Jack Grealish - Winger Completes Move to Man City

[Happy Blue]

26 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

@Devil you will soon learn Happy Blue is a WUM, if you haven't already.  He's not a nobhead WUM like we've had on here in the past, normally quite funny, but a WUM all the same.

How dare you! 

 

[Devil]

55 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

@Devil you will soon learn Happy Blue is a WUM, if you haven't already.  He's not a nobhead WUM like we've had on here in the past, normally quite funny, but a WUM all the same.

Mate I like him, I know he's a wind up merchant, I just play along for his benefit. 

52 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Muppet 

I actually wrote it out as well.  

 

[Devil]

42 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

@Devil here you go fruit cake 

 

 

 

Can you please explain to me what that proves?

I could knock that up in five minutes on Excel and send via PM to someone, doesn't make it real. 

Who is Philippe Sandler and how is he earning more than Zinchenko!!

No way Zinchenko is earning less than a kid.

 

 

[Happy Blue]

10 minutes ago, Devil said:

 

Can you please explain to me what that proves?

I could knock that up in five minutes on Excel and send via PM to someone, doesn't make it real. 

Who is Philippe Sandler and how is he earning more than Zinchenko!!

No way Zinchenko is earning less than a kid.

 

 

These are the "on the book" figures 

 

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Happy Blue said:

@Devil here you go fruit cake 

 

 

Nice, I can type on Excel too

 

 

Also, who the actual fuck is Philippe Sandler and how is he on that much money?!

Foden needs a better fucking agent  

[Happy Blue]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

Nice, I can type on Excel too

 

 

Also, who the actual fuck is Philippe Sandler and how is he on that much money?!

Foden needs a better fucking agent  

I wouldn't have a clue about excel, i can only just about spell 

I didn't sign Sandler so no idea  ..maybe Foden needs his agent lol  ..don't think it will be long before Foden get's a pay rise though

Born in Amsterdam, Sandler began his senior career with PEC Zwolle in the 2016–17 season,[1] having previously played youth football for Ajax.[2]

In January 2018 it was announced that Sandler would leave PEC Zwolle to join English club Manchester City in the summer of 2018, for a transfer fee reported to be between €2.5 and 3 million.[2] The transfer went through on 31 July 2018.[3] Sandler requested the number 34 shirt in tribute to former Ajax teammate Abdelhak Nouri, who collapsed and suffered brain damage, ending his career.[4]

Sandler made his City debut on 6 January 2019, coming on as a substitute in a 7–0 win over Rotherham United in the FA Cup.[5]

Sandler was loaned to Anderlecht for the 2019–20 season, joining up with Anderlecht player-manager, former Man City teammate Vincent Kompany.[6]

In the 2020–21 season, Sandler underwent surgery for an ankle injury which left him out of the City first team squad for almost the entire season. He was however able to play in some of the final Academy team games of the season.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Sandler

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

I do wonder if the future of finding some sort of fair play within football is the use of stats. I'll use Brentford as an example because of the success we've had in the Championship, but our model can be replicated by bigger clubs if you have the resources. In the Championship we were consistently a bottom 3 spender in both transfers and wages, even when we could afford to spend £30m in one window our wage bill was still very low. But years of us buying and selling, coming from a position of no real wealth, allowed us to compete at the top with Premier League parachute payment sides and we then finished 3rd twice in a row.

Of course Liverpool have spent big on Van Dijk and Allison specifically, and they've spent over half a billion to win the league, but they got to that point through selling and buy smart. Sadio Mane and Mo Salah were relatively small signings compared to what City make and they're both 2 of the best players in the league. Leicester have shown a good ability to sell players for big profit and bring in lower costing alternatives.

I think the main problem a lot of clubs have (other than the money City have to spend, which has existed in multiple clubs the past two decades) is they've not consistently had good assistance with statistical analysis in transfers, I think a revolution with analytics at bigger clubs would help counter what City spending £100m on Jack Grealish really means to the rest of the league.

Three problems with this though. A team like Brentford could probably take this strategy and get into the top half of the Premier League over time because while teams like Everton, West Ham and Aston Villa have better resources, they're still within striking distance for less fortunate clubs who do a better job. Outside of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea, probably only Liverpool, Arsenal and maybe Spurs have enough resources to get close enough that being smarter is enough to bridge the gap.

