I'll bite and make a prediction that all Liverpool fans will be banned when we win the damn thing within the next three seasons.
How long will Pep and Klopp stay at City and Liverpool?
- Thread starter Dancfc
- Start date
Because he's completely shameless about where he gets his huge salaries from?
In all seriousness, he finished his playing career there, and I think his City contract will end around the time they are hosting the World Cup, so perhaps that's where he's getting the theory from?
I think Juventus is more likely though, certainly fits his normal criteria of "tons more resources than rivals to ensure highest possible possibility of victory."
Will be interesting to see who takes over at City when he does finally go, at the moment I couldn't even fathom up one name who seems an obvious successor. Perhaps they'll do what Barca did when he left and make an internal appointment like Arteta.
Last edited:
Arteta most likely at the moment.Because he's completely shameless about where he gets his huge salaries from?
In all seriousness, he finished his playing career there, and I think his City contract will end around the time they are hosting the World Cup, so perhaps that's where he's getting the theory from?
I think Juventus is more likely though, certainly fits his normal criteria of "tons more resources than rivals to ensure highest possible possibility of victory."
Will be interesting to see who takes over at City when he does finally go, at the moment I couldn't even fathom up one name who seems an obvious successor. Perhaps they'll what Barca did when he left and make an internal appointment like Arteta.
Other possibilities are former assistant Domenic Torrent (currently doing well at NYCFC) and my own left field idea Xavi Hernandez.
Steven Gerrard is nailed on to be the next Liverpool manager but i think he neeeds few more years of practice and observing what Klopp is doing before taking over.. So in 2022-23 it will be a good moment for him i think..
I mean, that is basically the position we are in now.
If Pep leaves before Klopp then yes I would be confident he could do it. But as long as Pep is at City I just can't see anyone else winning the title. Like Klopp he drains every last drop of effort and ability out of his squad but the difference is the quality of City's "2nd" team means they can easier rotate and/or cope with injuries.
It's a bit disheartening to realise that just as we've got ourselves into great shape on and off the pitch we have come up against a juggernaut. As a Utd fan you will know how this feels - it took Fergie a long time to get to grips with Europe and just as he did he came up against Pep's Barca. Otherwise you would likely have one or two more CL's.
I don't think Guardiola avoids proper challenges and is interested only in easy trophies. Most of us and also Liverpool fans are biased against him and like to portray him as a coward. Coming to England to play possession-based football with physically unimpressive midgets and winning 100 pts with a defensive line of Walker, Otamendi, Stones and Delph was a proper challenge though. And then winning the domestic treble in the season in which the European finals were all English. He made many expensive signings but it's not like the great teams of the PL era won their titles with mediocre players. Chelsea 04-06 and United 07-09 had squads full with top players and Arsenal 04 had probably a better first XI.Because he's completely shameless about where he gets his huge salaries from?
In all seriousness, he finished his playing career there, and I think his City contract will end around the time they are hosting the World Cup, so perhaps that's where he's getting the theory from?
I think Juventus is more likely though, certainly fits his normal criteria of "tons more resources than rivals to ensure highest possible possibility of victory."
Will be interesting to see who takes over at City when he does finally go, at the moment I couldn't even fathom up one name who seems an obvious successor. Perhaps they'll do what Barca did when he left and make an internal appointment like Arteta.
He's obviously a top top manager but he's not proven himself to be adaptable. He only chooses clubs that will give him the resources to build the team he wants in order to play exactly the way he wants. We saw how he finished 4th in his first season and then went out and spent £200m on fullbacks. That's one hell of a luxury. In my opinion he couldn't have done the job Poch did at Spurs when their net spend was barely £20m for a few years and he has shown nothing to demonstrate he can adapt his style to still win with inferior players. He'd have tried to get players to play in a way that is not suited to them, as he did in his first year with City, and would have struggled to get anywhere in England.
This is what Mourinho did at Porto and Inter by building defensively resolute teams but then went to Madrid and won by scoring over 100 goals and getting 100 points playing attacking football (when confronted by Pep's team which was and is considered possibly the greatest of all time). He had two different spells at Chelsea and won with both teams despite having different styles and very different players. There is no doubt that right now Guardiola is ahead of Mourinho. But peak Jose vs peak Pep, for me Mourinho demonstrated far more adaptability and won in a variety of situations. From my personal point of view, that suggests he's a better overall manager. He saw what he had, made a few adjustments, and won with different styles (the park the bus thing is absolute nonsense when you look at Jose in his glory days, and a complete rewriting of history by people who don't like him).
