Who will win the Premier League?

Thimmy wrote:I don't know why you're nitpicking. Them selling more players is not irrelevant in the context of them recuperating some of the money they spend on players, as you just demonstrated. That doesn't even include the money they got from selling Courtois and Hazard. Call City's bench more functioning if you will, it functions better than the depth that Chelsea and Man United have at their disposal, and that difference is not irrelevant either.

Am I nitpicking or providing context? @Myesyats provided to you that Chelsea have spent as much if not more then City in a similar time frame, you counter it with saying how they sell players to recoup money. I provided context in saying how most there sales are from deadweights in the squad outside of as you said Hazard and Thibu, therefor despite they're sales they're barely losing quality and spending money to add even more quality to the team with already a lot of quality in the team. That's why how much they recoup is a nonfactor to me. It would be the same with City or PSG if they were better at selling deadweights.

Above you made a comment literally saying Chelsea don't have depth of City...they have two strikers one that cost 100m and another that cost 60-80m, they have Pulisic on the bench who cost around 60m, they rotate between Kante 40m, Jorginho 60m, Kova 40m in midfield they have a keeper on their bench that cost 70m and another attacker in Hakim who cost 30-40m...in what world do they not have depth but City having Zinc, Jesus, Grealish, Stones, Ake on the bench means they have this insane and unfair squad depth ahead of Chelsea?

Here is the cost of their bench according to transfermkt.

City: Jesus (£28.80m), Stones (£50.04m), Steffen (£6.14m), Ake (£40.77m), Grealish (£105.75m), Fernandinho (£36.00m), Foden (Youth)
Total: £267.5m
United: Sancho (£76.50m), Van De Beek (£35.10m), Telles (£13.50m), Martial (£54.00m), Matic (£40.23m), Lindelöf (£31.50m), Bailly (£34.20m)
Total: £284.83M
Chelsea: Werner (£47.70m), Ziyech (£36.00m), Pulisic (£57.60m), Kepa (£72.00m), Alonso (£20.70m), Barkley (£15.12m) Mount (Youth)
Total: £249.12

But but City depth...

Thimmy wrote:

Myesyats wrote:It's gone under the radar maybe but Chelsea spent more on transfers in the last 5 years .

880m compared to City's 853m

I imagine they've sold a lot more than City, as well

Fair play to them for recouping the money but I don't think it makes a big difference in terms of the current quality of their squads. They've spent a lot, signed whoever they wanted to sign and didn't suffer a significant loss of quality in the outgoing players in general.

I think it's because most people's perception of City's depth is from like the 2019 days.

Sane/Sterling-------Aguero/Jesus-------Mahrez/Bernardo
Silva/Foden------Ferna/Rodri-------KDB/Gundogan
Mendy/Zin----Laporte/Stones-----Kompany/Otamendi-----Walker/Danilo
Ederson/Bravo

Nowadays it's more like:
Foden/Grealish----KDB/Sterling------Mahrez/Jesus
Gundo/X-----Ferna/Rodri-------Bernardo/X
Cancelo/Zin-----Laporte/Stones-----Dias/Ake———-Walker/X
Ederson/Steffen

The main strength of City's depth is that their players are versatile. They don't have two players per position anymore, but what they do have are CB's who can play FB, a RB who can play LB, CM's who can play as false 9, and forwards who can play anywhere along the front line. They went from a core of 22 players to a core of 17 players and the performance hasn't dropped off.

Their squad is built in a completely opposite manner to United. United sign specialists who can only play in one role, while City signs players who can play multiple. The only player who has a fixed position in City is Mahrez on the RW, but even then Mahrez has been tried as a false 9 before too.