Another example of clubs with too much money distorting the market. If Pool have ended up with say £15m more than they should then they get an unfair advantage. Amazed they apparently didn't bother to get a better price! Shows money means nothing even a couple of years after their FFP transgression. Good luck to Pool, they have got away with it. Imagine if City had not obliged them and they were left with him!
It is silly money and he's definitely not worth anything near that. 25m tops imo. I reckon YV is right and this 50m is rather like the 30m we 'paid' for Lamela, mostly add-ons. One small positive is that this deal greatly strengthens our hand if and when a bid comes in for Kane. Prices for young home-grown talent (I use that word liberally) have always been insane, but this transfer pushes the insanity up a notch. There's no way we need to take a bid for anything less than 40-50m seriously now.
The only reassurance we can take is that Brenda will almost certainly spunk the lot up the wall, providing the septics will let him....
It's 44 + 5 in addons. The "saving face" is that it's 49 million, not 50> so the City management can go on about how they cut us down by £1m I'm loving it! well rid. Although now we'll hand £32m of it to Villa for Benteke
Well I didn't expect that, City were in a strong position and have negotiated horribly then. Benteke's a good player, even for that money but I'd question why you're signing an injuryprone striker after the season Sturridge has just had,
Sch.......you know what? Utd are buying up all the players whose names begin with Sch.... Who's next? Schlupp and Schmeichel from Leicester? Schwarzer? Schurrle?
Leicester have decided to replace the ostrich with the tinkerman. Claudio Ranieri adds another name to the rather long list of teams that he's managed. Bit of an up and down career, but he's quite likeable and he knows the league, I guess. Not sure about this one. Could go either way. Shocking photo! His face!
They survived last season because they had a settled team. Now they appoint a man who never keeps a settled team. Leicester to go down.
Another fine example of how the football media has blatant double standards: Claudio Ranieri changes his side for every game, they portray this as a bad thing and he's dubbed "Tinkerman" Alex Ferguson changes his side for every game, it never got mentioned nor did they coin a nickname for him
Van G will probably get some good results with that team. Cue the pundits drooling over what a great manger he is. How much has he spent now? How difficult is it to get results with unlimited spending power? The main surprise is how ManU didn't do better last season, yet this great manager spent half a season trying to fit all the stars into a starting XI with little regard for building a team. In many ways suspensions and injuries helped him.
Couldn't agree more. I've even changed my Football Manager name to Louis, so numerous are the similarities between our respective managerial styles. What bugs me more is that there is no evidence that Moyes (who always struck me as a genuine, sincere and decent bloke) would've struggled like he did if he'd been given unlimited funds.
Exactly, Moyes would have done better with those players last year. Being a manager for teams like Utd, City or Chelsea is very easy and many of us could do it. Any problem in your team, just throw £30m at it.
Yeah agree, once you get that lucky break of managing a side with huge finances, you can pretty much guarantee yourself a successful career from there on. Even if sacked 5 times you'll still end up somewhere good due to reputation of managing big clubs.
£150mil last summer, and probably about the same this, I think most competent managers could get results with that kind of spending power.