Likewise, do I think Guardiola could have done the job Klopp has done at Liverpool with the same resources? Personally, no.
It's all insignificant though. City do have the resources, and they've got the best man for the job given those resources. Does he deserve praise and respect for what he's done on a sporting level at City? Absolutely. Will he ever be going to a big European club who are having a very difficult time, don't have anywhere near the best team and don't necessarily have the best resources in the league and turn it all around and make them win the top prizes again? Nope. This is what Jose did back in the day, and it's what Klopp is doing currently doing.
Until Guardiola stops picking jobs with the clear favourites with the best team and resources, he'll always be open to this criticism. Will he care? Given his ego, probably. Will he change? Given his ego, probably not.
What a clever and interesting thread.
Pep is an incredibly intense character and a self confessed workaholic. The pressure to deliver comes from within. I tend to agree that were City to win the PL and CL this season, it could well result in him leaving City (I wish) and taking a break.
Klopp seems to me to br slightly less intense and slightly less of a workaholic. So maybe he will be at Liverpool for a few more years.
What this shows is just how incredible Sir Alex Ferguson was by being in charge for so long.
We were truly blessed to have him.
Ranieri won the title with Leicester of all clubs. How many people rate him higher than Guardiola? Not many. If tomorrow Spurs or Arsenal or United want a manager and Guardiola and Ranieri are available, who would take Ranieri over Guardiola? Would you take Ranieri over Guardiola because he proved himself with a limited squad? Would you take Mourinho over Guardilola because Mourinho proved himself with inferior players? Surely not. If both Guardiola and Poch become available, how many United fans would take the latter over the former? 10%?
Sorry, but have you read what I've actually written?
Why on earth are you bringing Ranieri into the equation? I was comparing Guardiola with the other great managers of his generation, those being initially Mourinho and now Klopp. Mourinho won with inferior players AND superior players, which is why I think he has the advantage in any discussion about who was better with all their careers taken into account.
If you offered me the current United squad with peak Mourinho or peak Pep with limited resources to spend who would I choose? Mourinho.
Same question with Klopp and Pep? Klopp.
Same question with Poch and Pep? Well, the logical choice would be Poch given he's proven he can improve teams massively with limited resources, whereas Pep hasn't. Obviously most people would say Pep as it's more exciting, but the one time he had to "fight it out" with an inferior team, he failed pretty miserably.
If you said you could choose any manager with infinite resources most people would probably go for Pep (although I'd go for Klopp as I prefer his playing style and personality. Might be a stupid decision but oh well) and rightly so given his record in such circumstances.
I'm not criticising Pep at all, I was just pointing out why this "he only every chooses the easy jobs with favourable circumstances" will always be a stick to beat him with until he proves he can take a club in a bad situation and lead them to glory without more resources than his rivals and the clearly best squad at his disposal.
What a load of bollocks
So, taking a manager who has won nothing over a manager who has won everything and has recently broken most PL records with great attacking football would be the logical choice?
People are entitled of their preferences. Think if Guardiola was a United manager, you'd think quite differently.
I know Man City say their priority is establishing a dynasty through league titles, but I think for Pep winning the CL is bigger. He didn't do it with Bayern, and will want to show it is his management which scales the peak, rather than simply inheriting one of the greatest teams of all time. I can see him moving on if City win the CL.
Pep has proven that he can develop a world-class team with world-class players and unlimited funds. Whether he'd be successful with a mediocre squad, we don't know, though I must say I cannot fathom his style of football requiring anything less than absolute top-tier technical players.
Klopp has proven that he can do more out of technically limited players than pretty much any current manager, but whether he'd be nearly as good with a team full of superstars, we also don't know. I think due to his managing style depending very much on intensity/motivational skills and is extremely draining for himself (although he is also easily one of the best tacticians currently), he could be slightly less successful on the long run but that's purely speculative. He did not have a collapse at Dortmund in his last season though, it was just insanely bad finishing coupled with insanely bad luck in the first half of the season.
Mou was also as much as a genius in his peak years, but I'd think I'd have the other two when it comes to building a squad.
Poch is easily the most unproven out of the lot (including peak Mou) and in no way I'd pick him over Pep even with limited funds. Pep's success and image alone is doing wonders for the club.
