PDA

View Full Version : Manchester City in FM2009



c10ckw0rk
10-09-2008, 23:26
I've read in a local newspaper today that the new owners have around 1 trillion $ and that money wasn't a problem if they wanted to have a player... Does it mean that in the game, ManCity will have at least 1 billion $ to spend on transfers? That would be sick!

wardog
10-09-2008, 23:29
Im not sure the game has a limit, maybe there will be a way to manage them without having to go into dept because the way they look like theyll run their team FM wont be able to cope with

Socdk
10-09-2008, 23:44
Personally I hope SI will stray from reality on this point... In FM the really rich clubs tend to buy an excessive amount of players for each position. I would hate if Man City bought my out on every talent I plan to sign. If they do I'll probably become so bitter that I'll edit them to have 0,- money and just watch them decay :D

Ched
10-09-2008, 23:53
It isn't reality yet - remember when roman took charge at chelsea, the papers were saying "100m bid for ronaldo!" and "90m bid for raul" and assorted BS like this, none of it ever happened.

Until man city start to actually spend 100m+ then it will not be included in fm. If they do, then i'm sure fm will accurately reproduce their finances, but in FM09 i'd expect them to be like chelsea currently are - a large bank balance, but by no means limitless.

Socdk
11-09-2008, 00:11
It isn't reality yet - remember when roman took charge at chelsea, the papers were saying "100m bid for ronaldo!" and "90m bid for raul" and assorted BS like this, none of it ever happened.

Until man city start to actually spend 100m+ then it will not be included in fm. If they do, then i'm sure fm will accurately reproduce their finances, but in FM09 i'd expect them to be like chelsea currently are - a large bank balance, but by no means limitless.

To be honest, Man City's financial backing is just a tad bit larger than Roman....... Just a smidge :D

I also think that their attitude towards money are way different. I honestly are of the beleif that they wipe their asses with money. Or with paper-thin gold or something.

Neji
11-09-2008, 00:13
I think Man City will be mega-rich on it but not to the extent of the figures being bandied around by the mindless idiots that write newspapers.

Villa-Joe
11-09-2008, 00:29
Neji it isn't the newspapers its the owners themselves.

They've already said themselves THAT.

1. They beleive they will need to spnd around 135 million for Ronaldo.
2. that 18 new players are needed includng Torres, Ronaldo, Fabregas etc,
3. He's already bidded for Villa, Berbatov, Gomez, Robinho.
4. he also Stated that he would spend 1 Billion pounds on players if he had to.

where as Roman did not say this,

Mike7077
11-09-2008, 00:37
I'd say that it's solid fact that Manchester City have access to virtually limitless wealth. I agree that the actual mass purchasing of the world's top players hasn't become reality yet. The signing of Robinho seems to suggest it's in the offing, though. The club's new owners are rich almost beyond comprehension and if they truly do lavish it upon City, and FM reflects this, managing them is going to be either awesome fun or massively boring. Depends how you see it and what you want from the game.

SmurfDude
11-09-2008, 00:39
These guys are completed deluded and borderline insane.

"He's already bidded for Villa, Berbatov, Gomez, Robinho."

An who did he get out of those? Robinho, who was desperate to leave Real Madrid at all costs. The other 3 weren't interested in the slightest, yet they think they can get Ronaldo Torres and Fabregas? Bloody idiots with too much money thinking everything in life is for sale. I bet they bought their wives

Villa-Joe
11-09-2008, 00:43
Smurf Dude, ure pst has no relevance, were talking about how much money they have, not if they can get them.

SmurfDude
11-09-2008, 00:48
Actually it does, because they shouldn't be able to get them on FM either, but I'm worried they will be able to buy all the big names if they have unlimited wealth

Villa-Joe
11-09-2008, 00:51
No, because players will not be interested, its likely you will get interested players. and only on their success with say class b players. should determine whether they can thn get the worlds best.

Matthew Le God
11-09-2008, 00:56
I'd imagine alot of teams didn't want to accept bids on deadline day because it wouldn't give them time to find replacements.

tomtuck01
11-09-2008, 00:56
Can people please learn how to use the forum seach function. This has been mentioned so many times now it's getting annoying.

Ched
11-09-2008, 09:13
To be honest, Man City's financial backing is just a tad bit larger than Roman....... Just a smidge :D

I also think that their attitude towards money are way different. I honestly are of the beleif that they wipe their asses with money. Or with paper-thin gold or something.


But you're missing the point - the only transfer to go through has been robinho's - the simple fact that the owners think they can buy ronaldo, villa, gerrard, essien, torres, fabregas proves that they are either;

a) morons

or

b) talking up their club regardless of what will actually happen

So the point remains, in FM they will be rich but not super rich by any means (<50m to spend) simply because none of these bids have happened yet.
If they start spending hundreds of millions then i'm sure FM will model this, but not until they do actually start spending this.

I dread to imagine the amount of "man city should have more money threads" the poor man city researcher will have to put up with when the game is released lol.

chopper99
11-09-2008, 09:23
Totally off topic but I find it so depressing that yet another English club has been turned into some foreign millionaires plaything. Today teams don't have to become good over a number of years and work their way to the top through merit. They just need to wait for a rich foreign business man to buy their team so that they can buy a few league places.

It's completely rubbish and will ruin the English game. Proper competition will be gone and the only thing that will matter will be who has the wealthiest owner.

Ched
11-09-2008, 09:25
Totally off topic but I find it so depressing that yet another English club has been turned into some foreign millionaires plaything. Today teams don't have to become good over a number of years and work their way to the top through merit. They just need to wait for a rich foreign business man to but their team so that they can buy a few league places.

It's completely rubbish and will ruin the English game. Proper competition will be gone and the only thing that will matter will be who has the wealthiest owner.

What i find odd is why it only appears to be happening to english teams.

Granted there may be more money in the EPL, but taking these arabs as an example, they don't appear to be interested in making profit (if their transfer targets are to be believed) so why didn't they consider a spanish or italian team?

