Name them please ?
Yep, I meant at City.
Bruno
Martinez
Ibra
Shaw
Varane
Varane might even be pushing it with his injury record, but objectively he's a good signing.
Casemiro might join the list after next season. Didn't put him in yet, because if he drastically declines next season, we'll all say it was a bad signing.
Maybe I missed someone obvious, but I think that's pretty much it. We've spent like billions and there's only like 5ish objectively good signings. Awful management.
I didn't mean to show all the transfers there, I meant to show the transfers from the traditionally biggest club. United have bought a lot of players for a lot of money from similar clubs you mention here as well.De Bruyne - Wolfsburg
Alvarez - River Platte
Bernardo - Monaco
Stones - Everton
Dias - Benfica
Laporte - Bilbao
Ake - Bourenmouth
Ederson - Benfica
Mahrez - Leicester
And the players haven’t been coached. ETH has managed to turn average players into good players in a few months. That’s what has been missing!Imo it is not that your signings are awful (minus the few obvious ones), it is that you kept changing managers, and appointed some shat managers, and hence the players bought may not fit the playing style/kept changing playing style/not in the changed managers plan.
For example, Rodri and Silva would probably look like shit under Ole too
Philips isn’t a flop, he just hasn’t been playing. A flop is someone who plays and is crap. Example is Sancho.Probably Phillips and Mendy. Either way, only 2 flops out of like 15-16 signings is insane.
Just came across this figure today, quite a shock:
Net Spend since Pep joined City:
1. Man Utd - 902m
2. Chelsea - 830m
3. City - 667m
4. Arsenal - 638m
5. West Ham - 431m
6. Spur - 427m
7. Newcastle - 380m
8. Wolves - 373m
9. Villa - 332m
10. Liverpool - 268m
Regardless whether there have been some other deals going under table for City, we have been so fecking shite in doing players transfer business.
All this tells us how shit we are at selling. But yes we’ve wasted a lot of money. From memory we’re 3rd for gross spend.Good god. Woodward should be in prison for this atrocity! And what do we have to show for it? A couple of league cups and a europa league.
Philips isn’t a flop, he just hasn’t been playing. A flop is someone who plays and is crap. Example is Sancho.
I think the amount City spent, whether it’s accurate or not, is secondary to their management and manager.
Since Sir Alex retired 10 years ago Man Utd have spent 1.2bn split across 5 different managers where as Pep alone has spent the same at City in just 7 years.
1 manager spending 1.2bn on his own players to fit his own system is always going to work out a whole lot better than 1.2bn being spent across 5 different managers with 5 different systems.
This isn't really true in regards to money spent, but either way you got to ask yourself why he managed to stay managre for seven years while our managers only last two or three years? I know people on here love to argue that he was a failure in his first season an whatnot, but you could already then see that there was something there, just a few missing pieces (or even one really). City has won the xPts every year since his arrival, quite comfortably so, they've had the highest xG every season and apart from his first season they've had the lowest xGA as well (only slightly beaten by Conte's Chelsea). While they've been high in those stats even before, it's a very clear difference before and after Guardiola. I would wager if any of our managers came in and had that kind of effect, we would give him time as well.Since Sir Alex retired 10 years ago Man Utd have spent 1.2bn split across 5 different managers where as Pep alone has spent the same at City in just 7 years.
1 manager spending 1.2bn on his own players to fit his own system is always going to work out a whole lot better than 1.2bn being spent across 5 different managers with 5 different systems.
Since Sir Alex retired 10 years ago Man Utd have spent 1.2bn split across 5 different managers where as Pep alone has spent the same at City in just 7 years.
1 manager spending 1.2bn on his own players to fit his own system is always going to work out a whole lot better than 1.2bn being spent across 5 different managers with 5 different systems.
He was brought as a squad player and that’s exactly what’s he’s doing.He doesn't play because he's crap.
He's not though really is he? Squad players general play.He was brought as a squad player and that’s exactly what’s he’s doing.
There is a reason you have had 5 managers. It's because your club couldn't see a path forward with themSince Sir Alex retired 10 years ago Man Utd have spent 1.2bn split across 5 different managers where as Pep alone has spent the same at City in just 7 years.
1 manager spending 1.2bn on his own players to fit his own system is always going to work out a whole lot better than 1.2bn being spent across 5 different managers with 5 different systems.
