It's a bit like Jose's grade a eggs rant though. If Slade is given millions he can start trying to sign proven players at this level. I know he's spent money of the players you mention but it was all very much trying to build a squad on the cheap. Revell and O keef did a job last night. Kennedy has gone backwards it seems which is disappointing. He obviously has time on his side though. I think Peltier showed last night why effectively swapping him for Brayford and getting a load of cash back in the process was good business. Malone has done well whenever required and has only been ousted by the superb Fabio. I'm not 100% sure that Mason is better than Doyle tbh but I get the point Doyle, Saadi, Revel aren't PL players and probably are barely Championship ones. You've got 2 choices there though. Keep trying to uncover the rough diamond and spend the 7 to 10 million that seems to be the going rate for top end Championship strikers. The midfielder should be a lot cheaper and easier.
Until last night Peltier has been one-dimensional. A superb defensive performance on the night to help keep a clean sheet but offers little else. Having said that, I actually prefer him to Brayford who I always found to be a bit ragged - maybe it was the beard and hairstyle that didn't do it for me. Malone on the other side of the pitch divides opinions. Unlike Peltier he can get forward and cause problems but has a tendancy to fluff his lines defensively. Fabio has proven to be the same in the past but I'd take my chance him every time in the team over Malone on sheer ability and entertainment value. I wasn't really having a go at those defensive acquisitions though. I mentioned and am more concerned with the standard (quality) of player that Slade believes can do a job at this level in the middle of the park and up front. You are quite right that he needs the right sort of dosh to get a ready made improvement over what we've already got - I just doubt his ability to recognise latent talent and that plays a major part in building a side. Give him 10 mill and some decent wages to offer and I'm sure he'll come up with some bodies to fit the bill - the problem is likely to be that he wont get anywhere near that sort of money from Tan.
I know he wont, but when you watch Championship strikers being bought for £7m+, to play in the Championship (not moving to the PL) it gives a bit of perspective to the £1m spent on Doyle. Vardy shows the kind of player that can be bought if you look in the right places, but success stories as dramatic as his are very much the exception rather than the rule. I think a bit of proper money being thrown at a very good loan signing is our best hope. A young striker with it all to prove could really compliment what we're doing. Wilson from Utd is the one we should be targeting IMO. Even if we have to accept a recall clause he'd be worth the risk as he'd definitely improve our first 11 immediately.
Someone mentioned somewhere else that City's Financial Fair Play standing would be adversely effected by new signings in January. Now for one I have no idea what the FFP entails (and have no inclination to want to know) but if this is the case then that would be a blow. It would help though if Macheda, Jones and Saadi were match fit.
I don't think there's any question that Tan and Co. have been very mindful of the implication of breaching the rules this season. I'm not sure if the parachute payments we're still receiving count toward the overall income of the club on which the assessment is made. If so, I don't think spending a few mill will be a problem - it's a question of whether Tan is prepared to spend it. I think if there is a real prospect of achieving promotion through speculating some dosh in January, he'll take the chance.
I don't have a ****ing clue about where we are with regards to FFP rules. I seriously doubt there are many (any?) fans that do to be honest. I agree with Sparks that Tan will back his man if we are in with a decent shout in January. In fairness if the club does approach it that way you'd have to say it's a fairly shrewd way to back a manager.
Here's something on the subject, but it also suggests they're in the dark as much as me about existing parachute payments not being include in the calculations. If that is the case, Tan has plenty to spend - but will he? Existing Championship FFP rules 2014-15: Losses of no more than £3m, up to £6m with owner investment 2015-16: Losses of no more than £2m, up to £13m with owner investment "A Football League statement confirming the new regulations did not directly address concerns relating to parachute payments. Among the issues raised at a meeting of the Football League and Championship clubs in April was that Premier League parachute payments could distort competition when allied to the FFP rules. Clubs relegated from the top flight receive £60m in payments over four years, a figure increased from £48m in 2013."
I don't really see how removing Parachute payments from calcs could work. Do you also remove the wages and costs the parachute payments are intended to cover? Ultimately the payments are the prize for promotion, they allow investment to make a club competitive in the PL without risking the future of the business. On promotion contracts/budgets can be based on the worst case scenario of immediate relegation and parachute payments received. How can you then say to that club, yeah you're losing money back in the championship and working outside of your budget because we don't recognise that £60m you've got coming?
FFP - A puzzle wrapped in a riddle surrounded by mystery or something like that ps. What made me laugh today was reading that UEFA has opened a case against Man City for its fans booing the Champions league anthem.
Agreed, what a bloody nonsense. I would boo it too given half a chance. It is an appalling piece of European drivel.
