Manchester City's 'Highest Net Spend Per Point' Was Worth Every Penny

Manchester City supporters simply do not deserve the abuse they take about money.

For most of recorded football history, City were the weak sister to mighty Manchester United. Now that City have become as relevant and viable as United are, all anyone wants to talk about is how City got here.

"Since City were bought by Abu Dhabi United Group, the club have spent almost £500 million on transfer fees alone—and the astronomical figure is even higher when wages are taken into account," wrote Jonny Singer of MailOnline.

Singer's attempted kill shot to City supporters read thus: "And despite having earned the third-most points during the period, City's net spend per point dwarfs their rivals, coming in at a massive £1,096,000."

This hit piece is the classic, time-tested combination of a small sample size with an abject lack of context to manufacture a seemingly shocking conclusion that really is not shocking at all.

City finished 15th in the Premier League table in 2005/06, 14th in 2006/07 and ninth in 2007/08. That was the club Sheikh Mansour took over, a club with a shaky history that as recently as the 2001/02 season was not even invited to the Premier League party.

Of all people, it was Grantland's Bill Simmons, writing then for ESPN.com's Page 2, who best summed up the perception of City in a column where he found reasons to choose Tottenham Hotspur (!) over City as his adopted Premier League side.

Writing in the summer of 2006, Simmons cited, "The decades of serial losing, the complete lack of hope and the dwindling fanbase. ... They're just not good enough. You don't want a team that's on TV twice a year and might get relegated at any time. Unless you're from there."

That was the club the Abu Dhabi United Group took over. And while sentimentalists and dreamers might have liked them to rebuild City over the course of many decades through the development of young players and shrewd transfer efforts (i.e., the Southampton way, previously the Everton way), City's new owners figured that if they had the money to make the club better quickly, that was the way to go.

Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images

City's owners learned quickly that it is not as simple as opening the checkbook and buying a world-class XI with good reserve players. One of the underappreciated problems that comes with running a mid-table (or worse) club is that great players do not want to play there even if the money is right.

"We could, of course, fill a top 10 with Manchester City flops...Emmanuel Adebayor, Jo, Wayne Bridge, Roque Santa Cruz, even Robinho all failed to set Eastlands alight after big money transfers," noted ShortList.com in a piece called "Top 10 Transfer Flops."

All of those signings were symptoms of the condition of the downtrodden club trying to get acclaimed players to sign on. The promise of having to drag mediocre supporting talent around turns many players who have more attractive options away.

Besides, every club has a transfer nightmare tale or three to tell. Unfortunately for City, even their transfer successes get smeared.

"Sergio Aguero has been in fine form for City, but he cost the club £38 million when he signed in 2011," Singer added.

Tell me something. Do you think City regret paying £38 million for Aguero? Put aside the fact that right now, his transfer value might well be double that figure.

What price can you put on this? Not to mention the return on that fabled league title, fiscal and otherwise.

In the past four seasons, City have won two Premier League titles, an FA Cup and a League Cup. They also lost an FA Cup final. They qualified for Champions League football in four consecutive seasons. Great accomplishments all even if pundits try to undercut them with bleating about money.

As noted by Sandy Hingston in her recent Philadelphia Magazine article about Temple University, the school's founder (Russell Conwell) had succinct, accurate words about money.

"You and I know there are some things more valuable than money; of course, we do. ... Nevertheless, the man of common sense also knows that there is not any one of those things that is not greatly enhanced by the use of money. Money is power."

So Singer and his ilk would tarnish City's trophies and demean their achievements because "City's two Premier League titles in the past three years have come at an astonishing cost, with the champions paying more per point than any other team."

What is the only appropriate response from City supporters?

That they wish City had won twice as much silver and spent twice as much money doing it.