wiganworld home page
Home Photos of Wigan Stuff News What's on Classifieds Forum Communicate Guestbook Links
 Search    In association with  The Wigan Courier
 Messageboards
  General
  Places
  People
  wiganworld
  Sports
  Hobbies / Books
  History of Wigan
  Handbags
 
 
Interact
  Wigan ex-pats
  Wigan genealogy
 
 
SOME PEOPLE SAY CITY HAVE INFLATED THE MARKET
Started by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
Most expensive premier league players

MUFC - Pogba £94m
MUFC - Lukaku £90m
LFC - Van Dijk £75m
CFC - Morata £75m
LFC - Naby Keita £70m
MUFC - Martial £61m
MUFC - Di Maria £60m
MCFC - De Bruyne £54m

Funny that.

Posted by: GOLDEN BEAR (3031)  Report abuse
Those figures prove absolutely zilch. The shiek is not going to tell the like's of you the true figure's is he being the owner of a country.

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Lukaku and Pogba figures are wrong.

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
are they less or more than 54 million then? i await yor response avidly

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
golde bear i'm willing to bet if the united ones were citys they be correct would'nt they

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Lukaku is £75m and Pogba was what, £89m?

That's a £20m discrepancy straight away.

Posted by: broady (13245)   Report abuse
Correct Bridger but I seem to remember Lukaku COULD rise to 90 million. That is if he doesn't bulk up any more and lose even more speed.

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
thanks broady

bridger i've 2 questions for you

1 seeing as you didnt answer 1st time,did the 2 donkeys cost more or less than 54 million?

2 more importantly when was the last time you mentioned THAT team you claim to support??? load of BULLOCKS why not admit who you REALLY support

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Man United first team vs Burnley:

De Gea - £18.9
Young - £20* - Fee was between £15 and £20
Jones - £16.5
Rojo - £14
Shaw - £30
Pogba - £89
Matic - £35
Mata - £37.1
Ibrahimovic - £0
Rashford - £0
Lukaku - £75

Total = £335.5

City First team v Newcastle

Ederson - £35
Danilo - £26.5
Otamendi - £28.5
Kompany - £6
Walker - £45
Gundogan - £20
Fernandinho - £4
De Bruyne - £55
Sterling - £49
Aguero - £38
Silva - £25

Total - £332

Given Kompany has been @ City since 08, when £6m was the 'going rate' for a defender, it's not that bad really. Comparing to them paying £50m for John Stones (Thanks BTW )

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Broady, shoulda woulda coulda. It's like the VVD addon's for Liverpool - £75m rising to £xx if Liverpool win the league. So £75m then.

KD - There's more talk about United & City on here, so why would I interfere? Admittedly I've not had much to crow about prior to Big Sam arriving, have I?

When was the last time you talked about Latics, who you once had a ticket for?

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
Given Kompany has been @ City since 08, when £6m was the 'going rate' for a defender


if the going rate for a defender was 6 million in 08 why did united inflate the price to 30 million in 02 for rio ferdinand a defender????

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
and why does a everton fan stick up for united and not city i'm intrigued

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Ferdinand is 6 years older, in his prime at the time of the transfer, and also look how English players seem to be inflated prices? I notice you didn't point out that Leeds United paid £18m for him at the age of 21?

As I said, John Stones???? He was basically the same as as Kompany, and yet City paid almost £50m for him?

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
If you banged on about City as much as you do about United, I'd stick up for City.

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
bridger going back to your lists above,in the matter of fairness like you keep saying lats take the 2 cheapest city players out of the list so now the teams cost

322 and 335.5 million pounds each so that completely blows out of the water the trafford fans argument that those who spend more are buying success does it not? as the poor side is STRIDING AWAY baker boys term circa 2017 not mine chatty

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Why does taking the two cheapest make it fair?

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
well i was really trying to help you but ok then lets have it your way trafford paid more for 9 players than city did for eleven,so the trafford fans still cant use the city are buying success ard can they?ok they got gashford and bignose for free but they aint playing for free, so whose wage bill will be the biggest?trafford united forever TRYING TO SUCCESS BUT NOW FAIL MISERABLY

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Rashford came through the ranks. How many of City's did?

BTW, if you noticed, Jesus didn't start for City, though Kompany left play after what, 6 minutes? So if you considered Jesus as a starter, £27m - £6m = £21m, so you can call City's team £353m.

As for wages, now who is trying to move the goalposts?

Posted by: GOLDEN BEAR (3031)  Report abuse
L/G: The reply to your Qs, is NO!

Posted by: broady (13245)   Report abuse
GB, Get a cup of tea and settle down to watch United.

Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
bridger who are you supporting tomorrow? i'm shounting for evertonso that puts you in a bit of a quandry does'nt it[:D

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse
Not at all, ETID. As it is every game they play.

Posted by: bridger (inactive) Report abuse


Posted by: laughing gravy (3569) Report abuse
i thowt you were clever?, now go bact to that list and look at how many players were bought trafford paid more for 3 than city paid for 7good try tho

 
 
Back
 

 
Note: You must login to post a reply.
If you haven't registered, why not join now?. Registration is FREE!
 
 © 2018 wiganworld
Click here to read the privacy policy, disclaimer and copyright information.
Please contact us with your ideas, suggestions, moans or questions.