Philips isn’t a flop, he just hasn’t been playing. A flop is someone who plays and is crap. Example is Sancho.
It's nothing like saying that. Jones was a much bigger talent at the time.Thats like saying Mangala wasn't a flop because he never played.
It's nothing like saying that. Jones was a much bigger talent at the time.
Jones didn't get a game more often than not because he was injured.??? I'm talking about the dude saying Phillips can't be a flop cause he never gets a game.
Probably Phillips and Mendy. Either way, only 2 flops out of like 15-16 signings is insane.
There is a reason you have had 5 managers. It's because your club couldn't see a path forward with them
If you were Woodward, would you have retained Mourinho, Ole or Rangnick at the point they got fired?
If Pep ever reached that level he would have been fired too. I think every season you have finished double digits behind Pep in the league
Because the overall success of the City team is so high, people see a lot more tolerant of what is success v not.
Alvarez for example has been a real bit part player. If he'd done similar here, there's no way that'd rank as success.
Grealish for a 100m player has hardly been a world beater either.
You’re moving the goalposts. My reply was to net spend since Guardiola took over at City, not since SAF’s retirement.Since Sir Alex retired 10 years ago Man Utd have spent 1.2bn split across 5 different managers where as Pep alone has spent the same at City in just 7 years.
1 manager spending 1.2bn on his own players to fit his own system is always going to work out a whole lot better than 1.2bn being spent across 5 different managers with 5 different systems.
Moyes achieving the same success as Pep if they both had unlimited money? I mean I realize this is a United forum and so people are probably expected to shit on Pep but comeon, Moyes?Ed Woodward was pretty hopeless at dealing with the football side if the business and I doubt he knew what he was doing most of the time.
It might be an unpopular opinion but Im sure if Ed Woodward had have given Moyes an unlimited budget to buy any players he wants he would have achieved the same success at Man Utd as Pep has at City.
Because the overall success of the City team is so high, people see a lot more tolerant of what is success v not.
Alvarez for example has been a real bit part player. If he'd done similar here, there's no way that'd rank as success.
Grealish for a 100m player has hardly been a world beater either.
Don't smack them with facts. They're not quite ready yet.You’re moving the goalposts. My reply was to net spend since Guardiola took over at City, not since SAF’s retirement.
Regardless, City have spent £1.074 billion since Guardiola arrived. United have spent £1.077 billion since then. On a net basis, City have spent £478 million while United have spent £835 million.Click here for source.
Over that period, as I mentioned above, Liverpool and Chelsea both managed to beat City to the Prem and UCL among other trophies whereas United have not. And in the case of Liverpool, it’s despite spending a fraction of what either City or United spent. This tells you that spending frivolously is no guarantee of success.
If you want to talk about manager churn, then why has Chelsea been more successful than United over that period despite having Conte, Sarri, Lampard, Tuchel, and Potter. That’s 5 managers since Mourinho was at United.
You can cry foul all you like about City’s (alleged) financial doping, but the issue for United is that they are a very poorly run organization with an owner that cares more about lining their pockets and the status associated with owning one of the largest sports franchises in the world. Until that is fixed, you can spend 100x what City spend and it won’t make much of a difference in the on-field results. Other clubs have found ways to beat City despite smaller budgets.
He won 3 in a row in Spain and Germany too, i think he is the first one to do it in 3 of the biggest championships in Europe.Just became the second manager to win 3 in a row in the Premier league era, and has won 5 of the last 6. Talk about making a joke of English football.
He won 3 in a row in Spain and Germany too, i think he is the first one to do it in 3 of the biggest championships in Europe.
noHas anyone done 4 in a row?
no
united could have done 4 or 5+ in a row but replaced Ronaldo and Tevez with Owen and Valencia
he's not even the greatest coach in the league (Clopp)So Pep can become the greatest EPL coach of all time by next summer when he does 4 straight
Good god. Woodward should be in prison for this atrocity! And what do we have to show for it? A couple of league cups and a europa league.
With 1 league title in 8yrs same as Ranierihe's not even the greatest coach in the league (Clopp)
it's a miracle he even has 1 competing against a team that is breaking all the rules and can replace any dud players on a whimWith 1 league title in 8yrs same as Ranieri
Klopp might even miss top 4 this season
If Liverpool was a miracle what do we call Ranieri who by the way is coaching in Serie B currentlyit's a miracle he even has 1 competing against a team that is breaking all the rules and can replace any dud players on a whim