DPG
11-09-2008, 09:27
I think teams should squeeze every penny out of these fools, wait until their stars are about 29/30, then sell for as much as they can, that way they can pretty much buy 2 or 3 rising stars with the money, and no doubt the player in question will lose all passion an desire to play well and will play averagely (Shevchenko anyone?)

djhayes383
11-09-2008, 09:28
I have seen this come up quite a number of times on the forums in the past few weeks and it is getting kind of old but I will give my 2 pence on it anyways. I agree with others in here that Man City's finances will probably be similar to Chelsea's, where they have a large bank balance but not an unlimited one, possibly 60m+ or something for transfers. These Abu Dhabi guys have said they'll put in all these massive bids but so far we haven't really seen much, save Robinho. If they start to spend big (which is unlikely because I don't think most of the world's best players will want to play for Man City, you can't buy success and prestige) then I'm sure SI will implement this in the January transfer patch.

And I agree with SmurfDude, Man City's chances of signing all these big name players are relevant to the game because although they might have a lot of financial clout it is still unlikely that the likes of Torres, Ronaldo and Fabregas will want to play for them, at least until you start doing well with them and winning trophies in the game. The likelihood of other clubs accepting offers for their best players is also small, key players like this are almost invaluable and worth more to a team than just money.

chopper99
11-09-2008, 09:31
What i find odd is why it only appears to be happening to english teams.

Granted there may be more money in the EPL, but taking these arabs as an example, they don't appear to be interested in making profit (if their transfer targets are to be believed) so why didn't they consider a spanish or italian team?

I know. Perhaps English clubs are just more willing to sell out to foreign owners. I'm just guessing here but I imagine the fans of clubs like Real Madrid or AC Milan would not be to happy if their clubs were owned by anyone who wasn't Spanish or Italian.

Whereas in England the fans just see pound signs as soon as there is talk of foreign ownership.

djhayes383
11-09-2008, 09:34
What i find odd is why it only appears to be happening to english teams.

Granted there may be more money in the EPL, but taking these arabs as an example, they don't appear to be interested in making profit (if their transfer targets are to be believed) so why didn't they consider a spanish or italian team?

Because the Premier League is the world's most popular and arguably best football league so they will get the most attention. I think the history of football in England gives it that something that leagues in other countries lack, after all England is the home of football so there's no better place to own a club really is there. And I think it's only these Arabs that want to play fantasy football with real money (unlikely to happen because they will soon realise that the world's best players aren't all a load of money grabbers, remember Ronaldinho didn't sign for Man City despite being offered a reported 200,000 a week and Robinho only went to get away from Madrid). Roman Abramovich is still trying to bring Chelsea to a sustainable business position so that it runs like a proper football club should i.e. the club's turnover pays for transfers etc.

Nomis07
11-09-2008, 09:50
I know. Perhaps English clubs are just more willing to sell out to foreign owners. I'm just guessing here but I imagine the fans of clubs like Real Madrid or AC Milan would not be to happy if their clubs were owned by anyone who wasn't Spanish or Italian.

Whereas in England the fans just see pound signs as soon as there is talk of foreign ownership.

I dread to think what the Roma fans would say/do if there was a chance of a Middle East billionaire taking over their club.

The amount of money and marketability of the English game has to play a part as well, it says a lot about football when Man City are believed to be a sound/better investment than the likes of Parma, Deportivo or Valencia :rolleyes:

glamdring
11-09-2008, 10:00
When you have that much money any club is a "sound investment".

I would think perhaps that in FM this might just be implemented as a Sugar Daddy chairman who is happy to increase your transfer budget when asked, but most likely perhaps will sign mega expensive players on your behalf that you don't necessarily want. I very much doubt you will just get a vast transfer budget and certainly the club's bank balance will not be anything special.

MrPompey
11-09-2008, 11:35
Thaksin boasted of bottomless money pits and look what happened there. Talk is cheap. Claims of buying Ronaldo, Gerrard and Torres is just laughable and only makes paper headlines

I think Robinho will live to regret his transfer to Man City instead of Chelsea.

Anyway lets what and see what unfolds, its early doors yet

Nomis07
11-09-2008, 11:40
I think the Frank Sinatra probably did have a bottomless pit of money, but he was probably banking on getting away with whatever he had done in Thailand and then decided to bail when it looked like he was actually going to have to make up for his indescretions.

As for City now, it's all just paper talk atm. Until they actually start splashing the cash I think it's all just keeping up apeparances, and breaking the transfer record was an attempt to make a good first impression. What I thought was weird about them breaking the record, Chelsea at no point had been quoted a record breaking figure (as far as we know) and logically Real would have given City a lower figure because they didn't want to sell to Chelsea and so would have been happy to deal with City. So why such a massive price tag??

sherica-
11-09-2008, 11:46
1billion to spend in game is even possible now in the game. i dint buy much and sold quite a lot of players for profits during my Real Madrid. i won almost everything every season and around the 5th or 6th season i have roughly 600mil pounds to spend on players.

FM1000
11-09-2008, 18:25
Just for mentioning in Fm2008 Man city had 80 mil for transfers!!!!

Aleh
11-09-2008, 18:33
I hope SI don't give them a ridiculous amount for a starting transfer budget. 30m at most, imo. However, have a mass funds in the balance.

tomtuck01
11-09-2008, 18:34
Thaksin boasted of bottomless money pits and look what happened there.
He did/does have huge sums of money.

It is just that not long after his takeover the Thai Government froze all his assests as he faced various charges of corruption, money laundering, and human rights charges from his time as Thai PM.

superbocksuperstar
11-09-2008, 19:43
I know. Perhaps English clubs are just more willing to sell out to foreign owners. I'm just guessing here but I imagine the fans of clubs like Real Madrid or AC Milan would not be to happy if their clubs were owned by anyone who wasn't Spanish or Italian.

Whereas in England the fans just see pound signs as soon as there is talk of foreign ownership.

You are partly right with regards to fans but not all fans just see the pound signs. Look at United fans and how we protested against the Glazers (spit). We didn't protest just because of the debt either, we protested successfully against Sky in 98 which would have meant us having huge amounts of money before Roman and his millions were even thought of. You are right about the vast majority though. Look at city fans who claimed (wrongly) before this that they were the true local club in Manchester and all that local community football stood for. They've soon forgot about that with the promise of some money.

As for the others clubs abroad not being bought, I could be wrong but I think the procedures abroad are a lot stricter and they wont let any Tom, DIC or Malcolm (or Sulaiman) inject cancer into their clubs like the spineless FA do over here.

Dazza
11-09-2008, 20:56
Everyone has a price. Football will be bought and played with because politicians will receive massive back handers to allow it. People in the world are starving and homeless and these idiots talk about 100million + for a bloke to kick a ball. Absurd. Its about time FIFA/FA did something to restrict values and wages to bring back the enjoyment of the game.