The second problem is that you can do all of the statistical analysis you want. Southampton have had several potentially world class players, through their excellent academy more than clever recruitment, but still, they've had Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Mane, Van Dijk. And at times it got them to 6th or 7th or so in the league but they'll never be allowed to keep those players and keep progressing beyond that. All you're doing is doing the big clubs' scouting for them.

Third, if the statistical performance analysis is successful enough that it poses a threat in any way to the elite sides, they'll eventually just build a bigger, more expensive one of their own, poaching the majority of the best people from teams like Brentford and Leeds and start hoovering up those players on the cheap earlier in their careers. A tiny minority of those players will get near the first team while the rest will go for £20m here and £17m there to idiot clubs like Everton and Bournemouth seeing more money trickle back up to the top again.

Without the top three/six clubs teams like Brentford and Leeds could probably challenge for the top four or even the title in time and Leicester would actually be rewarded for having by far the best run of recruitment and transfer dealings over the past few seasons by being the dominant team in the league. There was a part of me who warmed to the whole Super League breakaway at the time because of exactly this. We shouldn't care if the "glamour" of the Premier League goes with those clubs if it gave us a good honest competition again.

[Devil]

13 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Three problems with this though. A team like Brentford could probably take this strategy and get into the top half of the Premier League over time because while teams like Everton, West Ham and Aston Villa have better resources, they're still within striking distance for less fortunate clubs who do a better job. Outside of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea, probably only Liverpool, Arsenal and maybe Spurs have enough resources to get close enough that being smarter is enough to bridge the gap.

The second problem is that you can do all of the statistical analysis you want. Southampton have had several potentially world class players, through their excellent academy more than clever recruitment, but still, they've had Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Mane, Van Dijk. And at times it got them to 6th or 7th or so in the league but they'll never be allowed to keep those players and keep progressing beyond that. All you're doing is doing the big clubs' scouting for them.

Third, if the statistical performance analysis is successful enough that it poses a threat in any way to the elite sides, they'll eventually just build a bigger, more expensive one of their own, poaching the majority of the best people from teams like Brentford and Leeds and start hoovering up those players on the cheap earlier in their careers. A tiny minority of those players will get near the first team while the rest will go for £20m here and £17m there to idiot clubs like Everton and Bournemouth seeing more money trickle back up to the top again.

Without the top three/six clubs teams like Brentford and Leeds could probably challenge for the top four or even the title in time and Leicester would actually be rewarded for having by far the best run of recruitment and transfer dealings over the past few seasons by being the dominant team in the league. There was a part of me who warmed to the whole Super League breakaway at the time because of exactly this. We shouldn't care if the "glamour" of the Premier League goes with those clubs if it gave us a good honest competition again.

You talk as if the teams at the top should be ashamed because they are bigger than the rest. United, Liverpool and Arsenal have always been the biggest three clubs in England with the biggest attendances and wealth, nothing new there other than we now have two money rich clubs and Spurs gate crashing the party. 

Put it this way, Spurs would be considered a big club in English football, possibly the next tier down from United, Liverpool and Arsenal.  Less than a decade ago they were in no better position than Everton sit now, good management and being fortunate with players and purchases have elevated them into a position where they now consider themselves ahead of the pack of chasing clubs. Everton have spent an absolute fortune over the last few years, bad recruitment is the reason your not competing for European football, it's nothing to do with the top six clubs. 

As for the likes of Southampton they've always sold their best players and that won't ever change because no matter what you think they are a far smaller club than the top teams, Everton included. Why wouldn't a player who's come through the ranks at Southampton want to play at Anfield, Old Trafford or the Emirates. 

 

 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

So the big question is. 

Will Grealish play much for fantasy football purposes? 

[Devil]

20 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

So the big question is. 

Will Grealish play much for fantasy football purposes? 

Never pick City players they are expensive and get rotated too much. 

[Danny]

36 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Three problems with this though. A team like Brentford could probably take this strategy and get into the top half of the Premier League over time because while teams like Everton, West Ham and Aston Villa have better resources, they're still within striking distance for less fortunate clubs who do a better job. Outside of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea, probably only Liverpool, Arsenal and maybe Spurs have enough resources to get close enough that being smarter is enough to bridge the gap.

