Chairman Khaldoon: Manchester City Have A Carefully Thought-Out Strategy
Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak has discussed the club's strategy and responded to some criticisms levied at the Citizens.
"Value for money is a very subjective statement," he told the Manchester Evening News. "The value of a player is up to the club purchasing him, and down to the club's needs.
"Sir Alex Ferguson commented on the price we paid for Carlos Tevez, and [manager] Mark [Hughes'] response was spot-on, that the value of Carlos to City is maybe different to his value to United.
"Looking back at every acquisition we have made, I think we have got value, and that the results will show they were the right choices."
The Citizens chairman also issued a retort to those who think the club have too many strikers.
"We had a lot of strikers and there was a joke about Manchester City having 11 strikers," he said. "The reality was that this was a carefully thought-out strategy of not selling until we brought in the talent we wanted.
"It was the right strategy. We would have hung ourselves out to dry if we had sold all our strikers before we brought in the acquisitions we made. It's one more example of unfounded criticism.
"There are always going to be critics, especially when you are successful, and we have to deal with that. We have done that very well for the last 12 months, and it will only increase," said Khaldoon.
"We want to prove to everyone we can do it the right way, and that is the way we have been doing it."
Khaldoon also revealed that the club has set itself a benchmark at which they expect to finish in the league this season.
"Sheikh Mansour [Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the club's majority shareholder] is very clear in terms of the target he has for us, and we have been working on this to reach full alignment on a realistic target for us this year," he said.
"Given the squad we have, and given the time we have had to build the squad, it is a target we will be keeping between us."
This article was first published on Goal.com
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?