Football Media

[everyonehatesus]

I don't expect or even want our manager to come out and say anything positive about the opposition or admit we should have had a penalty against us or anything of the sort, I want them them to be 100% behind our team and club no matter what. Kind of a fuck you to everyone else really so fair play to martinez and I actually think he's a good manager, I like the way he has his trams set up and the attitude they seem to keep.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I don't expect or even want our manager to come out and say anything positive about the opposition or admit we should have had a penalty against us or anything of the sort, I want them them to be 100% behind our team and club no matter what. Kind of a fuck you to everyone else really so fair play to martinez and I actually think he's a good manager, I like the way he has his trams set up and the attitude they seem to keep.

So you're ok with him effectively calling one of ours a cheat when he's clearly been fouled?

[gmercer1]

I don't expect or even want our manager to come out and say anything positive about the opposition or admit we should have had a penalty against us or anything of the sort, I want them them to be 100% behind our team and club no matter what. Kind of a fuck you to everyone else really so fair play to martinez and I actually think he's a good manager, I like the way he has his trams set up and the attitude they seem to keep.

Not for me mate, I prefer people to be honest.

[everyonehatesus]

On a level playing field of course it would be better for all if they were honest but we all know that football is full of total cunts and that's from players to owners.
There's no point in trying to be above everyone just to look the better man because we see it week in and out that the sport now favours the cunt, bacon face and the likes have been doing it years because it works.
Sadly it's a case of if you can't beat them join them, how many players and managers do we really like from any other club. The powers that be can sort this out in one swift movement by adding video technology but they won't because it benefits the cunts in charge, nothing more nothing less. It's bent to hell and for me becoming more and more difficult to enjoy the game at the top level because of it.

[Wonderwall]

The amazing Paul Ince has decided to provide us with his wisdom on the weekends performances via the Sky Sports Grades feature they have each Monday.

He grades performances from A+ being the best of the weekend to a possible F if they were truly awful..

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... es-verdict

if you cant be arsed, he wrote

Bournemouth - A+ (Won 3-0)
They were fantastic against Norwich. They are flying now and it's great business for Benik Afobe too - he's a very good player. They play the right football and have been fearless since coming into the Premier League, and going against a team they came up with last year and winning convincingly, you have to say that's an A+.

Newcastle - A (Won 2-1)
A great result for Newcastle at home to West Ham. They are now playing much better football and starting to score more goals, which you expect under a team managed by Steve McClaren. The fans seem to be back onside, and they're going the right way.

Southampton - A (Won 3-0)
An impressive performance from the Saints, especially considering West Brom were coming off a good display at Stamford Bridge. The early goal from James Ward-Prowse helped because Southampton have not been playing the way they were last season. The win over Watford was massive because it calmed everybody down, and this was another much-needed win, and a convincing one too.

Aston Villa - A (Drew 1-1)
Everybody focuses on the results, but Villa performed well on Saturday. They performed much better than they had been, and you can see signs of improvement and opportunities for them to start picking up wins. It's just a case of whether it's too late, but Villa were up for it against Leicester and the fans were too.

Leicester - A (drew 1-1)
Claudio Ranieri's side always perform well, and they seem to do it consistently home and away. They'll be disappointed with the result, especially with the Riyad Mahrez missed penalty, but they are still in the mix.

Liverpool - A (Lost 1-0)
They were absolutely fantastic in the first half. The way they pressed Man Utd was superb and they had numerous chances but just couldn't take any of them. Jurgen Klopp clearly has them at it and playing the right way, but the only negative for them regarding the performance was the wasted chances.

Arsenal - A Drew (0-0)
Arsene Wenger might look back at the end of the season and think this was a great point at the Britannia. They've left with nothing on their last few trips, but this year they really dug in and had to throw tackles in, block shots, and that's something you don't always see with Arsenal. It's a very good sign for them.

Stoke - A (Drew 0-0)
I love the way Sparky has his team playing. They have gone from a longer style to their current play, and Sparky has brought in some great players. They are playing a brand of football the manager has always been associated with, and they're good to watch. They excited me against Arsenal, even if they couldn't find the breakthrough. Jack Butland was brilliant again, but Petr Cech made some big saves too.