Citizen Ross
11-09-2008, 21:29
As a City fan I am probably taking as much interest in this as most. The guy who keeps saying all the stuff about Ronaldo etc is just a figurehead, who was due to be on the board as a representative of the real owner. As it turns out, all the showboating etc by "Mr Figurehead" has left him quite unpopular with the real owners, who prefer less boastfulness, and has meant that the chances are he won't be on the board. Read this article here if you want to know more:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1066307_city_boardroom_power_shift

I don't think we'll be making crazy bids for the dream team that has been mentioned, and I'm glad, both for football but also for City- I don't think buying ten superstars would a) work or b) be sustainable. If we want to challenge the top teams we have to set up not just a team, but a system that keeps developing and improving that team without having to go out and spend 100 million every time (even though that's a nice option) Our academy is the best in my biased opinion in the Premier League and we need to keep bringing good quality kids through.

Will be interesting to see how it's represented in game.

glamdring
12-09-2008, 09:43
I hope SI don't give them a ridiculous amount for a starting transfer budget. 30m at most, imo. However, have a mass funds in the balance.

That seems to me the complete opposite of what should happen. I doubt Man City have that biig a bank balance at all.

molsen
12-09-2008, 10:13
What i think would be the most realistic implementation was to give City a huge bank balance, and then limit the transfer sum available to the manager to lets say 3-40M . Then the chairman ("Abu el Arabi Sulejman" or whatever hes called... ) should be a sugar daddy with maximum influence and interference.

Because i think that is what gonna happen. The manager will pick the ordinary players while the possible galacticos-buys will be dictated by the board.

glamdring
12-09-2008, 10:15
Why is it realistic that City will have a big bank balance?

dap1987
12-09-2008, 13:58
Im a City fan and this is like reading a normal football forum from some of you, jealousy is a terrible thing lads.
In the game i'd like to see City have a large bank balance and like someone has already said transfer funds of around 60m and when u establish yourself as the "right man" for the job the funds will come through more and more. I agree with some of you in the fact that the likes of Fabregas, Torres and Kaka might not want to join City but money talks in football these days so anything could happen and i think this will be reflected in the game with hopefully the clubc reputation growin quite quickly if you can do a good job.
i think making sure our youth system is reflected properly is more important because we have got the best in the premiership and this was proven last year in the FA Youth Cup and through the fact we have brought through over 25 players in recent years.

some of you will say im biased but it has to be realistic now and we have surely now irl just took a massive step to breaking the top 4, and leaped well ahead of the rest of the chasing pack

glamdring
12-09-2008, 14:14
So I take it we are to assume that City's owners have transferred large sums of their own cash into Man City's bank account to sit there just for the sake of it? :rolleyes:

Ched
12-09-2008, 14:17
So I take it we are to assume that City's owners have transferred large sums of their own cash into Man City's bank account to sit there just for the sake of it? :rolleyes:

Exactly - abramovich has a fair bit of cash, but chelsea's bank balance isn't 4bn!

Until man city start spending 100m+ it will not be put in FM. Similarly their rep will not increase until man city start performing better.

I think i should just copy and paste the comments SI made when roman took charge of chelsea, because it's just another batch of the same type of people making the same silly requests.

javier_83
12-09-2008, 14:45
i will be glad to have a lot of money and have the abbility to spend it all :D

Nomis07
12-09-2008, 14:50
There are lots of things I would to see added/given to City in the game, but SI definately won't add them.

chopper99
12-09-2008, 14:57
Im a City fan and this is like reading a normal football forum from some of you, jealousy is a terrible thing lads.

Jealous? I'd be genuinely gutted if my team, Sunderland, was taken over by some rich foriegn owner who has no link with football, the premier league, this country or the club. This is what will ruin English football in the long term. I'd much rather my team got relegated and stayed true to itself rather than sell out to quickly buy some league places.

tomtuck01
12-09-2008, 15:37
Jealous? I'd be genuinely gutted if my team, Sunderland, was taken over by some rich foriegn owner who has no link with football, the premier league, this country or the club. This is what will ruin English football in the long term. I'd much rather my team got relegated and stayed true to itself rather than sell out to quickly buy some league places.
But Sunderland were taken over by foreign owners, and there only link to football is Niall Quinn who was the figurehead for the group.

Dazza
13-09-2008, 11:05
Can I just ask how many Future Man City Players will kiss the shirt when they score and actually mean it?

There is no pride in moving for money at all, I mean Robiniho didn't even know which team he had moved to when interviewed on his transfer, The idiot thought he had signed for Chelsea. Now tell me he wanted to sign for Man City cause he fell in love with the club the moment he heard they wanted him.

MrPompey
13-09-2008, 11:17
He did/does have huge sums of money.

It is just that not long after his takeover the Thai Government froze all his assests as he faced various charges of corruption, money laundering, and human rights charges from his time as Thai PM.

Did have / hasn't got - who cares, he was a crook who got found out

At the end of the day massive sums of money just were not spent.

City's biggest problem will be that the big stars just will not want to sign. So far just one big signing which I believe will result in Robinho leaving in the Jan transfer window.

Still, we will see how much money they have and what players they can attract Jan 2009

urbanjunkie
13-09-2008, 13:20
If you honestly think City wanted to sign all the players they bid for....

PR that's all it was. They struck lucky with Robinho.

r0x0r
13-09-2008, 13:44
Jealous? I'd be genuinely gutted if my team, Sunderland, was taken over by some rich foriegn owner who has no link with football, the premier league, this country or the club. This is what will ruin English football in the long term. I'd much rather my team got relegated and stayed true to itself rather than sell out to quickly buy some league places.

Exactly. That said, you do have a perfect chairman. Someone rich, generous, and knows football inside out. I'm sure Newcastle would take billionaires right now, but that's more a case of anything but Ashley.

At Arsenal, i'll oppose any buyout that isn't led by either David Dein, Fitzman or any other past or present member of the board. If someone already involved in the club in a big way (or formerly so) wanted to take us over, fair enough. But a nobody?


Okay. I guess I better throw Wenger in too. If Wenger managed to raise the funds to buy out the club, or even convince the board to elect him chairman (Hill Wood hardly owns any of Arsenal anyway) I'd be one happy gunner.


Back on topic, I don't think we can really call man city "all talk" yet.. It's hard to see one way or another. The fact that they only took over on the final day of the window meant they were only ever going to get one or two big names this time.

r0x0r
13-09-2008, 13:45
If you honestly think City wanted to sign all the players they bid for....

