football which if we're honest there never has been, but I always describe the current situation at my own club and what happened at yours, as like the worst symptom of whats already been really sick.

Some people like to say its the disease in football but its not, its the ultimate symptom of a game that was canceriously unfair anyway. It works for them cause they don't wanna see how sick football was when they were the big symptom, but football is and has been systematically broken and getting worse.

 

[jm99]

It's in large part due to overall revenue in football absolutely exploding over the last 25 years. For example, Real Madrid:

That happending as well and was something I was going to touch on, but even then Madrid signing Ronaldo for 80m seemed more or less a correct value, it didn't send the market crazy or anything, but when city signed 4 different defenders each for about 50m, then it set that as kind of a lower price for players joining a CL club, it totally ruined the market. Football was trending towards being more expensive, both with the money in the game and general inflation, but it was still not going up that fast, bale signing for only 5m euros more than Ronaldo 5 years later, OK he wasn't as good, but his 12/13 season wasn't a million miles off Ronaldo 07/08. So transfer fees didn't go crazy despite revenues increasing by about 50% in that time, but after city and then especially psg spending 400m on two players, that permanently altered the marker

 

[padr81]

Nice graph, thanks. And worth noting Sky don't televise La Liga anymore. So you can imagine how this has ballooned for the likes of, say, Leicester or Southampton in recent times.

Which is primarily why VVD and Maguire cost the bones of 80m. Mid tier teams didn't need to sell their prized assets anymore (at least this held true pre-Covid anyway).

11 of the wealthiest 20 clubs in Europe or something are now English iirc, with clubs like Everton and Leeds (with all respect, above Ajax.) West Ham above AC Milan. Which makes our cheating all the weirder, given we'd very likely be top 10 anyway.

 

[TheReligion]

There has to be some kind of fairness in football which if we're honest there never has been, but I always describe the current situation at my own club and what happened at yours, as like the worst symptom of whats already been really sick.

Some people like to say its the disease in football but its not, its the ultimate symptom of a game that was canceriously unfair anyway. It works for them cause they don't wanna see how sick football was when they were the big symptom, but football is and has been systematically broken and getting worse.

In this scenario City are COVID.

Not sure which illness is befitting of Chelsea just yet.

 

[jm99]

Again theres nothing that correlates that opinion. It general one or two outliers don't have a huge effect on the average unless its something like someone suddenly dropping 1bn on 1 players etc.. given the huge amounts spent everywhere by everyone.

The huge amounts spent by everyone is because city started throwing 50m at above average full backs, clearly that kind of thing inflates the market. Look at football from 2008 to 2013 when the world record fee is broken, its barely higher and probably lower if you count the value of inflation, its only once city start throwing around massive amounts of cash under pellegrini to an extent, then especially guardiola that things go totally crazy, then psg even more change things up, if you can't spot these trends that's on you but revenues in football were rising for years and yet 50m for torres was still a British transfer record in 2010, it wasn't until the oil clubs raised the floor on players that the ceiling also got much higher. Obviously when you start paying 25m for average players then the value of top players go up, you start spending 50m on average players the value of top players go up, you think because city didn't set records that it didn't affect the market, but 200m for 4 defenders did more to increase the value of top attsckers than spending 100m on Gareth bale did. Even though none of those transfers were within 30m of what Madrid spent on him, it did more to change the market

 

[padr81]

Yeah you’re still obsessing over singular record fees.

I’ve just shown you the spend in the first three years of Mansour and how each summer you bought multiple players who were amongst the most expensive transfers in world football that season.

Even present day you have a player bought for over £100m (Grealish) and the highest paid player in the PL (KdB)

Because there are poster literally implying paying x for y sets a new precedent.
And again theres nothing to back up City have 2 or 3 seasons of insane spending as having the effect on the market that tv money has and the explosion in top clubs revenue now its been mentioned already.

