Clarifying user requests

I'm thinking that the user might want current news, so searching the web seems like a good option. It's important to avoid unnecessary approvals since the network is enabled. Still, I need to clarify if they want specific details like source links, dates, analysis, or roster impacts. The CLI style suggests being concise. I can provide a high-level analysis of the implications for Man City's finances and strategies for reducing the wage bill. Keeping numbers in context helps too!Presenting cautious analysis

I need to be careful about stating exact numbers and avoid making factual claims. Instead, I could say that reports often mention City wages to be over £350m, while noting that £35m is approximately 8-10%. To prevent misinformation, I’ll offer general analysis without asserting specifics. I can ask the user what they want: do they want me to find the original article, summarize key points, or analyze the impact on their roster or Financial Fair Play? I could also provide quick bullet points about reasons, methods, and transfer impacts but avoid naming players unless necessary, perhaps mentioning typical high earners or fringe players.Crafting analysis points

I want to lay out the background on the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules and UEFA's cost rules, which aim for a 70% regulation by the 2025-2026 season. I can note that £35m roughly equals one top earner's salary or a few rotational players. Possible strategies for team management include not renewing short contracts, loaning to permanent transfers, and optimizing bonus structures. The impacts could be increased transfer flexibility and steadier financials, but with risks like declining squad depth. I’ll check if the user wants me to find the original article or create a summary. We should be cautious about discussing pending charges, keeping it neutral instead.