Manchester City - A- (Won 4-0)
They were due a performance, and City were fantastic. With everyone talking about Vincent Kompany being out, now you're starting to see Sergio Aguero and David Silva getting back to full fitness. Manuel Pellegrini needs these players if he's going to win trophies. They got a lucky goal first with Wayne Hennessey letting it under his body, but City were outstanding all afternoon.

Tottenham - B+ (Won 4-1)
It was a slow start by Spurs, and the fact they're now contenders for the title means there's pressure on them and you saw that. But when you've got the likes of Harry Kane and Christian Eriksen it helps. They played with freedom, Spurs played very well and they're scoring plenty of goals.

West Ham - B (Lost 2-1)
They're having a brilliant season, I'd give them an A+ so far, but in the game they had chances in the second half to get back into it and didn't. Newcastle did too, and West Ham are always a tough team to play, but the Hammers just couldn't quite overcome a poor opening 15 minutes.

Everton - B (Drew 3-3)
They are lower in the table than I expect them to be, and to go to Stamford Bridge and be 2-0 up, you need to start thinking about seeing out the game. When they then went 3-2 ahead in the 90th minute, you definitely need to see it out. As players you need to manage the game, and that's something that Roberto Martinez will find really disappointing. If you go to Chelsea and score three times, you expect to win.

Manchester United - B (Won 1-0)
They had one shot on target in the whole game and scored. They got the three points, and some people will say it's a smash and grab, and looking at the overall performance they didn't create enough chances. They are still a major work in progress, and they need to improve in attack. If you just looked at the result, I would say A+, but it's not just about the result, it's the performance and that wasn't an A+.

Chelsea - B- (Drew 3-3)
We've seen a bit of an uplift in the way they play, but they went two goals down and that shouldn't be happening at Stamford Bridge. On that basis, I'll give them a B- because to their credit they did battle back into it twice, even if they were slightly fortunate because John Terry's goal was offside.

Sunderland - B- (Lost 4-1)
In Sam Allardyce, they've got the right manager. I've seen an improvement in Sunderland since he took charge and the gameplan worked well at Tottenham initially. They got the goal, and they just needed to keep that into the second half. But a lack of concentration allowed the equaliser, and once Spurs got level, it was always going to be difficult. The first half was A+, the second half a C-.

West Brom - C (Lost 3-0)
It's hard because you set your team up not to concede, and then you're one-down after five minutes. That changed the game at Southampton and changed how Tony Pulis was approaching it, and they had to open up.

Norwich - C- (Lost 3-0)
Norwich are inconsistent, and that's what you would expect because the Premier League is a very tough division. But on the day, it's a six-pointer and you know all about Bournemouth from the Championship, and to go there and not compete will disappoint Alex Neil. It was one-way traffic at times.

Crystal Palace - C- (lost 4-0)
I expected more from Palace. The last two years they've been to the Etihad Stadium, they've done very well. They are missing Yannick Bolasie, and when you to places like City, you can't afford to give silly goals away, and that's what they did. If it was a Pulis team, it might have been 1-0 to City, but the way Alan Pardew is doing it, and he's doing a fantastic job, he went and had a go at them. It's not the be-all and end-all, though. If you go to City and get something, that's great. If not, it's on to the next one.

Expert analysis at its very best ladies and gents

[gillie]

The amazing Paul Ince has decided to provide us with his wisdom on the weekends performances via the Sky Sports Grades feature they have each Monday.

He grades performances from A+ being the best of the weekend to a possible F if they were truly awful..

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... es-verdict

if you cant be arsed, he wrote

Bournemouth - A+ (Won 3-0)
They were fantastic against Norwich. They are flying now and it's great business for Benik Afobe too - he's a very good player. They play the right football and have been fearless since coming into the Premier League, and going against a team they came up with last year and winning convincingly, you have to say that's an A+.

Newcastle - A (Won 2-1)
A great result for Newcastle at home to West Ham. They are now playing much better football and starting to score more goals, which you expect under a team managed by Steve McClaren. The fans seem to be back onside, and they're going the right way.