 

[Ian Reus]

The huge amounts spent by everyone is because city started throwing 50m at above average full backs, clearly that kind of thing inflates the market. Look at football from 2008 to 2013 when the world record fee is broken, its barely higher and probably lower if you count the value of inflation, its only once city start throwing around massive amounts of cash under pellegrini to an extent, then especially guardiola that things go totally crazy, then psg even more change things up, if you can't spot these trends that's on you but revenues in football were rising for years and yet 50m for torres was still a British transfer record in 2010, it wasn't until the oil clubs raised the floor on players that the ceiling also got much higher. Obviously when you start paying 25m for average players then the value of top players go up, you start spending 50m on average players the value of top players go up, you think because city didn't set records that it didn't affect the market, but 200m for 4 defenders did more to increase the value of top attsckers than spending 100m on Gareth bale did. Even though none of those transfers were within 30m of what Madrid spent on him, it did more to change the market

+1

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

11 of the wealthiest 20 clubs in Europe or something are now English iirc, with clubs like Everton and Leeds (with all respect, above Ajax.) West Ham above AC Milan. Which makes our cheating all the weirder, given we'd very likely be top 10 anyway.

Because you were impatient and you didn't want to just be one of the top clubs which is what would have happened if you just ran your club properly.

You wanted to be THE top club and dominate European football as quickly as possible , so you just cheated and sped things up. I can definitely see the majority of the cheating and dodgy financials happening in those first 5 or 6 years of the current ownership. God knows how much money the likes of Yaya Toure and Augero were making each week.

 

[padr81]

The huge amounts spent by everyone is because city started throwing 50m at above average full backs, clearly that kind of thing inflates the market. Look at football from 2008 to 2013 when the world record fee is broken, its barely higher and probably lower if you count the value of inflation, its only once city start throwing around massive amounts of cash under pellegrini to an extent, then especially guardiola that things go totally crazy, then psg even more change things up, if you can't spot these trends that's on you but revenues in football were rising for years and yet 50m for torres was still a British transfer record in 2010, it wasn't until the oil clubs raised the floor on players that the ceiling also got much higher. Obviously when you start paying 25m for average players then the value of top players go up, you start spending 50m on average players the value of top players go up, you think because city didn't set records that it didn't affect the market, but 200m for 4 defenders did more to increase the value of top attsckers than spending 100m on Gareth bale did. Even though none of those transfers were within 30m of what Madrid spent on him, it did more to change the market

Again you are spouting an opinion as fact, theres been data brought into the thread by 2 people which correlates heavily with transfer spending and football inflation and you are ignoring it to say "Well I say because I did my own research" or "I think".

Its like a covid denier arguing his opinion is more valuable than the data. If you can't bring numbers you've got nothing only opinion and those who have brought the numbers are right.

 

[jm99]

Because there are poster literally implying paying x for y sets a new precedent.
And again theres nothing to back up City have 2 or 3 seasons of insane spending as having the effect on the market that tv money has and the explosion in top clubs revenue now its been mentioned already.

Of course it does, if people start paying 40m for a guy who goes and sits on their bench, then who's going to sell a first team player for less than that or the same as that?

 

[TheReligion]

Because there are poster literally implying paying x for y sets a new precedent.
And again theres nothing to back up City have 2 or 3 seasons of insane spending as having the effect on the market that tv money has and the explosion in top clubs revenue now its been mentioned already.

See @jm99

I find it odd you can’t see how it had an impact.

 

[padr81]

In this scenario City are COVID.

Not sure which illness is befitting of Chelsea just yet.

Given the way your ignoring data and statistics for your own opinion, I thought you'd be a covid denier buddy.

 

[TheReligion]

Of course it does, if people start paying 40m for a guy who goes and sits on their bench, then who's going to sell a first team player for less than that or the same as that?

They are in denial for some reason

 

[TheReligion]

Given the way your ignoring data and statistics for your own opinion, I thought you'd be a covid denier buddy.

What data? The data that shows you as record spenders for the first three seasons under Mansour as I pointed out?

 

[Mockney]

The point isn’t just about whether City inflated fees as much as it’s about whether they deserved to be able to… If they were cooking their books so they could spend more than they should have been able to, and then went on to be the bench mark of how much a competitive team should spend (or aspire to) then clearly that’s a problem that has skewed things for other clubs trying to compete with them…

 

[cyberman]

Again you are spouting an opinion as fact, theres been data brought into the thread by 2 people which correlates heavily with transfer spending and football inflation and you are ignoring it to say "Well I say because I did my own research" or "I think".

Its like a covid denier arguing his opinion is more valuable than the and data. If you can't bring numbers you've got nothing only opinion and those who have brought the numbers are right.

