Everton and Villa were also pretty big clubs back then weren’t they? Obviously they still are big clubs but I believe they challenged for trophies in the 80s/early 90s.
Pep Guardiola | Leaving City: Official
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have a new competition (with tagline and award as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit your predictions. Submissions will be open for the next 21 hours, 2 minutes, 13 seconds, and will close on Sep 12, 2026 at 15:00.
Actually the style was invented by Rinus Michels, Cruyff just took the credit for it.
Cheat as a player and cheat as a manager.
Everton had more league titles than man utd in '92. They were also part of the old big 5. Which was, everton, liverpool, Man Utd, arse and spurs.
Seems like those days are gone forever for everton, though. 40!! years without a League title and not even a sniff. doubtful they will get close in the next 40, tbh.
I should say among those, yet you get the gist...as aside note, many times extremely popular Clubs, huge ones are not the ones with more titles, but then thing it's that precisly because United as a Club and Fergie as Manager got the better hand of the new situation, it's why they were so succesful.
A really good Everton side were also denied a shot at the European Cup because of their neighbours.
Everton was among the Clubs that dictated the new rules when the EPL was created
I don't think you can really compare that. I don't want to get deep into this argument but there's no doubt in in my mind, that true City "wage bill" and "transfer spending" are quite different from what is reported.
Yeah, the club can't. But people can. If you pay in cash 30% or 40% of the transfer fee to an agent, the money will find its way to the people making decisions on the other side of the trade.
I don't think that point really responds to @Fobal argument. He's right that the other big clubs at the time did support United's proposal to keep revenue within the PL and not share down the divisions. Everton was considered a big club then and they won a league in the 80s. Tottenham was another and they had consistent top 3-4 finishes in the 80s as did Forest and Villa as well, all of which, if I remember, supported locking in PL revenue. All of these clubs, whether they won a league in the 90s or not, believed at the time of PL creation in 1992 that they would be locking in a financial advantage over future lower division challenges. I don't think anyone in 1991-92 would have predicted how dominant Ferguson's United would become and then how Wenger would make it mostly a two team league race by the late 90s.
I am still hyper critical of Chelsea and City changing the league f nancially but its not a totally invalid point to bring up for context. Then there is the old 1919 controversy with Arsenal as well. But I don't think it excuses or makes what Roman and City's state sponsored owners did okay in any way, but I do think context here is relevant.
Only if he they are hit with losing titles and huge points deduction which looks highly unlikely, otherwise he will forever be talked in high regards
When Pep joined, City already had Aguero, Yaya Toure, Kompany, David Silva, De Bruyne and Sterling.
Pep has won 6 titles in 10 years at City. Yes, you can put an asterisk against all 6.
But truth is, if he’d been United manager for the last decade, he’d have probably won at least 4.
But truth is, if he’d been United manager for the last decade, he’d have probably won at least 4.
None of that changes that he needs almost unlimited funds to be successful.
Yeah and we didn't have the funds to build his team
To be fair that is not true, the club has spent a fortune, it just so happens that it was wasted year after year.
No, because at United, if we make a dud signing, we're stuck with it. At City he could just stick them on the bench and spend another 300 million next window without having to even think about it.
He needs that blank cheque cheat code to win. Not to mention if he was here over the last decade, he'd have to work under that useless git Woodward, rather than having the luxury of working under his Barca buddies like he did at City.
He'd have absolutely failed here.
Last edited:
Bang on there, that was the point I tried to make above
I think everything these days players and managers are being hailed ''the greatest'' or ''the GOAT''. It really annoys me. The modern era is not the only era that ever existed. The majority of people can't talk about Ronaldo without Messi being mentioned and vice versa. The same with a goal, a great goal gets labelled ''the greatest goal of all time?!''. Arsenal winning the league, are they better than the Invincibles?? It's ludicrous everything being labelled as the best or the greatest. Why does anytime something big and newsworthy happens, does it have to be compared to other things and labelled with the best?
In my eyes, Klopp was a better manager if we are talking the last 10 years. Pep clearly dominated and he deserves all the credit but he did it with a lot of help and Pep doesn't deny that.
I think it stems from the media, all they want is views and clicks and people talking. And we all eat it up.
In my eyes, Pep is a great manager - there is no denying that.
I don't even think it should be a debate of who's the greatest even if I find it silly.
Nobody has come close to achieving what Ferguson has, anyway. No other manager has done that.
The other thing, I see people talking about if he was at United. United didn't have the infrastructure and cheque book that interests him and there's no way he could cope with not being the best, he has no patience when things go wrong.
In my eyes, Klopp was a better manager if we are talking the last 10 years. Pep clearly dominated and he deserves all the credit but he did it with a lot of help and Pep doesn't deny that.
I think it stems from the media, all they want is views and clicks and people talking. And we all eat it up.
In my eyes, Pep is a great manager - there is no denying that.