PR that's all it was. They struck lucky with Robinho.

If it was all PR, and they didn't want to buy them all...

They were UNLUCKY to sign robinho. After all, they didn't want him, did they? They just wanted the PR?

tomtuck01
14-09-2008, 03:33
City made bids for all those players to cause a distraction so that they could sneak up on the blind side to grab Robinho from under the nose of Chelsea.

Issuing offers for all those players was a smokescreen, and it worked as they got the man they truely wanted.

danniboi
14-09-2008, 19:15
if they get this aspect of the game right, it will be puuuurrrrfffeeeeccctttt

danniboi
14-09-2008, 19:15
do you agrreee

liambell
14-09-2008, 21:28
Robinho probably/may well have thought that seen as though Man City now have all this money then a lot of very good/world class players are going to turn up at Eastlands over the next year and they are going to turn into a major force... plus I'm gonna get paid a hell of a lot to play in the best league in the world, so I might as well sign now.

The next player that signs will see that Robinho, one of the best players in the world, has signed so this must be a sign for the future that Man City are gonna spend big and make themselves one of the best teams in the world.

Then the next player to sign sees that Robinho and that other player... etc.

And so it will go on.

I'm pretty sure that Robinho, for all the money he is getting paid, wouldn't have signed if someone somewhere didn't convince him that City have major plans for the future.

Pope of Pot, King of Nothing
15-09-2008, 00:05
Just pretend you want to buy the club and have a look at the books. Take a photo on your phone and punch it into the editor when you get home - score SI!

pelicanstuff
15-09-2008, 02:21
I've read in a local newspaper today that the new owners have around 1 trillion $ and that money wasn't a problem if they wanted to have a player... Does it mean that in the game, ManCity will have at least 1 billion $ to spend on transfers? That would be sick!

The balance and transfer budget probably won't be too high - it will be a case of large interest free loans from the owners to the club to fund the purchases of certain players etc.

Owners' wealth does not equal the club's bank balance, the two are distinct things.

wardog
15-09-2008, 03:26
But you're missing the point - the only transfer to go through has been robinho's - the simple fact that the owners think they can buy ronaldo, villa, gerrard, essien, torres, fabregas proves that they are either;

a) morons

or

b) talking up their club regardless of what will actually happen

So the point remains, in FM they will be rich but not super rich by any means (<50m to spend) simply because none of these bids have happened yet.
If they start spending hundreds of millions then i'm sure FM will model this, but not until they do actually start spending this.

I dread to imagine the amount of "man city should have more money threads" the poor man city researcher will have to put up with when the game is released lol.

less than 50 million. They just broke the British Transfer Record IIRC


I have seen this come up quite a number of times on the forums in the past few weeks and it is getting kind of old but I will give my 2 pence on it anyways. I agree with others in here that Man City's finances will probably be similar to Chelsea's, where they have a large bank balance but not an unlimited one, possibly 60m+ or something for transfers. These Abu Dhabi guys have said they'll put in all these massive bids but so far we haven't really seen much, save Robinho. If they start to spend big (which is unlikely because I don't think most of the world's best players will want to play for Man City, you can't buy success and prestige) then I'm sure SI will implement this in the January transfer patch.

And I agree with SmurfDude, Man City's chances of signing all these big name players are relevant to the game because although they might have a lot of financial clout it is still unlikely that the likes of Torres, Ronaldo and Fabregas will want to play for them, at least until you start doing well with them and winning trophies in the game. The likelihood of other clubs accepting offers for their best players is also small, key players like this are almost invaluable and worth more to a team than just money.

Massive bids. Ok Robinhos wasnt massive, but it still broke all history of the transfer market within the UK


Thaksin boasted of bottomless money pits and look what happened there. Talk is cheap. Claims of buying Ronaldo, Gerrard and Torres is just laughable and only makes paper headlines

I think Robinho will live to regret his transfer to Man City instead of Chelsea.

Anyway lets what and see what unfolds, its early doors yet

Your probably correct he will regret it when the Arab gets bored.


I think the Frank Sinatra probably did have a bottomless pit of money, but he was probably banking on getting away with whatever he had done in Thailand and then decided to bail when it looked like he was actually going to have to make up for his indescretions.

As for City now, it's all just paper talk atm. Until they actually start splashing the cash I think it's all just keeping up apeparances, and breaking the transfer record was an attempt to make a good first impression. What I thought was weird about them breaking the record, Chelsea at no point had been quoted a record breaking figure (as far as we know) and logically Real would have given City a lower figure because they didn't want to sell to Chelsea and so would have been happy to deal with City. So why such a massive price tag??


Agreed

chopper99
15-09-2008, 10:17
But Sunderland were taken over by foreign owners, and there only link to football is Niall Quinn who was the figurehead for the group.

Apologies. I, perhaps wrongly, don't consider having a consortium that was put together and is fronted by someone who played for the club as foreign ownership. Irish is not foreign in my eyes, in footballing terms anyway.

69 hop on baby
15-09-2008, 18:38
Most of u lot are talking out of your arses they went in for four top players and got 1 robinho they only took over the day before imagine what they can do when they have time on transfer deals, These men arent stuck up yanks after a few buck these men will pump money in to get what they want look at chelsea how far they have come its pennys to what these guys have to spend.Money talks in this game any player will go to man city if the money is right that includes greedy Ronaldo.And no im not a city fan but seriously money does talk and these players will go to city!

MisterGaz
15-09-2008, 20:05
Surely what will happen in FM2009 is that Man City will have vast amounts of money, but in the database the club's reputation is still set lower than that of the traditional 'big four'.

That way you're free to bid outrageous offers, but most of the top-quality players will turn you down, and you might land, say 1 or 2 big signings in your first season. Then if you manage to finish 3rd or 4th and qualify for the Champions Cup, naturally your clubs reputation increases and you're able to attract better players.

Seems straight forward enough to me to incorporate City's new money. :thup:

ell69
15-09-2008, 21:47
No knowledge of football? our new owners already own a middle eastern team to be fair.. which is more than most owners at the moment! And besides Mike Ashley is a newcastle fan and hes ****ed them up!