I think any club who has spent long enough as a mid-table/Europa League side club would have the ability to make the jump in they had the correct resources there, if the Brentford owner owned Everton or Spurs the progress you would be making would be unmatched by what you're currently trying to do.

The second problem is that you can do all of the statistical analysis you want. Southampton have had several potentially world class players, through their excellent academy more than clever recruitment, but still, they've had Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Mane, Van Dijk. And at times it got them to 6th or 7th or so in the league but they'll never be allowed to keep those players and keep progressing beyond that. All you're doing is doing the big clubs' scouting for them.

Southampton are a poor example imo, for a few years they were extremely good at recruitment and when they lost their big players they reinvested and we saw the success they achieved under Poch and Koeman for what was a recently promoted side. They lost a few of the people behind the scenes that were the driving force behind that and then fell off completely. The fact is within the Premier League the only sides that have used data well to progress the club forward are Liverpool and Leicester.

Third, if the statistical performance analysis is successful enough that it poses a threat in any way to the elite sides, they'll eventually just build a bigger, more expensive one of their own, poaching the majority of the best people from teams like Brentford and Leeds and start hoovering up those players on the cheap earlier in their careers. A tiny minority of those players will get near the first team while the rest will go for £20m here and £17m there to idiot clubs like Everton and Bournemouth seeing more money trickle back up to the top again.

The analytics industry is so much bigger than individual clubs, one club won't be able to have a monopoly on it. That is the beauty of it. Clubs do hoover up players earlier in their careers now, look at Chelsea and City's academy. But the fact is the supply outweighs the demand and if you're smart with your recruitment you will always be able to build on your team, whether it be selling one player for £100m to buy more players of that ilk, or keeping that player because the other teams don't need to buy. I think the correct use of analytics and access to it for every club would be a very good way to create more of an even playing field, and it should reduce the amount of high profile flops bought in the transfer market.

Without the top three/six clubs teams like Brentford and Leeds could probably challenge for the top four or even the title in time and Leicester would actually be rewarded for having by far the best run of recruitment and transfer dealings over the past few seasons by being the dominant team in the league. There was a part of me who warmed to the whole Super League breakaway at the time because of exactly this. We shouldn't care if the "glamour" of the Premier League goes with those clubs if it gave us a good honest competition again.

Tbh Leicester wouldn't have won the league if it wasn't for how poor the overall competition was, a team winning the league on their point tally hadn't been done for about a decade and a half. I don't think we'll see a league where the quality of competition is that saturated for a while. I would love a league where a team like Brentford or Leeds (feel a bit sorry for Leeds being lumbered with us in this example ) could through smart and hardwork win it, that would be amazing. But unfortunately we're nowhere near that happening regularly, or even seeming like anything other than a fluke. Even before City it was Chelsea and before Chelsea it was Man Utd. My entire life the Prem has been dominated by monopolies....outside of Leicester the only team to break that mould were Arsenal.

I think the only way to properly break that cycle is through the use of a global scouting network via analytics that is available to Borussia Dortmund down to Accrington Stanley. You then mix that knowledge with regulations on how many players a club can sign to prevent big clubs from hoovering up talent. From then on you force the big clubs to depart with big cash, regulate how often then can sign certain players/types of players and then the smaller clubs can reinvest that and move forward.

With that said that would be very bad for Brentford, as part of our success is down to how stupid a lot of football clubs are 

 

[RandoEFC+]

I can't be arsed repeating myself anymore in this thread. Pretty clear some people are trying to invalidate my point by making it into me complaining about Everton not being able to compete. It's not about that and anyone who's read my posts knows that, so some people clearly either haven't read them before replying or don't like what I have to say about the impassable advantages their teams' success is built on.

The bottom line is this, Man City are about to splash 100m on a player, Man Utd have spent a similar amount on Sancho this summer and Chelsea look set to do the same with Lukaku. Liverpool are the only other club in the country who have access to transfers like this and even they have to be clever bastards in the transfer market to make it work. Don't pretend that Spurs managed to make themselves an elite club either because they're close enough to get in the mix for a time if they do everything right and Man Utd and Arsenal continue to run their club's like idiots. They made one bad managerial appointment and they're back in the wilderness. These consequences don't apply to Chelsea or Man Utd. You're blind if you can't see the difference.