Last edited:
Thanks for the great insight "PepG." Just what have I written that is "complete bollocks?"What a load of bollocks
For goodness sake. Read what I've written. I said Poch would be the logical choice IF THEIR WERE NO RESOURCES AVAILABLE AS HE'S PROVEN AT TWO CLUBS HE CAN BE SUCCESSFUL UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. Pep struggled when he didn't have a team exactly to his specifications, this is what I'm referring to. Who would you choose for a League 1 play off charge with a squad full of crap players? Pep or Neil Warnock?
Maybe under more limited circumstances Pep would end up still coming out on top and getting teams to win competitions when really they have no right to given their resources compared to rivals. But he's never shown it. Others have. Would I choose Pep over Poch even with limited circumstances? Yeah, probably, it'd be more exciting. But it wouldn't come with as many guarantees as taking a manager like Klopp or even Poch, both of whom has proven they can perform brilliantly in such circumstances. Don't understand what is so controversial about saying this?
There seems to be a real problem on here with people absorbing the full content of a post.
Inheriting or creating?
Are you reading what you are writing?
"No resources available" makes no sense. Puting nonsense in caps doesn't make it meaningful. United have one of the most expensive squads in the world and have the money to add quality to it.
No, because my original post was referring as to why people beat Pep with the "never done it without the best team/ loads of money" stick. You've turned it into real life a life scenario.
I'm saying that Mourinho has won CL's with clubs that didn't have nearly the best squad in Europe, and had far from the most monetary resources. He's also won national titles without having the best team (one of which was against Pep and his Barca side). Klopp has won titles without having the best team, and has taken this Liverpool squad from being awful and in 8th place to being one of the best in Europe with a very low net spend comparatively speaking. Pep has never done any of these things. Could he? Maybe. But he's never played in any other style than the one we've seen, and as the Bayern fan said a couple of posts up, this style always requires the best technical players in the world. In his first season with City he stuck to this style despite the players not being adequate for it and he did shite. Then he went out and spent a fortune. Put him in a club where he doesn't have the very best technical players in the world, nor the money to buy them and I personally think he'd struggle. Jose and Klopp have been in these situations and still won. Doesn't mean Pep is not a genius but I think it puts him below other managers who achieved as much as him in a variety of circumstances and not always with the best players.
And I tell you what, this United team is far worse than what Pep inherited at City and look how he did with that team. However, our squad is better than the one Klopp inherited at Liverpool. I can't remember what Poch inherited but I don't think it was up to much.
Put Guardiola in United from last May with this squad and give him £75m net spend and how do you think he'd do? I'd wager not as well as Klopp and Poch would. Give him the job with £250m net spend and I suspect he'd do better.
Hopefully Pep outstays Klopp.
Of course, the manager is a colossal part of a winning team, however they manage to do it. The backstage team all need to be right, the players all need to get on, and be in the right mindset, nutrition, training, individual plans, there is so much to it.
In summer 2008 Pique and Alves appear to be the main arrivals.
The next year he inherited Pedro from the B team, and brought in Ibrahimovic which didn't work out.
Next year he got in Mascherano and Villa.
The season before, Barcelona had been very narrowly defeated by Man Utd in the semi-finals of the CL, so they were already right up there as a club, even if the league season had been disappointing.
While these are fantastic players, the core of the success of the team is from the players he inherited. Of course he also breathed Barca and knew how they played and how the club operated. Of course those players wanted to stay and work with him. The point for him though is he hasn't recreated that success elsewhere in the CL, which I imagine is the challenge for him when working at such an exulted level, and the thing which has eluded him.
Who would do better with different squads is anyones guess, but for me, and I may be biased towards the Premier League, there is no doubt, that the three best managers in the world right now is in England. You can hate them or love them, but you can't neglect that they all do a fantastic job at their clubs.
I want a PL trophy more than anything else, but I don't want Guardiola to go away. I want him to stay. I want Premier League to have the best managers around. I want Premier League to be as competitive as possible.
I want a PL trophy more than anything else, but I don't want Guardiola to go away. I want him to stay. I want Premier League to have the best managers around. I want Premier League to be as competitive as possible.
Can see Pep gone quicker than Klopp. Pep will want to win the champions league first though. To that end I'm surprised he didn't sign Maguire considering he lost Kompany. Otamendi or Stones wouldn't fill you with confidence.