Bongo-Bongo
15-09-2008, 22:05
Most of u lot are talking out of your arses they went in for four top players and got 1 robinho they only took over the day before imagine what they can do when they have time on transfer deals, These men arent stuck up yanks after a few buck these men will pump money in to get what they want look at chelsea how far they have come its pennys to what these guys have to spend.Money talks in this game any player will go to man city if the money is right that includes greedy Ronaldo.And no im not a city fan but seriously money does talk and these players will go to city!

The difference is though is that Chelsea were already in the top four when Abramovich took them over, so they already had a means of attracting top class players, the money just helped. Man City however, are not one of the top clubs. In fact, they face stiff competition to reach next seasons UEFA cup as there a plenty of teams capable of qualifying. If they don't qualify, would a top player really want to join a club that can't provide football at the very top level? It's true that money talks, but so does top level football, and if City can't provide that, then the very best players probably won't want to go there. I'm of the believe that for the first few seasons at least, City will mainly sign the mercenaries. Players who only care about money. And these generally aren't the very best footballers.

As for the Robinho trasnfer. I personally think that he wasn't really given much choice in the move. He made it clear in the weeks before the transfer that he wanted to join Chelsea, whilst Chelsea made it clear that they didn't value him at the level Madrid did. Madrid also gave the impression that they didn't really want him to go to Chelsea. Then City come in and suddenly he's gone. But it's hard to believe he really wants to be there, especially after his blunder at his first press conference. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if he was given no choice but to go there. He didn't want to be at Madrid. Due to his childish attitude, they no longer wanted him, and Man Vity were the only team ready to pay the asking price for him. If Madrid didn't tell him to go to Eastlands or rot in Spain I'd be very suprised.

x42bn6
15-09-2008, 22:17
The difference is though is that Chelsea were already in the top four when Abramovich took them over, so they already had a means of attracting top class players, the money just helped. Man City however, are not one of the top clubs. In fact, they face stiff competition to reach next seasons UEFA cup as there a plenty of teams capable of qualifying. If they don't qualify, would a top player really want to join a club that can't provide football at the very top level? It's true that money talks, but so does top level football, and if City can't provide that, then the very best players probably won't want to go there. I'm of the believe that for the first few seasons at least, City will mainly sign the mercenaries. Players who only care about money. And these generally aren't the very best footballers.

As for the Robinho trasnfer. I personally think that he wasn't really given much choice in the move. He made it clear in the weeks before the transfer that he wanted to join Chelsea, whilst Chelsea made it clear that they didn't value him at the level Madrid did. Madrid also gave the impression that they didn't really want him to go to Chelsea. Then City come in and suddenly he's gone. But it's hard to believe he really wants to be there, especially after his blunder at his first press conference. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if he was given no choice but to go there. He didn't want to be at Madrid. Due to his childish attitude, they no longer wanted him, and Man Vity were the only team ready to pay the asking price for him. If Madrid didn't tell him to go to Eastlands or rot in Spain I'd be very suprised.
Chelsea were hardly a Big Four team when Abramovich took over. Yes, they were 4th in 2002/2003, but before that they were 5th, 6th and 6th. They were a bit like Spurs without the current Big Four stopping them.

They did struggle to attract big names. They had to make do with the second-tier of talent - Drogba, Mutu, Robben, etc. However, Mourinho was the one who turned them into top-class - Drogba's now arguably the world's best targetman while Robben is one of the better scoring wingers in the world.

This is sort of how City are going to do for the next few years - there might be one or two top talents willing to join them, but otherwise, they'll have to generally work along the lines of the next set of players and develop them. How they'll do depends on how the Big Four move, and what Hughes can do with the players.

I suspect Robinho never really wanted to end up at Manchester City but I suppose he wanted anywhere but Real Madrid.

Arsenal_Fan_1986
15-09-2008, 22:18
If Man City are busy in the transfer window, I just feel sorry for the staff at SI involved with the patch!

x3widRacin
15-09-2008, 22:22
These guys are completed deluded and borderline insane.

"He's already bidded for Villa, Berbatov, Gomez, Robinho."

An who did he get out of those? Robinho, ....

You completely leave out the fact that they were only in charge of the club for a few HOURS... HOURS... and already broke the english record transfer fee. Since that transfer, the window has been closed, so how can you possible suggest that they've "failed" in their claims that they will purchase these players. Berbatov was already sold on United from the outset and Robinho was already in England so the discussions were easy. There are steps that have to be taken otherwise for a transfer to go through and the fact that after just a few hours in control of the club they made such a signing is testament to the seriousness of their claims I think.

busby
16-09-2008, 00:27
If Manchester City get into the top 4 this season which I believe they might then it possible for them to sign all the big players mainly because of champions league football. Also if owners can take over a club and sign 1 player in one day what they going to do in January?

x42bn6
16-09-2008, 01:11
If Manchester City get into the top 4 this season which I believe they might then it possible for them to sign all the big players mainly because of champions league football. Also if owners can take over a club and sign 1 player in one day what they going to do in January?
I suspect not much. I don't think a lot of players would like to gamble on a half-a-season's worth of fixtures to see if the City project is going well. They will, however, be very active this Summer 2009.

chopper99
16-09-2008, 14:10
Most of u lot are talking out of your arses they went in for four top players and got 1 robinho they only took over the day before imagine what they can do when they have time on transfer deals, These men arent stuck up yanks after a few buck these men will pump money in to get what they want look at chelsea how far they have come its pennys to what these guys have to spend.Money talks in this game any player will go to man city if the money is right that includes greedy Ronaldo.And no im not a city fan but seriously money does talk and these players will go to city!

You use Chelsea as an example but if you actually look at the players Chelsea signed after Abramovic took over, few of the ones they spent massive amounts of money on have really had an impact:

