Money earned by the club I think, not by a super owner. All of City’s silverware is meh because of that imo.
'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
I wouldn't rate your longest term international sponsorship with Saudi Telecom (and the longest international one in the PL) or your long standing deal with the commercial bank of Qatar as state funded petro-dollars but its good to hear you aren't a hypocrite. Most people here sweep it under the carpet.
So when you talked about Ferguson buying players in the 80s were those deals in place?
Could United have even struck such deals without the work put in during that time to make the club successful?
When did I talk about Ferguson buying players in the 80s? That was you....
"and likewise Ferguson had been carefully buying players for years and bringing through talent." - These were your words not mine. I simply asked if you think he didn't spend money what did he buy them with?
Yeah he came in 86 and bought players, replaced old ones and brought through new talent. He did this for 6 years.
Obviously all big clubs spend big, City are certainly in a privileged position especially when you consider the dross Pep brought in at the start that he was then immediately allowed to bin off and replace.
This hole pretending to be poor schtick is pathetic though, we all know you ain't so don’t give us that rubbish.
This hole pretending to be poor schtick is pathetic though, we all know you ain't so don’t give us that rubbish.
He did it for a lot more than 6 years though... Doesn't belittle his achievements at all. He had a great knack of bringing through youth, keeping the core of his better players strong and buying in players to compliment them/lead them when needs be. RVP being the most recent example. That's not a dig, its the reality of what he did. I just thought your comment was funny.
Go and have a look at your own clubs spending in the 90s and 00s...as has been said we were the biggest spenders only twice through those years, I think we outspent you’re club in 7? Seasons in that time and you weren’t even in the same division as us in four of them. In short United have spent money they earned and have always been run as a football club, in the same sense as every other club in the league, we spent similarly, we spent better and were better run. That’s how football should be. Since your takeover you haven’t been run like a football club spending within your means or spending money you’ve earned.....so what really, if you can do it and get away with it....who cares enjoy it. I know I wouldn’t care too much if it were United, even if I did I couldn’t change it so why not enjoy it. It’s when City fans try to convince the world its only what United have done in the 90s...that’s pathetic, what you did in the 90’s and 00’s was what United did and to deny that is just bitter.
What has my clubs spending to do with anything? I can do if you want but I think you'll see we had very few players on record lists compared to United.
Where have I said you were the biggest spenders? I've often said you had loads of money and made bigger transfers (which are both true) but not once have I said you were the biggest spenders.
Made the biggest transfers before Chelsea and City? Absolutely, spent the most money? I never said that.
In fact I believe Liverpool were the biggest spenders in the 90's iirc and Chelsea in the early 2000's, City afterwards. But you guys consistently brought in massive transfers 90% of the league couldn't afford.
Like I said not a dig, I've also never once compared your spending to ours (for one we have different approaches we buy lots of players at high but not record prices whereas Sir Alex would buy one or two players for huge money to compliment what he had.). Something thats continued today. City still haven't made a purchase nearly as expensive as Pogba or Slabhead. Very different policies, I've also never said there was anything wrong with United transfer policy under Sir Alex, in fact it was nigh on perfect.
What has record list got to do with anything ? We spent comparably with the rest of the league and very comparably to City. We bought players we needed but we never needed lots of players. Perhaps if City bought better or had a decent academy back then, they wouldn’t have need to buy quantity and rather could buy quality, which costs more.
I really don’t get the point of pointing to individual players and saying they cost xyz because we spent within a similar budget to most other clubs, which is the point really.
The point standing that what we did was similar to other clubs, because we were and remain a football club, run as a football club. There were consequences to poor purchases, or big signings. You’d always see us spend big every 3/4 years then pad the squad in other seasons.
I never said you didnt. Read back.
He’s not cracking. He’s happy, he’s so happy.
Happy, so, so, happy. Nobody gets as wired as Pep, he does make me chuckle sometimes.
As the saying goes, you spend to your means.
Its the legitimacy of those ‘means’ that’s in question.
Let’s have it right, United worked our way up inch by inch with no rich owners, in fact we’ve done it in spite of leaching owners not because of them... Painstakingly so, until we reached the top and stayed there, accumulating our own wealth -therefore any money we spent was our own hard earned money.
So you won’t find any shame in that spending here. Neither would we expect City fans to be ashamed if they had done it the same way and we’re spending what they are now.
It’s not like we were languishing around relegation and then all of a sudden started having the means to outspend everybody...
I don’t know what I enjoy more, watching City lose or Guardiola interviews after
Nobody gets as wired as Pep, he does make me chuckle sometimes.
How many expensive defenders does it take to change a light bulb?
As many as you like until you find one that fits.
As many as you like until you find one that fits.
This whole "earned by the club" thing was always a bit weird though.