Southampton - A (Won 3-0)
An impressive performance from the Saints, especially considering West Brom were coming off a good display at Stamford Bridge. The early goal from James Ward-Prowse helped because Southampton have not been playing the way they were last season. The win over Watford was massive because it calmed everybody down, and this was another much-needed win, and a convincing one too.

Aston Villa - A (Drew 1-1)
Everybody focuses on the results, but Villa performed well on Saturday. They performed much better than they had been, and you can see signs of improvement and opportunities for them to start picking up wins. It's just a case of whether it's too late, but Villa were up for it against Leicester and the fans were too.

Leicester - A (drew 1-1)
Claudio Ranieri's side always perform well, and they seem to do it consistently home and away. They'll be disappointed with the result, especially with the Riyad Mahrez missed penalty, but they are still in the mix.

Liverpool - A (Lost 1-0)
They were absolutely fantastic in the first half. The way they pressed Man Utd was superb and they had numerous chances but just couldn't take any of them. Jurgen Klopp clearly has them at it and playing the right way, but the only negative for them regarding the performance was the wasted chances.

Arsenal - A Drew (0-0)
Arsene Wenger might look back at the end of the season and think this was a great point at the Britannia. They've left with nothing on their last few trips, but this year they really dug in and had to throw tackles in, block shots, and that's something you don't always see with Arsenal. It's a very good sign for them.

Stoke - A (Drew 0-0)
I love the way Sparky has his team playing. They have gone from a longer style to their current play, and Sparky has brought in some great players. They are playing a brand of football the manager has always been associated with, and they're good to watch. They excited me against Arsenal, even if they couldn't find the breakthrough. Jack Butland was brilliant again, but Petr Cech made some big saves too.

Manchester City - A- (Won 4-0)
They were due a performance, and City were fantastic. With everyone talking about Vincent Kompany being out, now you're starting to see Sergio Aguero and David Silva getting back to full fitness. Manuel Pellegrini needs these players if he's going to win trophies. They got a lucky goal first with Wayne Hennessey letting it under his body, but City were outstanding all afternoon.

Tottenham - B+ (Won 4-1)
It was a slow start by Spurs, and the fact they're now contenders for the title means there's pressure on them and you saw that. But when you've got the likes of Harry Kane and Christian Eriksen it helps. They played with freedom, Spurs played very well and they're scoring plenty of goals.

West Ham - B (Lost 2-1)
They're having a brilliant season, I'd give them an A+ so far, but in the game they had chances in the second half to get back into it and didn't. Newcastle did too, and West Ham are always a tough team to play, but the Hammers just couldn't quite overcome a poor opening 15 minutes.

Everton - B (Drew 3-3)
They are lower in the table than I expect them to be, and to go to Stamford Bridge and be 2-0 up, you need to start thinking about seeing out the game. When they then went 3-2 ahead in the 90th minute, you definitely need to see it out. As players you need to manage the game, and that's something that Roberto Martinez will find really disappointing. If you go to Chelsea and score three times, you expect to win.

Manchester United - B (Won 1-0)
They had one shot on target in the whole game and scored. They got the three points, and some people will say it's a smash and grab, and looking at the overall performance they didn't create enough chances. They are still a major work in progress, and they need to improve in attack. If you just looked at the result, I would say A+, but it's not just about the result, it's the performance and that wasn't an A+.

Chelsea - B- (Drew 3-3)
We've seen a bit of an uplift in the way they play, but they went two goals down and that shouldn't be happening at Stamford Bridge. On that basis, I'll give them a B- because to their credit they did battle back into it twice, even if they were slightly fortunate because John Terry's goal was offside.

Sunderland - B- (Lost 4-1)
In Sam Allardyce, they've got the right manager. I've seen an improvement in Sunderland since he took charge and the gameplan worked well at Tottenham initially. They got the goal, and they just needed to keep that into the second half. But a lack of concentration allowed the equaliser, and once Spurs got level, it was always going to be difficult. The first half was A+, the second half a C-.

West Brom - C (Lost 3-0)
It's hard because you set your team up not to concede, and then you're one-down after five minutes. That changed the game at Southampton and changed how Tony Pulis was approaching it, and they had to open up.

Norwich - C- (Lost 3-0)
Norwich are inconsistent, and that's what you would expect because the Premier League is a very tough division. But on the day, it's a six-pointer and you know all about Bournemouth from the Championship, and to go there and not compete will disappoint Alex Neil. It was one-way traffic at times.

