20th February 2020 at 9:01 pm #7282122nd February 2020 at 8:07 pm #73560
It was an action game so the quality suffered a little. Thought the teams were evenly matched with City’s much maligned defence keeping Vardy/ Maddison in check and the threat up front was greater than Leicesters. I think Real Madrid will now be the test on Wednesday….I also think Sterling and Silva will return and I would not be surprised if Sane gets a run out24th February 2020 at 9:13 am #74598JacksonianParticipant
Well the rules were no secret, and it appears Man City have tried to flout the rules and got caught. Im all for trying to keep the spending race as even as possible. Man City & PSG are the only two clubs with owners with infinite pockets, they make Roman Abramovich spending power from 2005-2010 look like a joke. Speaking of which, Chelsea are no longer considered financial titans among Europe. They could be outbid by any team with a 50,000 capacity stadium – and thats a good thing.
The rate for world class players in terms of transfer fees and their wages needs to come down, not up. If the financial reward for selling a player is low, then clubs will sell less players. Which will make it harder for richer clubs to assemble a top squad.24th February 2020 at 8:34 pm #75091
Jacksonian…you cannot keep blaming City for all that is wrong. City laid down a 10 year project and it cost a lot of money but included a complete overall of the club, staff and environment, which also included building Academies and Local housing . If we take your and others route for City and ban them, OK, now they have gone….so who is the next wealthy club , so OK ban them…so on we go.
Why does capacity be a good thing? In Chelseas case I believe they have a full house of loyal supporters, may not be 50K but why is that a measure? Utd have a regular capacity of 75K and have won nothing for years but they still turn up, good for them. The capacity argument is a nonsense. It is strange really, City could have spent more at the beginning of the season and the January market but did not. I do think you are right about prices for players does need to be reduced, particularly our domestic potential talent. I would also erase Agents from taking any part in transfers, if the player wants one, then he pays for it privately, nothing to do with the clubs involved. These are the issues more important than who can spend more, the issue would never go away but it would be an improvement for clubs. City can only have the specified squad number and even if they were all top fee, which they are not, it amounts to 25 players? out of say 25000 circa in Europe so plenty of players to go at to get a squad together. Liverpool have done it,Arsenal/Spurs/Utd have failed to do it. It is all a bit of nonsense scenario really but I am just putting forward an opinion that even when the wealthy teams BEFORE the City era why did they not invest better to maintain there position? With all the sponsorship deals struck over they years few can claim they are short of money….I see little coming back to the fans for cheaper seats although City have not been bad in this respect. Always another side to the story friend24th February 2020 at 9:16 pm #75132PaganParticipant371 pts
Jacksonian, it’s very naive to think the size of the stadium has much of an effect on your finances, it’s all about global fan base. Man United have a massive fan base and just because they’re going through a sticky patch that won’t change, it’s about loyalty, look at Liverpool, they’ve not been a dominant force for years, but the fan base they developed when they were has stuck by them and increased by supporter inheritance.
FFP, was brought in under the guise of financial stability, but really it’s there to keep the big clubs big and the smaller clubs in their place, the establishment don’t want another Chelsea or Man City joining the top table…..Pagan24th February 2020 at 10:58 pm #75221
Increasing the match day income is important but of Chelsea’s £448m turnover in 2018 £204m came from Broadcasting and £170m from Commercial activities both are driven by the team being successful and being successful is primarily dependent on what you can invest in the transfer market.25th February 2020 at 8:22 am #75617JacksonianParticipant
If indeed Man City are serious about being an advocate for smaller clubs making it to the big time with some help, why are they in favour of receiving a larger share of the Premier League tv deal? Why not say, actually, lets split the cash 20 ways each. Although its not just Man City, as United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham are all guilty of this. But still, isnt this a cartel going on to keep the smaller clubs at bay? Sure looks like it.
In 2018 Man City received 149m to West Brom getting 96m from tv rights. If it was split, that gives WBA a 30m signing to narrow the gap between what was the bottom place club, against the first placed club.25th February 2020 at 8:43 am #75635
Perhaps a tad unfair to City Jacksonian.
City and indeed the rest of the top 6 Clubs aren’t respondible for how the TV monies are shared albeit understandably perhaps there is a collective view that the top Clubs should have a greater share because they are the best supported Clubs in both England and worldwide and that’s primarily who particularly the worldwide fan base tune in to see.
But 14 PL Clubs have to vote for any changes to how the TV monies are shared to change anything as the article confirms in your post.
25th February 2020 at 3:46 pm #75921
- This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by nine nine nine.
R.Madrid v City, well we know now, City will not go there to defend and we will have to do some defending but I feel we have the players, to do a job it depends on that first goal though. We do need to score away goal because the return will be equally intense.It will be a good game and should be enjoyable to watch.26th February 2020 at 8:58 am #76623
I think we’ll see quite an entertaining game tonight but it’s one that could turn into a bit of a stalemate, similar to the last time we played them in the ko stage – neither team will want to be ‘out of it’ going into the second leg – 0-0 wouldn’t surprise me.
I feel them losing Hazard can only be a plus for us but my big fear is Benzema, still a quality striker and Laporte needs to be on top of his game. If we can win the MF battle, stopping the supply, that should be the platform to getting a decent result.
COYB.26th February 2020 at 1:45 pm #7678126th February 2020 at 2:01 pm #7679226th February 2020 at 2:57 pm #76825
g.i blues….much the same friend. Although there was no stand out performance against Leicester I thought it was a really good professional approach to the game, the players looked confident and the work rate is getting back to its best.
I will watch the game on City TV but most likely listen on GMR as well. I do not have to listen to the TV experts then!!!!!!26th February 2020 at 6:58 pm #76938
Ederson, Walker Mendy, Otamendi, Laporte, Rodri, Gundogan, Mahrez, De Bruyne, Jesus, Bernardo.
I wouldn’t have predicted that line-up but in Pep we trust.26th February 2020 at 7:36 pm #76962maverick1973Participant608 pts
No Sterling,Aguero,Silva??26th February 2020 at 9:56 pm #7705326th February 2020 at 9:59 pm #7705726th February 2020 at 10:02 pm #77061sean the sailorParticipant426 pts26th February 2020 at 10:12 pm #77070
game not over yet, the return will a cliff hanger so we need a clean sheet and that third goal. At last…a penalty taker!!!!!!28th February 2020 at 6:17 pm #78538
Bad news and good news about Laporte. Out for 3/4 weeks but on the plus side it’s only a hamstring and not any reoccurance of the ACL problem that kept him out for four months.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.