Good question. I think England still has an assumption that managers might stay for a decade if all goes well while the likes of Guardiola, Klopp, Zidane etc. are likely to leave when things seem to be on the decline. Guardiola did it at Barca, Klopp at Dortmund and Zidane at Real Madrid.
If City can't win the CL, I'd be surprised if Guardiola stays for more than two more seasons counting this one. Rampaging across the PL four times would surely get stressful and repetitive. On the other hand, if he wins it in that time, he may leave on a high.
I think Klopp will stay a little longer maybe 3 or 4 years. I think at that point the squad will be exhausted and there may be some sort of collapse like at Dortmund. If they win the league, he might stay league. If they keep coming short and don't win the CL again, I can't see him staying around much longer than Guardiola.
It's annoying they're the managers of our rivals as they're the two best managers in football and they're basically off the market for us.
It'll be seriously interesting when it happens.
It took Klopp 3.5 years to win a trophy. Would the United board or fans given him that time. Mourinho won trophies inside 2 years and was booted out.
Mourinho didn't win the right trophies, and his football was tumescent. And he had a complete meltdown leaving no other choice. United are not trigger happy with their managers, quite the contrary.
They would have given him time, no doubt. No trophies but EL final and LC final first year when Klopp came midseason. 4th the following season and 4th and a CL final the season after.
There would probably have been some mourning now and then going out of the domestic cups early, but they would have taken progress on the pitch and positive attacking football after LvG. Besides.. Klopp is a really likeable guy, if he is your manager.
Last edited:
I think the worst of the worst would be if Pep leaves at the end of 2020/2021 season to take a year sabbatical.
Then Klopp leaves a year after that at the end of 2021/2022 season (and take over Germany national team).
Then suddenly Pep agrees to replace Klopp at Liverpool and stay for 4 seasons. He then leaves Liverpool at the end of 2025/2026 season.
Klopp wins the Euro 2024 and World Cup 2026 and leaves the Germany national team post. Then decides to come back to Liverpool to replace Pep.
That would be having a nightmare about having a nightmare.
Then Klopp leaves a year after that at the end of 2021/2022 season (and take over Germany national team).
Then suddenly Pep agrees to replace Klopp at Liverpool and stay for 4 seasons. He then leaves Liverpool at the end of 2025/2026 season.
Klopp wins the Euro 2024 and World Cup 2026 and leaves the Germany national team post. Then decides to come back to Liverpool to replace Pep.
That would be having a nightmare about having a nightmare.
He inherited a great group of players not a great team. There is a world of diffrence between both things and it takes a genius to transform a team that has badly flopped (3d in La Liga no less) to a team that wins 6 (!) trophies over the first 16 months after the appointment.
What Pep did at Barcelona was fantastic, that's not my point, we're somewhere else - he hasn't won the CL at another club, and I imagine that he knows this is the challenge by which others may judge him.
Your reasoning relies on this point which you repeat again and again and it is quite dubious.
Given that it was a 1st season in a new country and the team had to learn new tactics it was only natural that the season wasn't a big success. However, it wasn't half as bad as you tend to portray it.
First, City won 78 pts which wasn't a huge failure given that United 99, after being managed for many years by an exceptional manager, won the league wth 79 pts. Second, City played quite well but the results didn't exactly reflect their dominance on the pitch. In terms of xG they should have won 85 pts which was 10 more than Chelsea and Spurs who finished 1st and 2nd. Note that according to the xG model (of understat) even Liverpool 2019 should have amassed only 84 pts. City won "only" 78 pts because Bravo had a shocking season and the forwards weren't as clinical as they normally are - things unrelated to tactics. Next season they scored 106 goals without adding new strikers. Third, that first season was a success in terms of the seasons that followed: it made them possible. The team won 100 pts not because Ederson and Walker did wonders but mostly because the team learned the tactics. Etc.
Last edited:
I agree with this point.
What you say about the manager being able to gel players, get them working together and towards something, it's a vital and underrated skill. In essence, they have to be mentors and teachers to young people, as well as high level bosses.
Can't see Liverpool not winning the league at least once while Klopp is there. Also City have a good chance of winning the CL while Pep is there.
To the point of the thread, I think both of these will be gone before United is back in a position to challenge them.
To the point of the thread, I think both of these will be gone before United is back in a position to challenge them.
My reasoning doesn't rely on this point at all.
