Luis Suárez

[Pablo]

City's top brass would say that though. There is clearly some sort of power struggle going on, involving Mancini, Txiki, Marwood et al. No way would the club make this **** up. We wouldn't, would we...?

This is worrying , it would make sense that it was us that leaked it as it was Tony Barrett who broke the news. It doesn't mean it is the case, but it's definitely worrying!

[Phoenix07]

The top three dogs at Liverpool are excellent in terms of spinning a story positively or negatively.

I do not underestimate their ability in these matters if it has indeed come from them.

[Pablo]

Would we be mental enough to sell the only player we have who we can rely on for goals? Surely not. Nah, **** it, this makes no sense, it's nonsense!

[Alex]

Suarez signed a new contract 3 months ago. Cant see us wanting to sell him. I hope...

[el matador]

It could be a tactic from citys part to get atletico to reduce their asking price for falcao.

It could also be a tactic from us to get real madrid to up their bid for suarez.

[Tee]

Pure speculation but it could be that BR has been promised every penny generated from January player sales and feels by selling Suarez for £40m+ he can bring in the 2 or 3 players he thinks we need.

Or more likely it is just bs.

[magicalbarnes]

It was. No doubt in my mind at all about that. You make it out like we were in control of the situation and sold him, but the fact was HE wanted to leave because WE did not keep promises. Yes we got £50m for him but we spunked it in a display of spending that would have shamed drunken sailors all over the world.

If we had sold him early on in the window, got £50m and spent it wisely and with an overall strategy I would agree with you. But the fact is we did show a lack of ambition and if we are not careful this scenario it could repeat itself.

Torres was slowly coming back to his best for us and Kenny was making him (and us) believe again. You can spin it however you like mate but IMO it was clearly a move we did not want to make. Selling our No.1 striker to a rival is something this club should never ever have to do again.

We just got lucky that Torres has not worked out for Chelsea. Softened the blow, but trust me it ws a massive blow, £50m or not.

I dont agree with that. We sold a striker for £50m, who's now worth approx £15m. With the money we bought two strikers who are now worth £50m (Suarez) & £18m (Carroll).

Suarez's quality has really helped us soften the blow, so we havn't done as bad as originally expected.................................Although Newcastle did much better.

[Tee]

I dont agree with that. We sold a striker for £50m, who's now worth approx £15m. With the money we bought two strikers who are now worth £50m (Suarez) & £18m (Carroll).

Suarez's quality has really helped us soften the blow, so we havn't done as bad as originally expected.................................Although Newcastle did much better.

Suarez deal was done before we sold Torres. His fee therefore is not included in that £50m.

[Alex]

Suarez deal was done before we sold Torres. His fee therefore is not included in that £50m.

Why? They happened on the same day. Anyway, money doesnt work like that. Does it? If I get given £50 for something, I dont then pay someone else using different money in the same wallet. That £50 is my money like the rest of it is.

We got £6mil for Babel, and £50m for Torres. We spent that money on Suarez and Carroll.

Ill agree to an extent that Suarez was already going to sign regardless. But that shouldn't matter. Money is money.

[Lecter]

Seems that Jen Chang is back at work then.

Was my first thought when reading those tweets

[Alex]

Luis Suarez to Manchester City: the numbers don't add up

Roberto Mancini would be told that the purchase of Luis Suarez blows a major hole in the club’s attempts to secure a license to play European football, if he were to consider lobbying Manchester City's board to buy Luis Suarez from Liverpool.

The transfer fee and wages for Suarez would cost City around £20m a year, a sum roughly equivalent to what the club can afford to lose in its entirety in the next financial year, under Uefa’s financial fair play regulations. City are about to announce losses in excess of £100m for the 2011-12 season, the first of Uefa’s two-year monitoring period, during which the club is permitted to lose no more than £18m a year.

If Suarez is purchased for £40m on a four year deal, the club would take a £10m hit each year for four years on its profit and loss account – a figure which would count towards financial fair play calculations. But it is the player’s wages which would deliver the biggest blow to the club’s attempts to draw closer to the £18m figure. If Suarez were to command a salary of £1m a month, less than City’s Carlos Tevez but in line with others among the game’s best paid players, that would take the annual hit to the club up to £22m a year, including wages and transfer fee.

City’s 2011-12 losses will deliver big drop from the £197m pre-tax loss recorded last year – the biggest in English football history. But it leaves City with a mountain to climb to comply with Uefa rules and avoid exclusion from the Champions League.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/luis-suarez-to-manchester-city-the-numbers-dont-add-up-8319461.html

By Ian Herbert

He makes a good point. Even if the story is a load of rubbish.

[Tee]

Why? They happened on the same day. Anyway, money doesnt work like that. Does it? If I get given £50 for something, I dont then pay someone else using different money in the same wallet. That £50 is my money like the rest of it is.

We got £6mil for Babel, and £50m for Torres. We spent that money on Suarez and Carroll.

Ill agree to an extent that Suarez was already going to sign regardless. But that shouldn't matter. Money is money.

You may not pay from a different wallet but you have already paid for Suarez. So that £50m that arrives at the end is separate.

I always thought that the general concensus of opinion was that we got Carroll for -£15m. That money was then carried forward and used in the Summer.

[Alex]

As I said. Its all one big transfer pot I think. Well, thats how Ive always understood it.

[dom9]

A salary cap is due to be discussed / ratified at the PL meeting today.

Our club clearly want one in place (it's in our interests). City clearly don't (it's not in their interests).

More pointless speculation, but this could be designed to put pressue on them.

[ChesterDave]

If anything he has more affinty to Ajax, and he made a career choice..

Quite the opposite IMO. I am sure he left because be didn't feel supported in the aftermath off three bite incident - doesn't sound like he feels loyal to him. Liverpool however have backed him 100%