Crystal Palace - C- (lost 4-0)
I expected more from Palace. The last two years they've been to the Etihad Stadium, they've done very well. They are missing Yannick Bolasie, and when you to places like City, you can't afford to give silly goals away, and that's what they did. If it was a Pulis team, it might have been 1-0 to City, but the way Alan Pardew is doing it, and he's doing a fantastic job, he went and had a go at them. It's not the be-all and end-all, though. If you go to City and get something, that's great. If not, it's on to the next one.

Expert analysis at its very best ladies and gents

I must have been at a different game as i thought we were workmanlike at best certainly not outstanding.

[Wonderwall]

he obviouslly wasnt at anfield cause both utd and liverpool were shit, however liverpool were graded higher having lost at home LOL

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I thought so too Gillie, well until the big man came on, we started to turn it on then.

You have to wonder, much like Crooks team of the week, whether Ince is just basing his thoughts on highlights.

[nottsblue]

he obviouslly wasnt at anfield cause both utd and liverpool were shit, however liverpool were graded higher having lost at home LOL

Is Ince the new Lawro/DC. Completely incompetent but has the added bonus of being a rag and a dipper

[The Maine Man]

SSN reporting that Martial could end up costing £61.5 million. Maybe the Rags forgot to pay their subscription?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Just caught fifteen minutes of commentary in the car of the Liverpool game and it's frankly embarrassing to hear Alan Green wanking himself off about Klippety and Liverpool. You'd think they were plucky underdogs playing Barcelona!
It's not hard to imagine the comments if we were just one up in a replay against a lower division side.

[PrezIke]

Sorry, mate, but if the club say 32 million, then that is the figure I am going to believe over that touted by any journalist.

I hear you mate. Given the slant journalists have had against us this make sense, but I am not certain that therefore everything journalists report about the club our fans don't like is inherently incorrect because the club reports something different. The Lampard situation last season is an example of this as well. Let's be real. I tried to find ways to explain it to myself but clearly we tried to put our intentions under the radar, or when we became more interested in keeping him for the whole season we changed the story. City are generally one of the best run clubs but we are not necessarily perfect angels. It's big business and a lot it at stake.

If a journalist cites a source inside the club that "confirmed" the 42 million fee I think it is at least something to consider, but something to not be believed at all? Use of anonymous sources is a highly common way for journalists to put out information that someone wants to be kept from the public. As much as I want to believe the club, all businesses are going to want to slant public perception in their favour. It's normal.

I think we don't know really what the fee actually was, but it may very well be more than what City reported after information was leaked later last season, and it is not too shocking given the ridiculous issues with 3rd party ownership. It's possible an extra 10 million was in relation to add ons, or someone else with rights claimed/showed they were owed it and the club possibly preferred to pay them than create an even worse situation. If it's 42, it's 42. Maybe it's 32. Maybe it's in between. It doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Well, looking like it could very well be £41.4m for Mangala after all:

A copy of the agreement made between Porto and City in 2014 has shown the French defender cost the Blues £41.4m

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... a-10764233

https://footballleaks2015.wordpress.com ... m-mangala/

Here's the actual copy of contract Football Leaks posted if you want to take a look:

https://openload.co/f/7ww6Att0V1g/FC_Po ... angala.pdf

Football Leaks also revealed Martial's contract, showing he has a very good chance to cost Utd £53.7m.

[South Stand Balti]

The amazing Paul Ince has decided to provide us with his wisdom on the weekends performances via the Sky Sports Grades feature they have each Monday.

He grades performances from A+ being the best of the weekend to a possible F if they were truly awful..

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... es-verdict

if you cant be arsed, he wrote

Bournemouth - A+ (Won 3-0)
They were fantastic against Norwich. They are flying now and it's great business for Benik Afobe too - he's a very good player. They play the right football and have been fearless since coming into the Premier League, and going against a team they came up with last year and winning convincingly, you have to say that's an A+.

Newcastle - A (Won 2-1)
A great result for Newcastle at home to West Ham. They are now playing much better football and starting to score more goals, which you expect under a team managed by Steve McClaren. The fans seem to be back onside, and they're going the right way.

