Leicester_Loyal Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Is it just me that feels the money has been wasted? If I'd spent 355 million on players, I want them to be in the top 2 this season. 25 million on Milner is too much. I think they could have made much better signings So far the owner has spent 210million on the takeover, 355million on transfers, 425(ish) million on wages and 20 million on infrastructure. What do you guys think of the amount of money? Do you think it has been well spent? What would you expect from this sort of investment?
Collier Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Clubs are bound to milk Man City if they know they're after a player though, given that money is not an issue. I doubt they care how much they pay for a player as long as they get him. £25 million might be too much for Milner, but but they've got the player they've been chasing, and that amount's like a drop in the ocean to them. In short - The cash could've been spent better, but I don't think anyone's really that bothered when they've got money to burn.
The Doctor Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Is it just me that feels the money has been wasted? If I'd spent 355 million on players, I want them to be in the top 2 this season. 25 million on Milner is too much. I think they could have made much better signings So far the owner has spent 210million on the takeover, 355million on transfers, 425(ish) million on wages and 20 million on infrastructure. What do you guys think of the amount of money? Do you think it has been well spent? What would you expect from this sort of investment? it definately is when madrid have got khederia (sp) and Ozil for 23m combined, But who are the better signings they could have made: silva is one of the best players in the world in his position, Balliotelli (sp) is a brilliant prospect and Y.Toure is a good quality player. And at half a billion a year i'd accept no less than the title and a european final.
Leicester_Loyal Posted 18 August 2010 Author Posted 18 August 2010 Barca have encouraged Man City to make an offer for Zlatan Ibrahimovic. With them expecting to pay 96million over four years (I think those were the right figures), add onto that the 20-30 million they'd be expected to pay for him, and your looking at 125+ million for one player. What is this world coming to?!
Corky Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 They've got to win something this year, or at least get in the top four. The money has been around (if you include the first takeover) for three years, with a couple of mid-table finishes then fifth. The players probably are overpriced, but that will mean little when Man City start winning things. When you've got the money why not spend it? Several of the buys look promising, it's all about fitting them into a team.
Joe. Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 I really hope they fail miserably this season. I despised Chelsea for how they went about their domination, and this is no different. Actually it's worse if anything, this money that's flying around really is on another level of obscenity. They've got cretins like Gary Cook at the top, who I still laugh at now for claiming that AC Milan "bottled" the signing of Kaka. Righto, Gary.
Mikey Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 I really hope they fail miserably this season. I despised Chelsea for how they went about their domination, and this is no different. Actually it's worse if anything, this money that's flying around really is on another level of obscenity. They've got cretins like Gary Cook at the top, who I still laugh at now for claiming that AC Milan "bottled" the signing of Kaka. Righto, Gary. Same. I hate them both. Rather Chelsea finished above Man City though.
Mack Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Why would any player want to sign for them now? With Lescott, Adebayor and others getting benched, unless you were only motivated by money they would be a club to avoid surely.
FoxyPV Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Why would any player want to sign for them now? With Lescott, Adebayor and others getting benched, unless you were only motivated by money they would be a club to avoid surely. If someone offered me three times my salary to do nothing for a year then agitate for a move, I'm sure I could manage it
hairy Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 I really hope they fail miserably this season. I despised Chelsea for how they went about their domination Are we not in the same situation now? An owner funding the club? Have we not been in the same situation since Milan bought us? The only difference seems to be the amounts being spent. Is this not the same for alot of clubs in the top two divisions? Very few can compete and survive without private support.
Samilktray Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 You have to spend money these days to give you a chance of success, stupid thing to criticize them for.
Leicester_Loyal Posted 18 August 2010 Author Posted 18 August 2010 You have to spend money these days to give you a chance of success, stupid thing to criticize them for. Its just the amount they have spent and who they've spent it on. Also, the way they have gone about some transfers is not good for the game either.
