We spend less than the big 4 and we get called spoiled đź’€
by Pure-Midnight682
6 comments
We definitely talk about it a lot here. People outside of this sub tend to 115 their way out of every conversation regarding the recent spending of PL clubs. Anyways you can’t force people to change their perspective if they’ve already made up their mind. The only way we can have a positive discussion on this topic outside of this sub is when PL finally concludes the 115 charges.
It doesn’t matter sadly. Any conversation outside any City subs/forums is useless at this point. Other teams spends as much if not more than us and they don’t even come close to the success we’ve hadÂ
First, what’s the second pic about Arsenal supposed to prove?
Also, your statement that we spend less than the big 4 isn’t supported by the other two tables. The last table shows that Liverpool and Spurs spent less than City on transfers during the Klopp era. The first table is pretty dated since it doesn’t include the last three seasons. And for the period shown, it shows City’s net spending was more than any other club’s. I’m not sure dividing by net spend by number of trophies won makes much sense. I don’t think anyone would argue, for example, that Brentford and Brighton are wasting money because they haven’t won trophies.
Bottom line is that I agree with the sentiment that City has spent wisely on transfers during the Pep era and that net spending on transfers in the last six seasons or so has been around the median for Premier League clubs. Overall, spending since the takeover has been quite high but it was money well-spent unlike at Man Utd and more recently at Chelsea.
Obviously, rival fans will forever accuse City of cheating, booking inflated sponsorship revenue they will always claim was actually Sheikh Mansour’s own money and understating expenses, using the shorthand of “115” or pointing to hacked emails that were manipulated and taken out of context as their personal proof that City cheats and has “ruined football”. It’s best to ignore those nitwits. They rarely complain about the big spending, poorly run clubs like Man Utd and PSG who line other clubs’ pockets by overspending on transfers, which proves they only hate City intensely because we have won so much silverware.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but doesn’t this show we have the **highest** net spend and **highest** money spent on incoming transfers? The only thing this shows is that we don’t have THE highest net spend per trophy. Or maybe I’m wrong? I just woke up
I dont understand the Arteta stats. What is that supposed to mean?
They do all the time.
But there isn’t a net spend trophy, and it’s not our money as fans, so it’s not worth discussing.
6 comments
We definitely talk about it a lot here. People outside of this sub tend to 115 their way out of every conversation regarding the recent spending of PL clubs. Anyways you can’t force people to change their perspective if they’ve already made up their mind. The only way we can have a positive discussion on this topic outside of this sub is when PL finally concludes the 115 charges.
It doesn’t matter sadly. Any conversation outside any City subs/forums is useless at this point. Other teams spends as much if not more than us and they don’t even come close to the success we’ve hadÂ
First, what’s the second pic about Arsenal supposed to prove?
Also, your statement that we spend less than the big 4 isn’t supported by the other two tables. The last table shows that Liverpool and Spurs spent less than City on transfers during the Klopp era. The first table is pretty dated since it doesn’t include the last three seasons. And for the period shown, it shows City’s net spending was more than any other club’s. I’m not sure dividing by net spend by number of trophies won makes much sense. I don’t think anyone would argue, for example, that Brentford and Brighton are wasting money because they haven’t won trophies.
Bottom line is that I agree with the sentiment that City has spent wisely on transfers during the Pep era and that net spending on transfers in the last six seasons or so has been around the median for Premier League clubs. Overall, spending since the takeover has been quite high but it was money well-spent unlike at Man Utd and more recently at Chelsea.
Obviously, rival fans will forever accuse City of cheating, booking inflated sponsorship revenue they will always claim was actually Sheikh Mansour’s own money and understating expenses, using the shorthand of “115” or pointing to hacked emails that were manipulated and taken out of context as their personal proof that City cheats and has “ruined football”. It’s best to ignore those nitwits. They rarely complain about the big spending, poorly run clubs like Man Utd and PSG who line other clubs’ pockets by overspending on transfers, which proves they only hate City intensely because we have won so much silverware.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but doesn’t this show we have the **highest** net spend and **highest** money spent on incoming transfers? The only thing this shows is that we don’t have THE highest net spend per trophy. Or maybe I’m wrong? I just woke up
I dont understand the Arteta stats. What is that supposed to mean?
They do all the time.
But there isn’t a net spend trophy, and it’s not our money as fans, so it’s not worth discussing.