Glen Johnson 15/07/03 RB West Ham United 6.0m
Geremi 16/07/03 MF Real Madrid 7.02m
Wayne Bridge 21/07/03 LB Southampton 7.0m
Damien Duff 21/07/03 LW Blackburn Rovers 17.0m
Joe Cole 06/08/03 MF West Ham United 6.6m
Juan Veron 06/08/03 MF Manchester United 15.0m
Adrian Mutu 14/08/03 FW Parma 15.8m
Alexei Smertin 25/08/03 MF Girondins Bordeaux 3.5m
Hernan Crespo 26/08/03 FW Inter Milan 16.8m
Neil Sullivan 29/08/03 GK Tottenham Hotspur free
Claude Makelele 01/09/03 MF Real Madrid 16.7m
Scott Parker 30/01/04 MF Charlton Athletic 10.0m
Petr Cech 01/06/04 GK Rennes 7.0m
Paulo Ferreira 22/06/04 RB Porto 13.2m
Arjen Robben 01/07/04 LW PSV Eindhoven 12.0m
Mateja Kezman 12/07/04 FW PSV Eindhoven 5.0m
Didier Drogba 19/07/04 FW Olympique Marseille 24.0m
Tiago 20/07/04 MF Benfica 8.0m
Ricardo Carvalho 27/07/04 DF Porto 19.85m
Nuno Morais 29/08/04 DF Penafiel undisc
Jiri Jarosik 06/01/05 MF CSKA Moscow 3.0m
Lassana Diarra 16/07/05 MF Le Harve undisc
Asier Del Horno 21/06/05 DF Athletic Bilbao 8.0m
Shaun Wright-Phillips 18/07/05 MF Manchester City 21.Om
Michael Essien August 05 MF Olympique Lyon 25.98m
Michael Ballack May 06 MF Bayern Munich undisc
Andriy Shevchenko May 06 FW AC Milan 30m

So the above is just up to the 2006/2007 season but if you look at that list you realise that the only players they bought for more than 10m who actually became regular first team players are Drogba, Essien, Carvalho and Makelele. The rest of the players to make a difference were either already at the club when Abramovic took over or were players that the club would have probably been able to afford without Abramovic's cash. The point is, after spending an absolute fortune it was mainly down to the Manager and many of the current and cheaper players that they got anywhere.

So City may now have loads of cash, but it guarentees them absolutely nothing and I'd be surprised if they finished in the top 4 this season.

69 hop on baby
16-09-2008, 15:32
Dont u just think thats bad management buying players for high amounts of money that arent that good ,Damein Duff a prime example VERY overated,veron did nothin at utd yet chelsea thought it was wise to waste 15mill on him clever ay!People have said chlsea were a top 4 team before abramovich are u mad chelsea were mediocre not in same league as Utd,Arsenal or even Liverpool.You guys seem to think even if city dont get into the champions league big players wont go your wrong they will and laugh all the way to the bank with there money.I never said they would win the league but sign big players they will!

Nomis07
16-09-2008, 15:39
I don't think anyone could dispute that they will sign players, but will they sign players of the quality that is being bandied about? I really don't think so.

As for Chelsea being a top four club before Abram came along, they were. They were also mediocre as you say, but no more mediocre than a Liverpool team who finished 5th a few seasons ago or an Arsenal team that just about pipped Spurs to the 4th place post. Not to mention the fact that Chelsea had done well in European competitions and the FA cup for a sustained period of time, when was the last time you could say City have done well in either.

Mike7077
16-09-2008, 15:39
Dont u just think thats bad management buying players for high amounts of money that arent that good ,Damein Duff a prime example VERY overated,veron did nothin at utd yet chelsea thought it was wise to waste 15mill on him clever ay!People have said chlsea were a top 4 team before abramovich are u mad chelsea were mediocre not in same league as Utd,Arsenal or even Liverpool.You guys seem to think even if city dont get into the champions league big players wont go your wrong they will and laugh all the way to the bank with there money.I never said they would win the league but sign big players they will!

I wouldn't say Veron qualifies as a player who isn't that good. He was very, very good. He just had a style that was suited to slower football than you get in England. But when United first signed him, no one thought it was bad business. I remember bookies were already paying out on United winning the title, or something like that. I'm not sure Ferguson could have known Veron would struggle so much, given that he was yet to be tested in English football. 28 million for a player of his obvious class doesn't, on the face of it, seem like bad management. Only with hindsight can we now see that he wasn't cut out for the Premier League. He was still a wonderful player, though.

Nomis07
16-09-2008, 15:47
This is all going very off topic. The issue is Man City in FM09.

Should they have more money to spend?
Yes.

Should it be a ridiculous amount?
No, because at the moment all they have spent is 32m. If they put their wallet where their mouth is next summer then by all means give them all the money in the world for FM10.

Should their reputation be increased?
Yes.

Should it be on a par with the top clubs in Europe just because they are now rich?
Good god no. Despite Chelsea's fortunes and success in recent years, was it not only last season that they were seeded in pot 1 for the CL? Money doesn't buy you reputation or history, you have to earn it, and just as Chelsea have so should City.

Should a higher claibre of player be attraced to them?
Yes.

Should a higher claibre of player be attraced to them, of the standard that has been mentioned in the papers?
No. Until they do sign the likes of Kaka etc they shouldn't be able to in the game. Robinho is sub standard when compared to the players that have been mentioned in the same breath as City.

glamdring
16-09-2008, 15:58
Players like Mario Gomez (:o) perhaps?!

backpackant
16-09-2008, 17:30
Following Nomis07's lead, back to FM before this thread gets closed:

If you play the new updated (3rd party) database with Man City's 150million transfer budget, you'll see their rep hasn't been increased by the creator of that DB. I was unable to sign any 20m+ players, so upped the rep via FMM to just above Villa (I think; am typing at work from memory), and managed to get Mutu, Fernandez and a couple of others but still couldn't get Villa or Lahm. At the moment, I feel my rep-increase is probably realistic.

City shouldn't be able to automatically sign the biggest names IMO, at least not until you get Champions League football or win something major. Unless there's an un-rejectable money offer on the table... or that player desperately wants to leave his club... just like the Robinho deal.

Wayne\'o
16-09-2008, 17:46
Doesnt work like that, Chelsea are 60 million in Debt. but they still get money for transfers. Not sure what Man City bank balance will look like but when they want cash the Directors will get that cash from other areas.. there wealth is mostly in company's they own, one of the largest electrical companys in the world estimated to be worth 1 trillion, they own 5% in ferrari worth 95 million a year. when the price of oil goes up by $1 a barrell it's worth 100 million extra per day to them in terms of profit.

Jack Edwards
16-09-2008, 17:53
I certainly hope not, SI will need to think logically, And if they do have loads of money they will have to limit the players..

Nomis07
16-09-2008, 17:54
Doesnt work like that, Chelsea are 60 million in Debt. but they still get money for transfers. Not sure what Man City bank balance will look like but when they want cash the Directors will get that cash from other areas.. there wealth is mostly in company's they own, one of the largest electrical companys in the world estimated to be worth 1 trillion, they own 5% in ferrari worth 95 million a year. when the price of oil goes up by $1 a barrell it's worth 100 million extra per day to them in terms of profit.