Southampton - A (Won 3-0)
An impressive performance from the Saints, especially considering West Brom were coming off a good display at Stamford Bridge. The early goal from James Ward-Prowse helped because Southampton have not been playing the way they were last season. The win over Watford was massive because it calmed everybody down, and this was another much-needed win, and a convincing one too.

Aston Villa - A (Drew 1-1)
Everybody focuses on the results, but Villa performed well on Saturday. They performed much better than they had been, and you can see signs of improvement and opportunities for them to start picking up wins. It's just a case of whether it's too late, but Villa were up for it against Leicester and the fans were too.

Leicester - A (drew 1-1)
Claudio Ranieri's side always perform well, and they seem to do it consistently home and away. They'll be disappointed with the result, especially with the Riyad Mahrez missed penalty, but they are still in the mix.

Liverpool - A (Lost 1-0)
They were absolutely fantastic in the first half. The way they pressed Man Utd was superb and they had numerous chances but just couldn't take any of them. Jurgen Klopp clearly has them at it and playing the right way, but the only negative for them regarding the performance was the wasted chances.

Arsenal - A Drew (0-0)
Arsene Wenger might look back at the end of the season and think this was a great point at the Britannia. They've left with nothing on their last few trips, but this year they really dug in and had to throw tackles in, block shots, and that's something you don't always see with Arsenal. It's a very good sign for them.

Stoke - A (Drew 0-0)
I love the way Sparky has his team playing. They have gone from a longer style to their current play, and Sparky has brought in some great players. They are playing a brand of football the manager has always been associated with, and they're good to watch. They excited me against Arsenal, even if they couldn't find the breakthrough. Jack Butland was brilliant again, but Petr Cech made some big saves too.

Manchester City - A- (Won 4-0)
They were due a performance, and City were fantastic. With everyone talking about Vincent Kompany being out, now you're starting to see Sergio Aguero and David Silva getting back to full fitness. Manuel Pellegrini needs these players if he's going to win trophies. They got a lucky goal first with Wayne Hennessey letting it under his body, but City were outstanding all afternoon.

Tottenham - B+ (Won 4-1)
It was a slow start by Spurs, and the fact they're now contenders for the title means there's pressure on them and you saw that. But when you've got the likes of Harry Kane and Christian Eriksen it helps. They played with freedom, Spurs played very well and they're scoring plenty of goals.

West Ham - B (Lost 2-1)
They're having a brilliant season, I'd give them an A+ so far, but in the game they had chances in the second half to get back into it and didn't. Newcastle did too, and West Ham are always a tough team to play, but the Hammers just couldn't quite overcome a poor opening 15 minutes.

Everton - B (Drew 3-3)
They are lower in the table than I expect them to be, and to go to Stamford Bridge and be 2-0 up, you need to start thinking about seeing out the game. When they then went 3-2 ahead in the 90th minute, you definitely need to see it out. As players you need to manage the game, and that's something that Roberto Martinez will find really disappointing. If you go to Chelsea and score three times, you expect to win.

Manchester United - B (Won 1-0)
They had one shot on target in the whole game and scored. They got the three points, and some people will say it's a smash and grab, and looking at the overall performance they didn't create enough chances. They are still a major work in progress, and they need to improve in attack. If you just looked at the result, I would say A+, but it's not just about the result, it's the performance and that wasn't an A+.

Chelsea - B- (Drew 3-3)
We've seen a bit of an uplift in the way they play, but they went two goals down and that shouldn't be happening at Stamford Bridge. On that basis, I'll give them a B- because to their credit they did battle back into it twice, even if they were slightly fortunate because John Terry's goal was offside.

Sunderland - B- (Lost 4-1)
In Sam Allardyce, they've got the right manager. I've seen an improvement in Sunderland since he took charge and the gameplan worked well at Tottenham initially. They got the goal, and they just needed to keep that into the second half. But a lack of concentration allowed the equaliser, and once Spurs got level, it was always going to be difficult. The first half was A+, the second half a C-.

West Brom - C (Lost 3-0)
It's hard because you set your team up not to concede, and then you're one-down after five minutes. That changed the game at Southampton and changed how Tony Pulis was approaching it, and they had to open up.

