Saint-Fred

Slight difference- Man City sell the players they don't want and buy players for a whole heap of extra cash, who on paper should be superior to those sold. We sell some of our best players and replace them with (at the time) inferior players who we hope to develop into players capable of progressing us as a team.

^ it wasn't a trick question I was just interested in knowing from an ITk how interest would be registered without a bid. There is obviously something going on and I suspect agents etc talking in the background is common, as is leaks to the press but I wouldn't consider that registering an interest.

Previously you said there was interest from Man Utd, what form was that interest registered if not a bid?

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn This is interesting wages at 70% of turnover is probably an issue. Quite a few clubs with no debt...including Man City? Chelsea owe loads, seems Roman is not so generous as some other owners..he wants his money back at some stage!

I thought we were the tops for developing players so why we would send him out somewhere else? Surely we can get him back to previous levels? If we can't who else could?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1442556-breaking-down-the-4-1-2-1-2-diamond-formation-when-to-use-it-and-why This is reasonably interesting..I can't see it's an every game formation as teams can counter it being so narrow but get it right and it works. https://earlyshower.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/analysis-4-2-3-1-vs-4-4-2-diamond/

We don't play on the left We don't play on the riiight With Claude Puels closed diamond We always play ****e....

I believe the board believe their own hype. They believe they have hit a magic formula where investment is funded by transfers and everything is rosy in the garden, profit, top 6 finishes etc etc... Problem is of last years "cheaper than we sold" signings - only one was good enough to hold down a position in the team. If it's the same this year the first team will be seriously weakened. The ITK feedback suggests we had a player lined up but wouldn't pay what the selling club wanted.. That's ok if our record of getting signings in cheap were going straight into the team but last year suggests the cheaper option may not be the quality we need. However the board may be right we will wait and see!

Personally I would consider (depending on fitness) with the same team but J Rod and Austin up front. We will have plenty of possession and Sunderland aren't likely to come and play for a result giving loads of gaps behind, so Long and Redmond may struggle to find space. Redmond/Long could be brought on fresh in the second half once we were leading :-) and they had to chase the game/were getting tired, creating the space for them.

I agree with this unless he fits CPs plans there is no point him being here?

Errr...who mentioned them? Sorry I see because I am saying our recent league position reflects the investment in the squad..you are saying that I am saying that spending the most wins trophies? If that was true let's forget the football and hand out the trophies at the end of the transfer window..champions are those who spent the most etc etc... You must see that was not what I said or implied.

All is good in the world! Have a nice one :-)

lol..nice one...of course it is relevant if you can't field a team! Only an idiot would use the most extreme example to prove their point. It's great how you use one sentence and grip on to that.. What I actual said was if the club can build a better squad with little net spend that is good..obviously with no net spend and the squad being worse is not good... However to use your extreme if we sell one player for 500 million then only spend 300 million on a team of Messi Ronaldo etc etc we will have a minus net spend of 200 million but a better squad so yes net spend is irrelevant. The relevance is how good the squad is at that time.whether that's through purchasing players, them coming through the academy or cheap buys who have developed. Net spend does not relate to league position as the table shows.

I am not talking net spend -that is irrelevant..the depth of the squad is determined by the money invested into it..it is irrelevant if that money comes from sales or somewhere else.. If the club can make a better squad whilst having to make very little net spend then it is truly very well run! Actually your table does show that only six clubs have spent more!

There is no way that the squad is weaker than 3 yeas ago.

Hu http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons And this one from two years ago has us as 8th even then( over 6 years in which we weren't in the league the whole time) http://www.caughtoffside.com/2014/09/10/top-10-premier-league-spenders-over-the-last-six-years-with-chelsea-and-manchester-united-chasing-top-spot/3/

Over the last 5 seasons we are the 7th highest spending club in England. The position in the league reflects that investment in the squad. It isn't some amazing thing we have done it's that we spent that much on our squad increasing quality and depth. The club is definitely well run and the academy has given us the platform to have the money to spend via sales of Shaw, Ox etc... But ultimately to become one of the best of the rest we did it through spending money!

There is some myth that has grown that he bedwetter say want the club to spend hundreds of millions on wages or signings? Where are people saying that? If the ITKs/papers are to be believed we have the ability to have a higher wage bill within FFP currently as we have just offered Fonte a pay rise...we have also had a bid turned down for another player - therefore have enough for that individuals wages and a rumoured second signing so we have the money for that within FFP rules. Based upon those FFP is not currently restricting us?

That is just a bizarre accusation..what are you accusing him of? Fraud? "Enriching the coffers of his European pals"? Of course they cost more they were out record signings..Osvaldo was obviously a Poch signing he worked with him? How has this changed since? We have spent over 100m since he left and very little From English clubs- Bertrand, Redmond Long have I forgot any? against those purchased from non English clubs Forster, VVD, Pelle, Tadic, Wanyama, Cedric, Martina, Mane, Davis, Hojbjerg, Pied, etc etc etc..

Liverpools computer identified Mane just before we bought him but Brenda didn't want him, so perhaps ours is just a system to hack all the other clubs scouting systems?

Cheers.

You are not allowed any!

W I sort of feel like that but it reminds me of Lukaku going to Everton..good player but a lot of money but now look at his value! Don't think Benteke would do that well for us though, he wouldn't fit our style I don't think.

It's a strange argument Wenger has..even the Pogba signing is less of a percentage of the Man Utds turnover than many of their top signings in the past such as Ferdinand or Rooney...there is so much money in the game it's inevitable that prices will sky rocket. Palace aren't mortgaging the club to get Benteke and in fact many who run the clubs recognise the link between investment in the team and increasing their share of all that cash. Man city may have spent 1 billion but look at their turnover rocket as a result! Not many sides make massive losses it in the premier league now and Arsenal sit on probably 100 million so are very cash rich. Their fans must be really frustrated!

TBF it's not this forum..it's a select few.