Adidas and Chevrolet think it's a good idea to give money to United for their own commercial purposes. Sheikh Mansour thought it was a good idea to give money to City for his own, mostly PR, purposes. I don't see why one is inherently morally superior to the other.
If someone says that oil-rich nation states injecting unlimited funds into a football club is terrible for competition, then I agree. But this "earned it" thing is weird.
Well earning something based on achievement is usually a good thing. The same way it is better to be a self made millionaire than to have it handed to you by your mummy and daddy.
Whole thread's based on a false premise. Guardiola had it put in his contract that he cannot be sacked.
Those press conferences had real Mourinho vibes about them, with a touch of Kevin Keegan. Mourinho was right for a change, if they were innocent they wouldn't have been fined.
They were finded for being innocent?
The difference between Jose's, Klopp & Ole's press conferences tells us all we need to know about where the Glazers want to be. They're quite happy to play a bit part in the League as long as the money keeps coming in.
Pep insults SAF & the club. When asked for a comment Ole says he doesn't want to get involved. Everybody knows what a good relationship SAF & Ole have. SAF was likely instrumental in Ole getting the job in the first place. I don't believe that Ole would have allowed Pep's comments to go unchallenged. I think it's much more likely he's been told not to offer any comment by the Glazers as they don't want to be seen as rocking the boat.
We can forget about a League Title for quite some time if these guys don't grow a backbone.
Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated - they were fined for something completely different than they would've been banned for...
Their fine had nothing to do with the banning charges.
Yeah, sure, but what achievement? If we get a world record sponsorship deal once the Chevrolet deal expires, will that be based on achievement? I mean we've been more or less shite for seven years now - how long are achievements relevant? Because City did win the league back in 1968 so maybe they deserve it based on that achievement? Is there a cut-off point?
The actual reality is that Chevrolet or Adidas don't care what we earned or didn't earn - they give us that money because they think it's beneficial for them. And these days we are at a stage when footballing success isn't actually that important to this, as our own CEO confirmed once upon a time. For example, Arsenal's commercial revenue keeps increasing despite becoming a worse and worse football team.
All English clubs continue getting richer and richer overall - and what did they do for that? They happen to be located in a country where people are willing and able to pay ludicrous amounts of money for a Sky Sports subscription. That's about it. Did all these clubs earn that financial superiority over, say, French clubs? I don't really think so. Any discussion about who earned what and who deserves what in football is an incredibly murky one.
It’s not really something that football fans should be bragging about that much I agree. I would still argue it’s better than being handed a bottomless pit of cash that has no consequences if it is squandered.
The Premier League’s worth goes way beyond it being based in the UK. Most of the TV money comes from outside the UK. There’s nothing stopping the French League from being as watchable as the Premier League. Did all Premier League clubs earn that? No. A small few made it such a big commodity.
Of course it did.
Eh? What does him not responding to Pep's comments have to do with challenging for the league?
Most recent data I could find on this was from 2019: according to that, 46% of TV rights revenue is from overseas. So it's still a minority.
The Premier League's success story did absolutely start with UK subscriptions and a hyperfocus on commercialisation. You could say that the latter does constitute some form of "merit" but as you say, that's really only down to a select few clubs (a select few businesspeople, really).
As for the bottomless pit of cash: I've already said multiple times that it's bad for the competition and I hate that it's a thing. It's just that I don't think that whether it's "deserved" or not is relevant.
Yeah I think I read it wrong and got the numbers the wrong way round. I don’t disagree particularly, it’s a stupid thing to get hung up on. The much bigger issue is volume of money spent and how often.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers found something and a loophole and it was agreed that the ban would be uplifted but it would cost the £10m fine which can be spun.
UEFA spun the £10m fine by saying they didn't co-operate with the investigation, huge money for not co-operating.
Bit late for the relevant conversation, but Pep pratting on about Fergie’s spending reminded me of my favourite football fact:
In the ten years between the appointment of Sir Alex Ferguson and the end of the 95/96 season, City spent more on transfers than United did. That season, of course, ended with United's third league title (and second double) in four years, and City getting relegated.
City then spent £11,000,000 on players over the following two seasons, which ended up with them getting relegated again.
In the ten years between the appointment of Sir Alex Ferguson and the end of the 95/96 season, City spent more on transfers than United did. That season, of course, ended with United's third league title (and second double) in four years, and City getting relegated.
City then spent £11,000,000 on players over the following two seasons, which ended up with them getting relegated again.
He's escaped criticism for buying a £50m back up fullback this year hasn't he? I forgot Cancelo plays for them.
Clearly he needs a few hundred million for more defenders. How can he compete otherwise?
Madrid will have more than a chance
Deserves to be sacked
This is one of those moments where I'd love it for Pep to moan and have someone go to Jose for a response.
I think he would have quit if the 2-year ban was upheld.
The guy likes to run away from competition.
The guy likes to run away from competition.