Norwich - C- (Lost 3-0)
Norwich are inconsistent, and that's what you would expect because the Premier League is a very tough division. But on the day, it's a six-pointer and you know all about Bournemouth from the Championship, and to go there and not compete will disappoint Alex Neil. It was one-way traffic at times.

Crystal Palace - C- (lost 4-0)
I expected more from Palace. The last two years they've been to the Etihad Stadium, they've done very well. They are missing Yannick Bolasie, and when you to places like City, you can't afford to give silly goals away, and that's what they did. If it was a Pulis team, it might have been 1-0 to City, but the way Alan Pardew is doing it, and he's doing a fantastic job, he went and had a go at them. It's not the be-all and end-all, though. If you go to City and get something, that's great. If not, it's on to the next one.

Expert analysis at its very best ladies and gents

I must have been at a different game as i thought we were workmanlike at best certainly not outstanding.

I agree it was workmanlike. I doubt Ince watched all 90 mins of all of these games.

[Original Dub]

Vieira is inspired by managers he worked with... like Wenger and Mourinho according to the headline.

Funny, because when you open it, he also mentions Mancini and pellegrini.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... ick-vieira

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Sorry, mate, but if the club say 32 million, then that is the figure I am going to believe over that touted by any journalist.

I hear you mate. Given the slant journalists have had against us this make sense, but I am not certain that therefore everything journalists report about the club our fans don't like is inherently incorrect because the club reports something different. The Lampard situation last season is an example of this as well. Let's be real. I tried to find ways to explain it to myself but clearly we tried to put our intentions under the radar, or when we became more interested in keeping him for the whole season we changed the story. City are generally one of the best run clubs but we are not necessarily perfect angels. It's big business and a lot it at stake.

If a journalist cites a source inside the club that "confirmed" the 42 million fee I think it is at least something to consider, but something to not be believed at all? Use of anonymous sources is a highly common way for journalists to put out information that someone wants to be kept from the public. As much as I want to believe the club, all businesses are going to want to slant public perception in their favour. It's normal.

I think we don't know really what the fee actually was, but it may very well be more than what City reported after information was leaked later last season, and it is not too shocking given the ridiculous issues with 3rd party ownership. It's possible an extra 10 million was in relation to add ons, or someone else with rights claimed/showed they were owed it and the club possibly preferred to pay them than create an even worse situation. If it's 42, it's 42. Maybe it's 32. Maybe it's in between. It doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Well, looking like it could very well be £41.4m for Mangala after all:

A copy of the agreement made between Porto and City in 2014 has shown the French defender cost the Blues £41.4m

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... a-10764233

https://footballleaks2015.wordpress.com ... m-mangala/

Here's the actual copy of contract Football Leaks posted if you want to take a look:

https://openload.co/f/7ww6Att0V1g/FC_Po ... angala.pdf

Football Leaks also revealed Martial's contract, showing he has a very good chance to cost Utd £53.7m.

Can't view that PDF on my phone, can you tell me mate does it definitively state what we paid to the third parties?

[Mase]

I thought there wasn't allowed to be any third party ownership of a player anymore?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I thought there wasn't allowed to be any third party ownership of a player anymore?

There isn't but that only happened worldwide within the last year.

[PrezIke]

Sorry, mate, but if the club say 32 million, then that is the figure I am going to believe over that touted by any journalist.

I hear you mate. Given the slant journalists have had against us this make sense, but I am not certain that therefore everything journalists report about the club our fans don't like is inherently incorrect because the club reports something different. The Lampard situation last season is an example of this as well. Let's be real. I tried to find ways to explain it to myself but clearly we tried to put our intentions under the radar, or when we became more interested in keeping him for the whole season we changed the story. City are generally one of the best run clubs but we are not necessarily perfect angels. It's big business and a lot it at stake.

If a journalist cites a source inside the club that "confirmed" the 42 million fee I think it is at least something to consider, but something to not be believed at all? Use of anonymous sources is a highly common way for journalists to put out information that someone wants to be kept from the public. As much as I want to believe the club, all businesses are going to want to slant public perception in their favour. It's normal.