Yes, but at the moment all Man City have had is 34m, and Robinho's wages. I don't deny that they have the wealth, but as yet not enough has went into the club to warrant such an increase in the game. They probably will spend a fortune next summer, but that's only probably, they might only spend 10m and then everyone will be wondering why they have so much in the game.

All i'm saying is that SI should wait and see what City do before adding anything to the game. Adding anything now would be like giving a player 20 in all his attributes based on the fact that his dad says he's really good, he shouldn't get the stats until he has shown he is worth it. Similarly City shouldn't get the money until they have shown that they are going to get it IRL.

Wayne\'o
16-09-2008, 18:21
Yes, but at the moment all Man City have had is 34m, and Robinho's wages. I don't deny that they have the wealth, but as yet not enough has went into the club to warrant such an increase in the game. They probably will spend a fortune next summer, but that's only probably, they might only spend 10m and then everyone will be wondering why they have so much in the game.

All i'm saying is that SI should wait and see what City do before adding anything to the game. Adding anything now would be like giving a player 20 in all his attributes based on the fact that his dad says he's really good, he shouldn't get the stats until he has shown he is worth it. Similarly City shouldn't get the money until they have shown that they are going to get it IRL.



sorry i wasnt refering to what you said as a bad idea. i just tried to point out how it is IRl currently. you are correct in what you say!... I think finances in the game may need a change. having a large bank balance or a small one doesnt really relfect on a clubs spending power. it's almost like we need to balances. 1 is the every day amount which the club use for expendeture etc and the other a transfer kitty that doesnt neciserilly come from the clubs bank balance..

I'm sure Si know how it works better then us but i do know and Chelsea are a prime example. they are ment to be 60 mill in debt. yet they are able to go out and spend any amount on a player by moent which comes from the Chairman.

to be fair. for a club to spend millions on a player while in the red. id find that hard to take if i was one of the 3rd parties that the club owed money too. id be asking for my money back first.

i think it's very complex.

disco piglet
16-09-2008, 18:29
Out of interest what players have people signed due to the low reputation of City? Ive managed Akinfeevbut thats about it. i also have the weeGIE update

Ljuba82
17-09-2008, 13:17
SI and public simpy don't have further information about plans of M City board. So SI should be very carefull this season and maybe for second patch (february, after transfer period)...things in "City finance" will change a lot. For FM 2010 I think it will not be a problem.

For now...maybe it's a best to asume that they will have very big bank balance and relatively big transfer budget (but not bigger then Chelsea...for now). Reputation should be the same...cause you have to earn it.
About signings...well...unique economic rule is that everything have price...so if board really want to spend 1000 millions for players...they could get the best players on world now. There is no way that any team would refuse a offer of 150M for example, or any player would refuse 25M per season. Of course...transfer module should be programmed in a way that it would be much harder for City to sign big players (because of CL football, reputation, history...)...but only in a way that they have to invest more money. For example if "BIG player" want to join Real Madrid for example for 10M/y wage (50 M transfer), he would, for sure, join City for 20M/y wage (100M transfer). And after few years when they get some results, build reputation, it should be more easier for them to sign players (think about Chelsea).

We may love it or not, but "money talks"...and I want FM to be as realistic as possible.

HL7
17-09-2008, 14:05
Well Chelsea(as a football club) were hardly world renowned before Abramovich came along. Yet, they attracted the worlds best manager and alot of very good - world class players rather quickly. Why can't a richer Man City do the same?

Ched
17-09-2008, 14:13
Well Chelsea(as a football club) were hardly world renowned before Abramovich came along. Yet, they attracted the worlds best manager and alot of very good - world class players rather quickly. Why can't a richer Man City do the same?

The previous season to abramovic taking over chelsea had finished 3rd compared to Man City finishing 9th last season - similarly, under vialli chelsea were very unlucky not to win the prem once, challenged for it a couple of times, and did in fact win the uefa cup, FA cup (and league cup?) and european super cup.

There is no basis for comparing Man city's current reputation to chelsea's when abramovic took over. When did man city last win any trophy?

There is no reason to give man city a rep increase - the only reason they signed robinho is because he'd burnt his bridges at real, and real were unwilling to sell him to chelsea, hence he went to the only club willing to pay for him.

Nomis07
17-09-2008, 14:48
Well Chelsea(as a football club) were hardly world renowned before Abramovich came along. Yet, they attracted the worlds best manager and alot of very good - world class players rather quickly. Why can't a richer Man City do the same?

I don't remember that happening.

Nomis07
17-09-2008, 14:49
There is no reason to give man city a rep increase - the only reason they signed robinho is because he'd burnt his bridges at real, and real were unwilling to sell him to chelsea, hence he went to the only club willing to pay silly money for and to him.

Slight change :p

PGB_SPURS_FM09
17-09-2008, 16:26
But Sunderland were taken over by foreign owners, and there only link to football is Niall Quinn who was the figurehead for the group.

lol agreed absolutely true.


they own 5% in ferrari worth 95 million a year.

i'm pretty sure i read in the papers it is a 9% stake :)


sorry i wasnt refering to what you said as a bad idea. i just tried to point out how it is IRl currently. you are correct in what you say!... I think finances in the game may need a change. having a large bank balance or a small one doesnt really relfect on a clubs spending power. it's almost like we need to balances. 1 is the every day amount which the club use for expendeture etc and the other a transfer kitty that doesnt neciserilly come from the clubs bank balance..

I'm sure Si know how it works better then us but i do know and Chelsea are a prime example. they are ment to be 60 mill in debt. yet they are able to go out and spend any amount on a player by moent which comes from the Chairman.

to be fair. for a club to spend millions on a player while in the red. id find that hard to take if i was one of the 3rd parties that the club owed money too. id be asking for my money back first.

i think it's very complex.

I'm not so sure they actually owe anyone any money... the debt they made would have just been covered by abramovic topping up the clubs balance to take them out of the red. There must already be a second bank balance in place? e.g i think wher ur chelsea they give u like 30mil and the bank balance isn't much bigger yet if you ask for more money instantly when you start they will immediately top it up to 110mil or something like that... and the bank balance increases with it... that money must get injected from somewhere?


I don't remember that happening.