I don't even think it should be a debate of who's the greatest even if I find it silly.
Nobody has come close to achieving what Ferguson has, anyway. No other manager has done that.
The other thing, I see people talking about if he was at United. United didn't have the infrastructure and cheque book that interests him and there's no way he could cope with not being the best, he has no patience when things go wrong.
Klopp was definitely a better manager. He won trophies with Liverpool and kept them competitive year after year against the Abu Dhabi cheating machine, and he did it all without a blank chequebook and having to get the absolute best out of what he had.
100%. This is all fact so I don't actually see how it's a question. And I can't understand why all the media have to pose the question whether he's the greatest. But as I said, what annoys me is that it's for everything! Anytime something big happens.
the public glazing is pretty nauseating. I mean, I get it, and I certainly expected it ... but I don't think you can talk about Pep's City tenure without the 115 charges. I just don't see how you can separate them, and to me, his trophies will always come with an asterisk. Can't argue he was unaware of anything shady either.
Good riddance.
Good riddance.
Exactly
Sadly it will be in full force until he has left the club
Just have zero respect for the guy, or anything he's done at City.
Hopefully he doesn't see himself as some sort of pundit, and he vanishes for a good few years.
Hopefully he doesn't see himself as some sort of pundit, and he vanishes for a good few years.
Do you not think part of the reason there was a lot less duds at City was because they were playing for a really good manager? Great managers make players better.
City can go feck themselves and his success there is tainted by association, but he’s still a supremely talented manager. If you can’t see that or accept it, I can’t help you.
Turns out that turkeys do vote for xmas!
Actually was invented by Jack Reynolds and the Magnificent Magyars. Michels just took the credit for it.
Leaving city as manager to become its global ambassador (side job)
And to manage Yoker FC (main job)
And to manage Yoker FC (main job)
No its because they have a proper structure in place above the manager that ensures that the right players are signed for his system
Except it's really not like that. United have continously disposed of poor signings during the past 10 years. The difference is that United's strike rate of good signings have probably been close to the rate of bad signings for Man City. And if United had Guardiola instead of other managers I'm willing to bet whatever signings we would have made would have been percieved a lot better than the signings we actually made.
"Pep Pep, I know you've got tae get your Citeh payout, but the Abu Dhabi's always gonnae be there. But this on the other hand, is a wance in a lifetime oppurtunity. Go for it".
I've always wanted to go to Yoker. Is there a bus that runs that way?
Not really, Rinus Michels took most of his ideas from Vic Buckingham, who managed West Brom, Barca & Ajax. He took his ideas from Jimmy Hogan who took his ideas from the combination game which has it's roots in Sheffield in the late 19th century.
So for football to come full circle Pep needs fo bring Sheffield Utd or Sheffield Wednesday back to the top of English football.
He's talented, so long as he has the absolute best in class to work with. Which will always make him a tier below the likes of Sir Alex, Klopp, Mourinho etc.
I don't really see the argument that Klopp is better than him.
People keep talking about best in class, but for me, I think Liverpool had better individual players than City did from 2018 to 2022.
People keep talking about best in class, but for me, I think Liverpool had better individual players than City did from 2018 to 2022.
I think in terms of achieving more with what he had
I disagree with that, when the PL was created it could have been easily created in a way that the individual clubs owned their own TV rights, like Barcelona and Real Madrid did until a few years ago, United, Liverpool & Arsenal were against that, but those 3 teams would have benefited enormously to tyhe detriment of everyone else had they gone down that route
I don’t think Klopp has that claim either, but I think if you look at the pool of players City had those years, and the pool Klopp had as his disposal, Guardiola was spoilt for goods. If you look at Liverpool’s catered to stars like Salah, Mane and Van Dijk, it stands well up to City key players Rodri, De Bruyne and Bernardo Silva. But if you look at City’ breadth and depth, just in 19/20 they had Otamendi, Stones, Garcia, Laporte, Walker, Cancelo, Mendy and Zinchenko sharing the load in defence, Gündogan and Fernandinho doubling in CM, Mahrez, Foden, David Silva, Sterling, Agüero and Gabriel Jesus in attack.
In that plethora, you have players who were second/third choices at City going on to be first choices at Arsenal (Zinchenko and Jesus) and Barca (Garcia), a recent PL champion key player (Mahrez) and a World Champion key player to come (Otamendi), a player at his prime who in his development was a star player at Liverpool (Sterling), a player at his prime who after a hefty decline still plays CL QF and is a league winner for Barca (Cancelo).
Klopp to a higher degree had to make what he had work optimally, Guardiola had so much to chose from to adapt to his ideal football.
I still think Guardiola is the best, and I’m quite sure Klopp would have won less with City in his place, but I also think it likely that Guardiola would have done less with Liverpool than Klopp did.
The truth is, if he’d been a United manager for the last decade, he’d have probably left within two seasons.