Padr, you single handedly pushed the cost of a defender up light years ahead of any other club. Your defensive budget alone would make Chelsea wince
That’s your problem. If you look closely other teams spend is up because they’re buying attacker, wingers etc. you’re buying Mendy and Malanga.

 

[jm99]

Again you are spouting an opinion as fact, theres been data brought into the thread by 2 people which correlates heavily with transfer spending and football inflation and you are ignoring it to say "Well I say because I did my own research" or "I think".

Its like a covid denier arguing his opinion is more valuable than the and data. If you can't bring numbers you've got nothing only opinion and those who have brought the numbers are right.

No I actually addressed the data, the revenues in football increase by 50% from 2008 to 2013, the two times the world transfer record was broken, and yet the fee barely increased, revenues haven't increased by a further 50% since then yet the world transfer fee has doubled, the number of 100m players has gone mental, and it didn't from the period of 2008 to 2013, it's only once city and psg start throwing mental sums about that the fees go crazy. Obviously they'd have risen with revenues but more in line with how they did in this period, the British transfer record went up by 60% from 30m to 50m in that time, and since then it's doubled. If you're really trying to argue, that oil clubs have impacted transfer fees then there's not point in debating you, because your city bias is blinding you to an obvious truth

 

[padr81]

Padr, you single handedly pushed the cost of a defender up light years ahead of any other club. Your defensive budget alone would make Chelsea wince
That’s your problem. If you look closely other teams spend is up because they’re buying attacker, wingers etc. you’re buying Mendy and Malanga.

I'm also not doubting for a second we overpaid for defenders, what I'm saying is it didn't set a precedent for others to do the same. Thats where this falls apart, there is no data to say it did, not compared to revenue/tv money increasing player prices. I'm also not denying we spent some seriously stupid money (some of which on dross). I'm denying that someone can look at Uniteds spending and say "Thats Cities fault" given the changes in club revenue and money in the game now.

I feel like theres genuinely people on here who think if City, PSG and Chelsea weren't around, players like KDB, Bruno, Neymar would be selling for £40m. Its insanity given the money in football now.

Have City spend crazy stupid money? Absolutely, is that why other clubs have spent crazy stupid money? No. All the data points elsewhere.

 

[padr81]

No I actually addressed the data, the revenues in football increase by 50% from 2008 to 2013, the two times the world transfer record was broken, and yet the fee barely increased, revenues haven't increased by a further 50% since then yet the world transfer fee has doubled, the number of 100m players has gone mental, and it didn't from the period of 2008 to 2013, it's only once city and psg start throwing mental sums about that the fees go crazy. Obviously they'd have risen with revenues but more in line with how they did in this period, the British transfer record went up by 60% from 30m to 50m in that time, and since then it's doubled. If you're really trying to argue, that oil clubs have impacted transfer fees then there's not point in debating you, because your city bias is blinding you to an obvious truth

And yet the club you accuse of inflating these fees have exactly how many of these 100m players? The curves on income and tv money in particular are very similar to transfer spend since the early 00's long before City. This exponential curve has been growing as such since the late 90's. Its been on an exponential trajectory since long before Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

Anyway we're going round in circles, whilst I'm fine with owning up to the fact we're probably going to League 1 for cheating, I'm not taking the blame for £80m Harry Maguire. Back to our criminal activity.

 

[eire-red]

No I actually addressed the data, the revenues in football increase by 50% from 2008 to 2013, the two times the world transfer record was broken, and yet the fee barely increased, revenues haven't increased by a further 50% since then yet the world transfer fee has doubled, the number of 100m players has gone mental, and it didn't from the period of 2008 to 2013, it's only once city and psg start throwing mental sums about that the fees go crazy. Obviously they'd have risen with revenues but more in line with how they did in this period, the British transfer record went up by 60% from 30m to 50m in that time, and since then it's doubled. If you're really trying to argue, that oil clubs have impacted transfer fees then there's not point in debating you, because your city bias is blinding you to an obvious truth

TV rights have definitely played a massive part though, and there's definitely a case that they've contributed more than FDI.

Both WHU and Forest had net spends of almost 150m last summer. Players like Gibbs-White go for 30m now, and that's more down to mid level clubs being flush with cash and not what PSG paid for Neymar, nor City for Laporte or Dias or whoever.