My point is that other managers have proven they can win without having the best squad and most resources.
Pep hasn't.
It's that simple. Could he? Who knows.
Also, comparing the points tally of our treble winning team in 99 to the points return of a team in 2017 is completely redundant, as points returns and requirements, as well as the gap between the big teams and rest has grown so much since then. In 99 we still lived in the era of "2 points a game should get you very close to winning the title (the old theory of win your home games and draw your away games)." This has long since changed.
I think I've explained by point time and again whilst being balanced and fair to all the managers. There seems little point labouring it further. If you think Pep could win under any circumstances, fair enough, you might be right. We've seen nothing to suggest it though. If you think he could take any set of players (stylistically) and win with them, fair enough, you might be right. We've seen nothing to suggest it though.
Pep will always be criticised until he wins in less favourable circumstances. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not.
Do you think Pep would win the league if he were put in Ole's situation this summer? (crap squad, little net spend?) Personally, given his first season at City, I'm not convinced he'd get us in the top 4. I might be completely wrong. However, put Klopp in the same situation and I think he would get us in the top 4. On the flip side, give Klopp Pep's situation and would he win the domestic treble and get 100/ 98 points in consecutive seasons? Maybe. As of yet we've seen nothing to suggest it, although early signs this season suggest Klopp may get well into the 90s again despite a net spend £140m since taking over, whereas Guardiola has a net spent of more than £450m despite taking over a far more talented squad of players in the first place.
No one is doubting Pep's genius. However, they are doubting his ability to do it when the odds are against him.
Do you realise that they appointed him to manage Barca because they, especially Cruyff, were utterly impressed with his work with Barca B, i.e.with youngsters and unproven players?
He is by all accounts a very intelligent manager. The idea that he wouldn't change his tactics and would play the same way with Cardiff as he did with Barca is naive at best. It's obvious that even at City he is changing tactics. For instance, he is willing to sacrifice possession against Liverpool.
And to say that the difference betwen top and midtable teams wasn't as big in the 90's as it is now is to denigrade United 99. It was a team full with exceptional players, more so than City's first XI. How many City players, especially in 2016, would start for United 99? 3?
Look. You're not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours.
Regarding the 99 comparison, the 99 team is the greatest English team of all time in my opinion. However, until around the year 2000 the 2 points a game average was enough to put you in a title race. Nowadays it's only enough for a top 4 race. That is just fact. It's well know that the points tally needed to win the league has generally slowly increased during the Premier League era, so I'm not sure what you're disputing here? None of the points tallies we achieved in the 38 game seasons in the 90s would get you a title nowadays. In reality, with the exception of the 99/00 season (91 points in 38 games), the points tally for 7 of our first 8 PL titles wouldn't get you anywhere near a title nowadays (in 93/94, the 92 points was with 42 games). Football has changed. Doesn't diminish those teams, it's just a fact. So comparing City's points tally in 2017 with United's in 1999 is completely useless.
I asked you a question regarding Pep if he has this squad and £75m net spend, the same as Ole. How would he do? Also, you call me naive for suggesting he wouldn't change his tactics with Cardiff. I never said that. You keep adding things that I have never said (such as the bizarre Ranieri argument) to try and emphasise your point. What I do know is he was asking his defenders to do things they were incapable of doing during his first season here, and as a result they had a poor season and got stuffed 4-0 at places like Everton. He then went out and spent £200m on defenders. Some might say it's not the most skilled way of doing things. Klopp has turned perceived average players like Henderson, Milner and Wijnaldum into seeming world beaters. He's neck and neck with Pep despite having spent over £300m less and inheriting a far inferior squad. Is this diminishing Pep's achievements? No. Does it give me the right to think that Klopp's a better manager? Yes. Do you have the right to disagree? Of course.
I'm not really sure what you're even trying to demonstrate? That Pep could win the league and top prizes in all circumstances? I've already said it might be true. But there is no evidence. Until he does people will always cite it. Not my problem. If you think it's unfair, that's your right.