Since the inception of the Premier League, the competitive order of the English football pyramid has been locked in. The only way to break it is with financial doping, that's the only way Chelsea and Man City got to where they are now. Now nobody else is allowed to do that, not that any of us would choose to become an elite club that way, it's just the only way and it's been taken away.

Man Utd have been run like an absolute joke since Ferguson left. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Awful recruitment, calamitous managerial appointments and amounts of money wasted that other stupid clubs like Everton could only dream of. Any other club run as poorly as Man Utd have been for a decade would be languishing in the bottom half by now. Spurs are another club that keep getting mentioned. They got in the mix for a while but where are they now? One bad start to a season under Poch and a poor managerial appointment to follow it up have had serious implications on their position in the competitive order. Kane wants out and the best manager they could get this summer was Nuno Espirito Santo. This just does not apply to some teams and Spurs are a big and wealthy club.

@Danny I believe what you say applies to a large amount of the footballing pyramid but it doesn't apply at the top. In theory, if a club can get everything right year after year, transfer window after transfer window, then yeah they can keep moving up but the level of sheer perfection you'd need to achieve just isn't realistic. All clubs get it wrong sometimes. There is a glass ceiling at either the top 6 or the top 4 depending on how much money you have to start with. Like I said earlier, if you could build yourself into an elite club just by being smarter, then someone would have done it in the past 30 years. Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have always been up there because they were in the right place at the right time when the Premier League was formed, and Chelsea and City are up there because they paid for it.

Everyone reading this thread knows that it's a closed shop. You can give me as many ifs and buts and make it about my Everton bitterness to undermine my arguments as much as you want but realistically, anyone who thinks it's possible to compete with teams who can take your best players whenever they feel like it with what to them is pocket change just by being a bit smarter is deluded. And if you want to labour the point on Everton, does anyone here actually believe that Everton, another big club with no doubt the best resources outside of the top few teams, even if they'd recruited really well over the past few years, would be up there by now knocking Man City off their perch and beating them to the £100m signings of Grealish or Kane? Because if you do you're either an idiot, a liar or just being willfully ignorant.

[Happy Blue]

51 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

So the big question is. 

Will Grealish play much for fantasy football purposes? 

I wouldn't put him in right now 

[Devil]

18 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I can't be arsed repeating myself anymore in this thread. Pretty clear some people are trying to invalidate my point by making it into me complaining about Everton not being able to compete. It's not about that and anyone who's read my posts knows that, so some people clearly either haven't read them before replying or don't like what I have to say about the impassable advantages their teams' success is built on.

The bottom line is this, Man City are about to splash 100m on a player, Man Utd have spent a similar amount on Sancho this summer and Chelsea look set to do the same with Lukaku. Liverpool are the only other club in the country who have access to transfers like this and even they have to be clever bastards in the transfer market to make it work. Don't pretend that Spurs managed to make themselves an elite club either because they're close enough to get in the mix for a time if they do everything right and Man Utd and Arsenal continue to run their club's like idiots. They made one bad managerial appointment and they're back in the wilderness. These consequences don't apply to Chelsea or Man Utd. You're blind if you can't see the difference.

Since the inception of the Premier League, the competitive order of the English football pyramid has been locked in. The only way to break it is with financial doping, that's the only way Chelsea and Man City got to where they are now. Now nobody else is allowed to do that, not that any of us would choose to become an elite club that way, it's just the only way and it's been taken away.

Man Utd have been run like an absolute joke since Ferguson left. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Awful recruitment, calamitous managerial appointments and amounts of money wasted that other stupid clubs like Everton could only dream of. Any other club run as poorly as Man Utd have been for a decade would be languishing in the bottom half by now. Spurs are another club that keep getting mentioned. They got in the mix for a while but where are they now? One bad start to a season under Poch and a poor managerial appointment to follow it up have had serious implications on their position in the competitive order. Kane wants out and the best manager they could get this summer was Nuno Espirito Santo. This just does not apply to some teams and Spurs are a big and wealthy club.