I think we don't know really what the fee actually was, but it may very well be more than what City reported after information was leaked later last season, and it is not too shocking given the ridiculous issues with 3rd party ownership. It's possible an extra 10 million was in relation to add ons, or someone else with rights claimed/showed they were owed it and the club possibly preferred to pay them than create an even worse situation. If it's 42, it's 42. Maybe it's 32. Maybe it's in between. It doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Well, looking like it could very well be £41.4m for Mangala after all:

A copy of the agreement made between Porto and City in 2014 has shown the French defender cost the Blues £41.4m

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... a-10764233

https://footballleaks2015.wordpress.com ... m-mangala/

Here's the actual copy of contract Football Leaks posted if you want to take a look:

https://openload.co/f/7ww6Att0V1g/FC_Po ... angala.pdf

Football Leaks also revealed Martial's contract, showing he has a very good chance to cost Utd £53.7m.

Can't view that PDF on my phone, can you tell me mate does it definitively state what we paid to the third parties?

This is from the MEN article:

According to the document, which appeared online on Wednesday, Porto only owned 56.67 percent of Mangala's economic rights.

The remainder was split between The Doyen Sports Investment Limited, who owned 33.33 percent, with another 10 percent belonging to an Austrian marketing company.

City had to pay close to £24m for Porto's share alone, meaning the remainder of the deal took the total to £41.4m.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I saw that Prezike, I've also now seen the PDF, there's nothing new in all of that. The only confirmed figure is the figure we paid Porto but we know that at the time because they declared it to the stock exchange.

Basically the media are assuming we paid that £42million because of what we paid for Porto's percentage, they're extrapolating, there's nothing definitive. As you were.

[Wonderwall]

Sorry, mate, but if the club say 32 million, then that is the figure I am going to believe over that touted by any journalist.

I hear you mate. Given the slant journalists have had against us this make sense, but I am not certain that therefore everything journalists report about the club our fans don't like is inherently incorrect because the club reports something different. The Lampard situation last season is an example of this as well. Let's be real. I tried to find ways to explain it to myself but clearly we tried to put our intentions under the radar, or when we became more interested in keeping him for the whole season we changed the story. City are generally one of the best run clubs but we are not necessarily perfect angels. It's big business and a lot it at stake.

If a journalist cites a source inside the club that "confirmed" the 42 million fee I think it is at least something to consider, but something to not be believed at all? Use of anonymous sources is a highly common way for journalists to put out information that someone wants to be kept from the public. As much as I want to believe the club, all businesses are going to want to slant public perception in their favour. It's normal.

I think we don't know really what the fee actually was, but it may very well be more than what City reported after information was leaked later last season, and it is not too shocking given the ridiculous issues with 3rd party ownership. It's possible an extra 10 million was in relation to add ons, or someone else with rights claimed/showed they were owed it and the club possibly preferred to pay them than create an even worse situation. If it's 42, it's 42. Maybe it's 32. Maybe it's in between. It doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Well, looking like it could very well be £41.4m for Mangala after all:

A copy of the agreement made between Porto and City in 2014 has shown the French defender cost the Blues £41.4m

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... a-10764233

https://footballleaks2015.wordpress.com ... m-mangala/

Here's the actual copy of contract Football Leaks posted if you want to take a look:

https://openload.co/f/7ww6Att0V1g/FC_Po ... angala.pdf

Football Leaks also revealed Martial's contract, showing he has a very good chance to cost Utd £53.7m.

Can't view that PDF on my phone, can you tell me mate does it definitively state what we paid to the third parties?

This is from the MEN article:

According to the document, which appeared online on Wednesday, Porto only owned 56.67 percent of Mangala's economic rights.

The remainder was split between The Doyen Sports Investment Limited, who owned 33.33 percent, with another 10 percent belonging to an Austrian marketing company.

City had to pay close to £24m for Porto's share alone, meaning the remainder of the deal took the total to £41.4m.

Is that someone just jumping to a conclusion?
If there are 3 separate entities then there will be 3 separate negotiations.

Have they gone. Oooh Porto got £24m for 57% so that equates to £421k per 1%.
So the sports investment own 33% x 421k = £13.9m
The auspices own 10% x 421k = £4.2m
24m + 13.9m + 4.2m = 42.1m