Manchester City Forums

You'd think but there is a lot of hero worship going on over him.
"The most successful current English manager" they said on BBC news headlines, trophy cabinet is just one FA cup (that he bankrupted Portsmouth for) no?
They even finished with "only time will tell what effect this will have on his career and on the future of the England team":eek:

_________________
tbf.

yeah, that's a damning indictment of the quality of english managers imo, or the trust placed in them by clubs. what did mclaren win with boro, league cup?

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"

I'm sick of Sky/The media portraying Spurs as the underdogs, short of money. They're one of the richest teams in the country, who spend more than almost anybody!

We were in the bloody Championship not so long ago, what were we supposed to do? Just be shit for ever? Build our team up over 25+ years?

Maclaren has won the league cup and dutch league. I know its dutch but its still better than what Harry has done.

Roy Hodgson:

7 times winner of the Allsvenskan, 2 times winner of the Svenska Cupen, 1 time winner of the Danish Superliga, 1 time winner of the Danish Super Cup, 2 time Europa League/UEFA Cup finalist.

Steve McClaren:

1 time winner of the League Cup, 1 time winner of the Eredivisie.

Mick McCarthy:

2 times winner of the Championship.

Harry Redknapp:

1 time winner of Division 3 (now League 2), 1 time winner of the Football League Trophy, 1 time winner of the Intertoto Cup, 1 time winner of Division 1 (now the Championship), 1 time winner of the FA Cup, 1 time finalist of the FA Cup, 1 time finalist of the Community Shield (apparently that counts).

In terms of major trophies (League Cup or above), he's one behind McClaren and nine behind Hodgson.

Since 2006, Spurs have a net spend of £76,200,000 compared to £437,120,000 by City. That would [accurately] appear to paint us as the significantly richer club. However, only we and Chelsea (£151,900,000) have spent vastly more than them, with then only Liverpool (£83,210,000) having spent any more. United's net spend of £54,850,000 actually has them seventh behind both Sunderland and Aston Villa, though that is in no small part down to the sale of Ronaldo and many of their squad (Notably Rooney and Ferdinand) being bought prior to 2006. Arsenal, to the surprise of nobody, are at the very bottom of the list, having a net income of £30,420,000.

Source

fuck spuds and their COTs fans and their (alleged) bent, tax-dodging, bung-taking, former-club-financial-fucking c nt of a manager.

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"

that's only since 2006 though, i'd like to see the past 10 years accounts please darlo. and also the scale of their projected financial demise once redknapp departs, as is the form.
*drums fingers impatiently*

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"

In the grand sceme of things they are rich. I understand we obviously spend more than anybody BUT our prices were inflated and lots of money has been wasted on RSC etc.

Spurs are not poor.

No. But then, in the grand grand scheme of things, Norwich, Swansea and Everton are also rich (compared to Darlington, Lincoln, Kettering, Northwich Victoria...). Everything's relative.

Inflated prices don't account for the fact that we've bought six marquee strikers since the takeover and sold precisely none of them tbf.

we sold robinho didn't we?

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"

OK, bought 7 and sold 1 (for a loss). We still have Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Tevez, Aguero, Balotelli and Dzeko on the books - the cheapest of whom cost £18m.

Their billionaire foreign owner is tighter than ours is.

_________________
tbf.

Levy is British.

that's 1 "marquee striker"

Tevez = 2

Adebayor, RSC = NO WAY

Would you describe Balotelli and Aguero exactly as "marquee signings"?

_________________
It's a whopper indeed. It's probably really meaningful and probably quite profound yet still, somehow, nonsense! No offence, Shimmer. - Buffbill

no no no, i like the foreigners. it's those c nts in white football shirts that get on my tits. - GA (on England)

Hate to be pedantic Darlo but he ain't the owner, Joe Lewis is.
Lewis is also British though(:rolleyes:) but resides in the Bahamas.

_________________
tbf.

Umm yes, I'd call Aguero a marquee signing tbf.

_________________
tbf.

So that's maybe 3.
A bit shy of the 7 Darlo is telling us about.

_________________
It's a whopper indeed. It's probably really meaningful and probably quite profound yet still, somehow, nonsense! No offence, Shimmer. - Buffbill

no no no, i like the foreigners. it's those c nts in white football shirts that get on my tits. - GA (on England)

Adebayor was a marquee signing when we got him. I think you do well to spend upwards of £20m on a player for them not to be fairly prominent in your matchday plans. Pretty much all bar Santa Cruz would walk into any starting XI in the Premier League and it is only because we have such a wealth of expensively-assembled talent that they don't at City. 'Marquee' is perhaps the wrong word to use but the point remains that we have over £150m of striking options at our disposal.

they were just expensive, because it is mega-rich City.
what did Lescott cost?

A 'marquee' defender?

Many signings were made to bring the club up a level or two, as very top players would not sign for City. RSC was just a step up player along with many others the club signed.

_________________
It's a whopper indeed. It's probably really meaningful and probably quite profound yet still, somehow, nonsense! No offence, Shimmer. - Buffbill

no no no, i like the foreigners. it's those c nts in white football shirts that get on my tits. - GA (on England)

Tevez, Aguero, Dzeko and Adebayor were all among the best strikers in their respective leagues when we signed them. Balotelli was widely regarded as one of the best prospects in football (albeit with an attitude). Santa Cruz was an expensive not-great player, but we were charged the going rate for the rest of them.