Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
barely gets you 20 Grealishes in the current mkt lol
And what a waste of money Grealish's are!
barely gets you 20 Grealishes in the current mkt lol
And what a waste of money Grealish's are!
The world did not know Man City 10 years ago. Things can soon change, particularly when clubs have bottomless pockets. I'm only using Newcastle as an example as they were recently sold and the cost is out there. If I had that much to spend and wanted to buy a club that could grow and make a great return, as @Jimaroid states, it is a business, then I would be looking at someone like Leeds, West Ham, Wolves, Derby if you wanted to look long term. The potential for big growth is in those clubs.
And what a waste of money Grealish's are!
oooooh youve changed your tune
I'd have happily swapped him for Pogba (even if Pogba had not been out of contract).
I tend to agree. The way it stands, he'd get more success at City, but he'd be a much more important player to Utd which would probably suit his character? At City, he is just another midfielder in a large group of fantastic midfielders. Bit like when Bale went to Madrid. He always had a great chance of winning trophies, but from a personal standpoint he would always be in the shadow of Ronaldo. There'd probably have been many clubs, including Utd, where he would have been the most important player in the team. I always wonder if that could have pushed him to become a more "legendary" player? I think it is difficult to push to that level if you already have a player of that status in the same team, they say that is why Neymar left Barcelona. Sadly for him, he decided to follow the money and go to a league that really isn't taken all that seriously from a football perspective.Actually think he'd be better for you than City
Well, although Newcastle FC is a big club in the UK, it was never likely to be considered one of the so-called top 6 clubs. That phrase is meaningless in many ways, but it probably means Newcastle is not a major global brand. Chelsea is. They have won Premier League titles and featured heavily at the final stages of the Champions League. So, the money that generates is probably monumental compared to Newcastle, just in terms of sponsorship.
Chelsea's location in London should probably not be underestimated either.
Newcastle may well have been a very good deal as well? It may not have the global brand, but the owners bought a Premier League club and they have a lot of flexibility to try and grow the club. So, I think that would be quite an exciting buy for them, especially as it is essentially a one club city, and thus most of the city of Newcastle will be behind them.
His return this year has been pretty poor considering the price tag. 3 goals and 3 assists in the league.. wow
Well we dont own our stadium yet our owners believe we are worth more than Newcastle
It's like they paid very little for the club, used the sale of Upton park to clear the debts . Got given a stadium for free yet somehow they believe the club's worth 350 million? It's just insane
Yeah, and a couple less than Liverpool's much loved striker FirminhoIsn't that the same number of goals as Joel Matip?
Maybe even Joelinton!!!
But
1) Chelsea are recently successful and have CL money coming in too
2) Globally better known and more marketable
3) Can place top 4 without significant investment needed in the playing squad.
City have spent roughly 2 billion so far just trying to become relevant, and they've done well doing so. (https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/how-much-manchester-city-spent-squad-value-transfer-fee-players/qejkb6nmxowbvkn1r4auh9r8#:~:text=How much money have Manchester,the club back in 2008.)
Newcastle will cost more in todays money I imagine to develop a playing squad and infrastructure to compete at the highest level.
Why not invest it all in one go, buy something ready made to compete at all levels - and then wait for the money to come in?
But that much? I go back to Newcastle, as it is the most recent. £305m for a PL team with a stadium already built and needing minimal money spending on it. Chelsea have moved the decimal point and added another 1/3. Southampton sold for about £100m this year.
They will have to be making whopping amounts to pay back banks, investors etc on that scale.
It's a scary thought isn't it. Mind, you can probably buy half the PL with 1 x MbappeSo, Soton = Grealish?
Just caught up with the topic. Both you and LT make Valid points. Personally I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. Buying someone like Chelsea ticks all the boxes. Support, History, trophies, etc etc.
Then compare that to Newcastle. This for me is where it gets interesting. I am not a believer in the theory that football started when the premier league did. It goes back to the late 1800’s. Since that time clubs have come and gone. Going back to the 70’s when I started really following football as a kid, teams like Chelsea, Newcastle, City, Liverpool, Utd, Everton, Sheff Utd, Arsenal, Spurs and a dozen other clubs were as big as one another. All have history. Some of it tragic. But it just seemed that there was more equality. The Premier league came and along with that money and a divide.
Newcastle want to get to the top table like City Did back in 2008. My fear is it may be harder with the constraints of FFP. Which quite frankly is about as useless as VAR. I hope Newcastle do find a level playing field at the top table. There seems to be 6 or 7 teams battling to avoid relegation, same amount for the mid table, 3 or 4 for the 4th spot and the title somewhat predictable over the last few years. If Newcastle break Into that top four like spurs and Leicester then fantastic.
Re City investing in there team, it goes a lot lot deeper than that. The academy is doing fantastic, apart from City winning the Prem, Prem league division 2. They also won under 16’s, 17,s and 18,s Prem league. They are developing players that very well may not play for the first team but will have careers in football.
That woud be an interesting question, starting with the lowest club in league football and workng up, how many clubs could you buy for the price of Grealish. Or, as an altentative, working in the same direction, how many clubs could be made debt free and financially stable for that money.
Its actually pretty sickening to consider isnt it. One hundred million pounds for one dude... who then doesnt actually even make the best XI
Hes done well out of it though, now the face of Gucci! Hes very much the Beckham of the modern era.
There's been so much extra money in football in recent years, the only beneficiaries of this seem to be players and agents as far as I can tell.