Samilktray Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Spanish clubs are worse than them with how they go about signing players.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 The whole argument about how football is funded is nonsense. I matters not a jot whether a club only spends its income, or whether some rich man chucks Billions at it. It is no more or less fair than a big club being better able to spend big becuase it can sell 70,000 seats each game. There is some argument that going into Admin and stuffing local business is unfair, but really, that has no relevance either.
Joe. Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Are we not in the same situation now? An owner funding the club? Have we not been in the same situation since Milan bought us? The only difference seems to be the amounts being spent. Is this not the same for alot of clubs in the top two divisions? Very few can compete and survive without private support. In ways yes which is why I worded my first post a bit carefully. But I don't see us bullying clubs (yet) to get exactly what we want, and offering players unbelievable wages that are now on another level. if Yaya Toure's really on what was reported, there is a lot wrong. Few clubs are self sufficient these days I know, which is sad. We certainly couldn't do it, and it won't be too long before almost every club up and down the country are owned by overseas businessmen. It'll get to a point where most clubs simply won't have a choice - caving into foreign investment may be the only way to survive.
Ashley Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 I posted this in another thread I think it was yesterday, The owner of Manchester City Sheikh(is his name? something like that anyway) said when he brought Man City that they were his toy the bloke is rich as fook he even said he could buy ambrovich. I don't agree with them spending money like they have been doing, its ridiculous and hope they fail big time. The glorly supporters will be jumping on the Man City band waggon now!
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Still cant believe they paid £17m for Santa Cruz and £20m odd for Lescott!
ousefox Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Ireland to Villa will be a quality signing. IMO he is just as good as MIlner and a couple of seasons ago was one of the leagues top performers. Might be worth a little punt on in your FPL if you ask me
dandannieldanok Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Can't see why so many are branding it a great deal for Villa. They've lost their most influential players, a match-winner on his day and he had plenty of those days last season. And the money they're getting is unlikely to be put straight into buying another player(s), after all that's why O'Neill left isn't it? No matter how good people think Stephen Ireland is, there is no way he'll replace the goals and assists of Milner, not a chance.
Edmund Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 The owner of Manchester City Sheikh(is his name? something like that anyway) said when he brought Man City that they were his toy the bloke is rich as fook he even said he could buy ambrovich. Pretty much this. Him and his family are worth £560 billion. This is just pocket change to him. I'd probably do the same but with Leicester if I had the money. Would be a great hobby
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 Can't see why so many are branding it a great deal for Villa. They've lost their most influential players, a match-winner on his day and he had plenty of those days last season. And the money they're getting is unlikely to be put straight into buying another player(s), after all that's why O'Neill left isn't it? No matter how good people think Stephen Ireland is, there is no way he'll replace the goals and assists of Milner, not a chance. oh dear. 20 million odd ?! Ireland is quality but has fallen victim to unloyalty at an awfully run club. Ireland will do well and wether the 20 million goes into paying debts or whatever, it still goes a long way. Great move for Ireland, shyte move for Milner (won't be there main man and not even guaranteed a game, who knows who could turn up next week )
dandannieldanok Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 oh dear. 20 million odd ?! Ireland is quality but has fallen victim to unloyalty at an awfully run club. Ireland will do well and wether the 20 million goes into paying debts or whatever, it still goes a long way. No matter how far it goes, if the money is not used to replace Milner then Villa have not done well from this deal. Milner was massive for Villa last season. Martin O'Neill resigned over this remember, he knows that Milner needs replacing with more than just Stephen Ireland.
Dickie Greenleaf Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 They dont have the option to sign players like Ozil, Kaka, Torres etc, becuase they aren't in the Champions League and they wont be able to get the likes of them until they get in it. Until then they'll have to sign good (but not outstanding) players who are only going for the money.
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 18 August 2010 Posted 18 August 2010 No matter how far it goes, if the money is not used to replace Milner then Villa have not done well from this deal. Milner was massive for Villa last season. Martin O'Neill resigned over this remember, he knows that Milner needs replacing with more than just Stephen Ireland. IMO its a good move for Villa and they'll do fine. O'Neill was right to resign because its hard to see where Villa can go when they dont have the backing like Spurs City etc
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.