 

To be fair I only read the one post you made in this thread and automatically related back to Everton given that's who you support. 

I agree with all you've posted about United, it's been an embarrassment since Sir Alex's no doubt about it and it's taken them a decade to finally start to look like they getting their house in order. 

 

[Rick]

You can say Chelsea have sold to balance the books, but who have City sold? I can’t remember them selling anybody lately for big money. 
 

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

You can say Chelsea have sold to balance the books, but who have City sold? I can’t remember them selling anybody lately for big money. 
 

Sane and Angelino come to mind. Sane went for £50m? Can't remember Angelino's fee. 

But that's pretty much it? Nowhere near the expenditure levels. 

[Danny]

@RandoEFC I disagree that anybody would have done it, analytics in football was an idea being scoffed at not long ago. I do agree that it is a closed shop at the moment, not trying to argue against that. Just that the future of undoing that lies within the open access to analytics and regulating the transfer market so that it's less of a free for all, we can't take the money out of the sport but we can impede how it's spent by regulating how many transfers a team can make, similar to the concept of fantasy football. If City can only make one big signing in Grealish, they've now just given Villa £100m to spend on players worth less but that can improve the overall team and grow in value. Rather than City sign Grealish and then go out and sign Kane.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Sane and Angelino come to mind. Sane went for £50m? Can't remember Angelino's fee. 

But that's pretty much it? Nowhere near the expenditure levels. 

They must have got £3bn for Shaun Wright-Philips 

[RandoEFC+]

40 minutes ago, Danny said:

@RandoEFC I disagree that anybody would have done it, analytics in football was an idea being scoffed at not long ago. I do agree that it is a closed shop at the moment, not trying to argue against that. Just that the future of undoing that lies within the open access to analytics and regulating the transfer market so that it's less of a free for all, we can't take the money out of the sport but we can impede how it's spent by regulating how many transfers a team can make, similar to the concept of fantasy football. If City can only make one big signing in Grealish, they've now just given Villa £100m to spend on players worth less but that can improve the overall team and grow in value. Rather than City sign Grealish and then go out and sign Kane.

I'm a massive fan of analytics. It may have been scoffed at by the ranks of idiots like Merson and co in the football media but football clubs have taken it seriously for a reasonably long time. 10 years ago when I was looking at job opportunities after university, Man City and Wigan were offering apprenticeships in performance analysts for their academies. Sure it isn't a full commitment to analytics like some clubs are starting to engage in now, but they weren't scoffing at it. It is still a relatively new industry and it gives smaller teams a chance to get a competitive advantage in the short term by getting things right and finding breakthrough strategies and technologies. If that's what Brentford have done in recent years, teams will take note and start to copy what they've done. Teams will continue to find breakthrough approaches in this area for the foreseeable future until the advantages made from analytics are largely all discovered and everyone will eventually catch up to the front runners and cancel each other out. The next step will be that it becomes another part of football where the richest clubs will be able to employ the best people and poach a lot of those from other clubs and it will fall into line with the other aspects of running a competitive football club.

While that happens there will be a next new big thing that pushes teams forward and the process will repeat. There's no realistic way of stopping it. Non-elite clubs are trying to push water uphill now if they have any ambition of establishing themselves at the pinnacle.

It's not really the debate I came here to have although analytics in football does interest me. For me it was about how uninteresting transfers like Grealish to City are now. Where are the stakes? If it works out, they're out of reach. If it doesn't work out, they're still out of reach. And if it works out, there's nothing to learn from what they've done. It's not a clever recruitment strategy that can be emulated by other teams, it's just we're fucking rich and we want your best player, cheers. It's just boring. At least when Liverpool spent big money on Van Dijk, Alisson, etc, even though most other clubs can't go shopping in that market even if they generate the money, you can look at it as a football person and analyse how they managed to negotiate good fees for outgoing players, waited for the right moment to sign others, and bought players with a particular role in mind for them. Things that could and should be replicated further down the pyramid.

There's no point in us trying to set the world to rights about the top of football being a closed shop because that horse has bolted, my comment is more about how at least the recruitment by top clubs used to be vaguely interesting because it felt like there was some risk involved when they laid out massive fees like this but if this turns out to be a horrible signing by Man City, who cares? They'll just spend £200m on Mbappe instead next summer. Man City in particular now are the real life manifestation of playing FIFA Career Mode with unlimited money switched on and no realism, except this actually is the reality now.