I would argue that they did indeed hire the best manager in the world at the time as mourinho had taken porto to champs league glory... yes he may have paid over the odds for players but he must of got them working well together somehow in order to win 2 premier league titles comparted to the 0 that Ranieri won, so i would say he turned them into a better side! :thup:

Nomis07
17-09-2008, 16:31
I would argue that they did indeed hire the best manager in the world at the time as mourinho had taken porto to champs league glory... yes he may have paid over the odds for players but he must of got them working well together somehow in order to win 2 premier league titles comparted to the 0 that Ranieri won, so i would say he turned them into a better side! :thup:

Ranieri was hardly given a chance. As for Mourinho, he won the CL and Portuguese league with a team that has been found guilty of corruption, whilst he wasn't implicated at all it has certainly taken the shine off his "achievements". As for Chelsea he won the PL in the two seasons that Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool were particularly awful. To lose any league with the talent he had and the money he had spent is almost criminal, no matter how good Man Utd were or how many injuries the team had. Not to mention his successive underachievements in the CL.

bl0u6344
17-09-2008, 17:41
Im a City fan and this is like reading a normal football forum from some of you, jealousy is a terrible thing lads.
In the game i'd like to see City have a large bank balance and like someone has already said transfer funds of around 60m and when u establish yourself as the "right man" for the job the funds will come through more and more. I agree with some of you in the fact that the likes of Fabregas, Torres and Kaka might not want to join City but money talks in football these days so anything could happen and i think this will be reflected in the game with hopefully the clubc reputation growin quite quickly if you can do a good job.
i think making sure our youth system is reflected properly is more important because we have got the best in the premiership and this was proven last year in the FA Youth Cup and through the fact we have brought through over 25 players in recent years.

25 players? I hope you mean good players. And players like Micah Richards don't count as it was not your youth system, it was someone else's...Can't remember who...?

I think (as a Liverpool fan) City should have a massive balance, very very interfering chairman. A good example would be for him to leave you (usually inexperienced manager) say 40 mil and then him (chairman) to sign a few or maybe one player over that budget. IMO this would be realistic, how much did Mark Hughes know about Jo, and Robinho? Man City should be signing good players (not the Torres', Gerrard's, Kaka's, C.Ronaldo's of this world but say established internationals and promising youngsters on the level of Shevchenko, Arshavin, Owen, and say Rosicky). I'd expect to see Man City become a major force pretty soon into the game unless internal politics get in the way (which would be fun to watch).

bl0u6344
17-09-2008, 17:45
I'm sure Si know how it works better then us but i do know and Chelsea are a prime example. they are ment to be 60 mill in debt. yet they are able to go out and spend any amount on a player by moent which comes from the Chairman.

to be fair. for a club to spend millions on a player while in the red. id find that hard to take if i was one of the 3rd parties that the club owed money too. id be asking for my money back first.

i think it's very complex.

Sorry to double post but a club (limited company) can owe money to its owners, so Chelsea may owe that money, the debt, to Abramovich. This could explain the debt.

SCIAG
17-09-2008, 20:16
Sorry to double post but a club (limited company) can owe money to its owners, so Chelsea may owe that money, the debt, to Abramovich. This could explain the debt.
I believe that's it. The rest of the "owed money" is transfer fees- money isn't all paid up top, it's largely in clauses.

Also, on the topic of City players: Etuhu x2, Wright-Phillips x2, Schmicheal, Onuha, Evans, Ireland, Johnson, and I'd count Richards too. Moving to a club at 14/15 should really mean you "count" for their youth system, in fact I'd go as far to argue if they played for the Academy side they should count.

PS I've forgotten several players.

Pope of Pot, King of Nothing
17-09-2008, 22:32
Sorry to double post but a club (limited company) can owe money to its owners, so Chelsea may owe that money, the debt, to Abramovich. This could explain the debt.
Actually mate, I heard somewhere that Chelsea does owe Abramovich for the cash they're spending. Just, seeing as he owns the club, he doesn't seem to mind. But if he suddenly got bored of football, then maybe he'd mind and Chelsea would have a fair amount of debt. Whether they've got a good enough income stream to offset it due to the stature increase during his reign, well, who knows! Ask an accountant :)

x42bn6
17-09-2008, 22:36
Actually mate, I heard somewhere that Chelsea does owe Abramovich for the cash they're spending. Just, seeing as he owns the club, he doesn't seem to mind. But if he suddenly got bored of football, then maybe he'd mind and Chelsea would have a fair amount of debt. Whether they've got a good enough income stream to offset it due to the stature increase during his reign, well, who knows! Ask an accountant :)
They're making heavy losses every season.

They have an absolutely ridiculous wage bill.

Apparently, they'll break-even by 2010.

Madness.

strong centreback
17-09-2008, 22:42
Give them a high bank balance and a high transfer and wages bufdget, but leave there rep at the 7000 mark, then they will have the money to sign 18 players of messi standard but wont be able to attract them until they have won alot of silver in a short space of time to raise there profile, as lets face it messi and simlar quality players are not just gonna up a leave a bigger club to join man city until they have at least won the league once and are playing champions league football regularly

VonBlade
17-09-2008, 22:52
But this is where FM and reality differ. In reality if you bid 100m for a player his club would accept. If you then offered the player 500k per week, he'd come along.

Unlike FM where, as someone above said, you can be as rich as you like but your reputation cannot improve without results. Which isnt' quite right.

Eh Bandits fans :)

DrEdwierd
17-09-2008, 23:48
One of the other issues is! Like Chelsea have done with that list someone put up, buying mediocre players also becomes a lot more expensive as for buying star players it becomes astronomical and ultimately spoils the game! Look at how many defenders chelsea have tried to bring in over the last few years, Del Horno, Boulahrouz are just 2!

Nomis07
18-09-2008, 08:41
TBF Del Horno looked good in La Liga and Boulahrouz was bought after a very good world cup IIRC. It says something of Chelsea's style of play etc that Boulahrouz looked very good in the Euros as well, but never did anything at the Boredom Bridge.

PGB_SPURS_FM09
18-09-2008, 17:12
I personally think man city should have the same setup that chelsea did in FM05. I think that was accurate enough... good amount of money - not loads! would pay over the odds for your players - chairman wants big name signings. the only difference is that their rep wouldn't be quite as high as chelseas as chelsea were in champs league while city are only in uefa cup.

DrEdwierd
19-09-2008, 17:58
Ye but there was plenty of other signings and very few have stayed for long...

I think if City arnt in a European spot by january they will have trouble sttracting players until the new season.

Legendary Manager
19-09-2008, 21:19
Football is gonna implode much sooner than people are expecting.

We are going to be ****ed.