That's quite reasonable. I like it. And thank you for this well expressed position. I'd just say that you exaggerate this 200m spent on defenders point. Why? Because they won 18 games in a row in 2017 with Walker being the only addition to their defence from the previous season: Mendy had a bad injury and Laporte came later. What's even more impressive is that Stones was injured for most of this winning run and they had to employ Mangala (very expensive but poor) or even Fernandinho at CB (when Kompany get injured). So, they won 18 league games in a row with Walker being the only new signing there (except Ederson). For all their resources, they had to play Delph/Zinchenko at LB. When people look at the numbers about their spending, they might think that City have the current versions of Beckenbauer, Maldini, Cruyff and Ronaldo 9. In fact, they don't have such players at all and the main reason why they won 198 pts over 2 seasons is that Guardiola has done a tremendous job there. Everton have spent 500 m on new players in the last 5 years or so. Let that sink in.
United's 99 team were obviously very good but they had flaws, especially in defence. 37 goals conceded that season, & 45 the season after when you won the league again. Not forgetting that almost half your team consisted of the 'class of 92'. You might say that was down to good planning, but I'd argue that it was down to luck, basing it on the fact that you've never come remotely close to having players of the calibre of Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, & G Neville all come through your ranks at the same time since. Pep's City have never had that luxury which explains why they've had to spend as much as they have in becoming the team that they are. & it's quite obvious to everyone that there is now a significant gulf between the top 6 & the rest of the league. Far greater than it was 20 years ago. You can pretty much predict which teams will be in the top 6 this season. Outside of United, Arsenal, & possibly Chelsea, you couldn't say the same in 1999. That's not dissing United, that's just stating the obvious.
The 99 United side won the treble, no city player now would get into it because it didn't need changing.
Pep will just take over the best club in league. Or at least a rich owner who will give him money to buy the best players. So on a club level i only see him taking over the biggest in country. Like PSG with rich owner and a big spending club. Juventus. And maybe Barca again.
And of course it is about the timing. That those clubs are screaming and need a new manager. But if they are doing really well, those clubs i mentioned above. They will not need a new manager.
About Klopp. I think he suit Real Madrid football style. Real Madrid is more of Dortmund style. And contra Barca is more 433 since the earliest dutch coaches were taking over. Barca and City in the same mould. So if its a manager after Zidane and if they need a new manager at that time. RM shall go after the Klopp. Remember the RMs galaticos, who play really fast,explosive and direct football. Klopps with Dortmund and Liverpool way of playing football on ty cv. Then RM or the German nation team can be his next destinations after Liverpool.
But the athmosphere, the energy and fans. Likeness of Dortmund and Liverpool. He might likes Liverpool too much, that will keep him for long.
And in the end. Another factor is. If you think and feel you cant get more/win more of your current squad you are building. The feel the squad is on the way down. You will leave as the peak. They are not leaving after 2nd/3-4 place 2/3 seasons in a row. But again like above. It depend at the time. The need of a new manager at others biggest club in the country. Like Juventus, PSG or Barca just got sacked theirs manager and Pep just won ch.league in the same season. Then its a big big chance they will take over.
Sum up. There got to be two big factors. Themselves and the current situation with their current club and the need of a new manager somewhere else. Biggest club and nation. Some place get to want and need you. And if they have achieved everything they can do with their current club, not higher. Just keep it on the top. All those factors can make them move.
And of course it is about the timing. That those clubs are screaming and need a new manager. But if they are doing really well, those clubs i mentioned above. They will not need a new manager.
About Klopp. I think he suit Real Madrid football style. Real Madrid is more of Dortmund style. And contra Barca is more 433 since the earliest dutch coaches were taking over. Barca and City in the same mould. So if its a manager after Zidane and if they need a new manager at that time. RM shall go after the Klopp. Remember the RMs galaticos, who play really fast,explosive and direct football. Klopps with Dortmund and Liverpool way of playing football on ty cv. Then RM or the German nation team can be his next destinations after Liverpool.
But the athmosphere, the energy and fans. Likeness of Dortmund and Liverpool. He might likes Liverpool too much, that will keep him for long.
And in the end. Another factor is. If you think and feel you cant get more/win more of your current squad you are building. The feel the squad is on the way down. You will leave as the peak. They are not leaving after 2nd/3-4 place 2/3 seasons in a row. But again like above. It depend at the time. The need of a new manager at others biggest club in the country. Like Juventus, PSG or Barca just got sacked theirs manager and Pep just won ch.league in the same season. Then its a big big chance they will take over.
Sum up. There got to be two big factors. Themselves and the current situation with their current club and the need of a new manager somewhere else. Biggest club and nation. Some place get to want and need you. And if they have achieved everything they can do with their current club, not higher. Just keep it on the top. All those factors can make them move.