[Danny]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

It's not really the debate I came here to have

Welcome, friend, to The Internet 

[Cicero]

11 hours ago, LFCMadLad said:

Lots of rumours and ifs and buts in there.

It's bollocks.. Chelsea along with City spend what they want without care. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. 

Who have we bought this window exactly? 

8 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

So what you're saying is, Leicester or West Ham could spend £100m+ on Lukaku this summer too and afford his wages, all they have to do is look harder on their bench and in their youth team to find £100m worth of spare players to fund it. What? Leicester don't have £100m worth of spare players lying around? But Chelsea do? Sheesh, sounds like I'll have to do some serious research here to work out why that is.

Like I said, this is Harlem Globetrotter football now. The teams in 3rd and 4th can afford full teams of players that would be transfer records for the teams in 6th and 7th. That's where we're at in the Premier League and in pockets of the other elite leagues. We missed a trick by not letting the Super League go ahead.

To clarify, I'm not actually here to have digs at other clubs. It's not Chelsea and Man City's fault that they were the last ones to financially dope their way into the VIP lounge before they bolted the doors shut. I just don't see how anyone finds football exciting outside of their own club anymore. I've never paid less attention to the transfer window than I have this year but seeing talk of £100m players flying around again left right and centre just puts back into context how the rich clubs keep getting further and further away and everyone else can't do anything about it, and it only gets worse every year.

Shifting goal posts now? You  complained how we could possibly be complying with FFP.  I showed you. 

To summarise all of this, timing has been on our side these past couple years. We are also still reaping the rewards of our loan system business model + Youth Academy to help fund our transfers.  So far this summer, we have sold Tomori (28 million), Guehi (18 million) Moses (4 Million) Bate (2.5 million) Livarmento (2.5 million) Peart-Harris (2.5 million)  and Giroud (2 million). That's 60 million we've generated so far for transfers. The season before that, we utilised the Hazard + Morata funds to secure Havertz, Werner, and Ziyech. 

Net Spend (Past 5 seasons)

1. Man City : - £505.6 M

2. Man Utd : - £378.9 M

3. Everton :  - £275.0 M

4. Arsenal : - £249.0 M

----------------------------------------

9. Chelsea: - £133.2 M

https://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

 

 

 

 

[Devil]

Pep just said in his press conference Grealish cost 40 million as they've taken 60 millions in transfer fee's. 

Anyone know who he's talking about?

60 Million. 

[Cicero]

2 minutes ago, Devil said:

Pep just said in his press conference Grealish cost 40 million as they've taken 60 millions in transfer fee's. 

Anyone know who he's talking about?

60 Million. 

The sell players owned by City Football Group, where Man City are the sole beneficiaries. 

[Devil]

Taken off Transfermarket website. 34 million is the true figure. 

Angeliño	24		Left Midfield	£31.50m		RB Leipzig	£16.20m
Jack Harrison	24		Left Winger	£13.50m		Leeds	£11.52m
Lukas Nmecha	22		Centre-Forward	£10.80m		VfL Wolfsburg	£7.20m
Sergio Agüero	33		Centre-Forward	£16.20m		Barcelona	free transfer
Eric García	20		Centre-Back	£18.00m		Barcelona	free transfer
Issa Kabore	20		Right-Back	£2.70m		Troyes	loan transfer
Marlos Moreno	24		Right Winger	£900Th.		KV Kortrijk	loan transfer
Filip Stevanovic	18		Left Winger	£5.85m		Heerenveen	loan transfer
Ryotaro Meshino	23		Left Winger	£405Th.		Estoril Praia	loan transfer
Arijanet Muric	22		Goalkeeper	£1.17m		Adana Demirspor	loan transfer

Average age of departures: 23.0Total market value of departures: £101.03mIncome: £34.92m

[Devil]

Just now, Cicero said:

The sell players owned by City Football Group, where Man City are the sole beneficiaries. 

So players from the other clubs City own goes into the clubs finances?

That's not right surely, they can't be counting that towards Manchester City's income, the group yes but surely that's not fair if they are classing that income on their figures.