fernadez
Jonathan Woodgate
I laughed
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Harry Kane MBE
- Thread starter thfcsteff
- Start date
I laughed
They can't meet with him without our permission.
I don’t understand why there aren’t more release fees in contracts. Would make everything so much easier, like Grealish.
On a separate note, I don’t think it’s true that City have an endless pot of money via their owners anymore. Pre-covid, they actually balanced their books five seasons in a row:
That still allows them to spend a lot due to their big revenue…
But they do have their limits.
I just don’t know why they chose to spend £100m on Grealish rather than £150m on Kane.
On a separate note, I don’t think it’s true that City have an endless pot of money via their owners anymore. Pre-covid, they actually balanced their books five seasons in a row:
That still allows them to spend a lot due to their big revenue…
But they do have their limits.
I just don’t know why they chose to spend £100m on Grealish rather than £150m on Kane.
Glenda's Legs
Les Ferdinand
They can't meet Kane, but they can meet his rep(s).
Carragher's bit around the 45-46 min mark is good too
For those who cant be bothered to listen, he basically said that we were around Liverpool's level when Poch was there. Then Liverpool got crazy money for Coutinho, invested it well and kicked on another level. We obviously didnt spend at that time and dropped back. Its kind of where I am with this - if City meet the price, we can be stronger without Kane than we are with him
Do like simon.
They literally are an oil state, they can spend whatever they feel like
Their version of "balancing the books" is dubious at best (sponsorship by cousin, weird orders of merch, etc.)
That said, if for whatever reason their plan was a maximum dollar spend this window, I don't see how Grealish was a priority.
Bedfordspurs
Martin Peters
If I remember correctly there was a debate of they were enforceable in the UK
Haven't read it, but even though the article probably talks about Emirates Marketing Project lacking balance in their squad, to me it reads like it's our duty to let them have their missing piece
Bedfordspurs
Martin Peters
He likes levy as their both businessmen who have acquired clubs
He also doesn’t need to do the work shows for ££
The revenue they get from their totally legit sponsor deals and packed stadium.
I really hate that narrative, it's fudging lazy and untrue
- Liverpool have been above us and earned 2X-3X our revenue per year for the better part of 3 decades
- We broke into top 6, then top 4 partially at their expense (because they were badly managed) and managed to finish above them for something like 5 out of 6 years.
- They managed to offload a set of debt on a departing owner, sell a few players and got the re-investment right with players & manager
- they simply recovered their level, which their income (not just players sales) has given them for an established period of time
- We were overachieving and trying to establish ourselves, our place at that table long term will not be based on selling Kane (or any other player) but on how much the stadium has closed that income gap to others (it has to everyone bar United & Pool)
Oh agreed. I’m just saying that they don’t have an endless pot of owner money to spend on transfer fees like they used to.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
No I didn't miss it.
superspurs
Justin Edinburgh
Aren't they in court with the Premier League over this at the moment?
Or have been for years, it took 2 years of legal wrangling to determine if the press could even report on it.
JerusalemMan
Johnny Morrison
Correct.
I think it's the Mail on Sunday who had the only reporter there and started publishing stuff recently which they'd previously been blocked from writing about.
Bedfordspurs
Martin Peters
There in court trying to block a freedom of information piece at trying to get this info published
johnola
Mauricio Taricco
I thought he was referencing where we were on the pitch not off it.
I agree it’s dubious, but it doesn’t change the fact that their dubious revenue is smaller than Utd’s and Liverpool’s, and that they didn’t spend beyond it for 5 seasons in a row.
To look at it another way, their net transfer spend hasn’t been huge the last few seasons - £80m so far this year, £90m last season, £80m before that, £20m before that. I don’t think the evidence supports that City can or will splash another £150m+ on Kane without significant outgoings.
I think the last part is the point -> can = they can, will = unlikely due to things you point out as well as -> bizarrely for a club that has spent billions, they try to keep a relatively low profile (partially because when you do dubious brick you don't want undue attention, partially because in the end they are a PR project for a state)