Pep's spending is insane (£941m and counting at City)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
He’s like that spoilt rich kid at the toy store who always wants whatever some other kid is looking at and throws a tantrum when he doesn’t get it. City are like the parents who always give in out of “love”.
They were.
The revisionism over Guardiola's time at Barcelona is mind-boggling. No one at the time of his appointment predicted the 3 years of dominance that followed. The team were a few months removed from an embarrassing 4-0 drinking at the Bernabau following a guard of honor for a mediocre Real Madrid.
But somehow, the transformation 12 months later happened in spite of Guardiola. Right.
I blame that cartoon that floated around the internet a few years ago.
Agreed.
and that's what makes this version of Pep so disappointing. He has turned into a mindless chequebook manager whereas at Barcelona he always used to look at academy for options.
United sell papers and get clicks, City don't. Simple as.
My editor told us a few months ago to stop writing so much about City as people weren't reading the stories.
If you look at the analytics of articles which do well online (and I have, extensively), the list of most popular clubs probably runs as follows:
1. United
2. Liverpool
3. Arsenal
4. Chelsea
5. Tottenham
6. Everton
7. Newcastle
8. City
So editors don't really give a shit about City spending such ridiculous money. And you've also got to remember that Guardiola is a media darling and Mourinho isn't, so it fits the journalists' prejudices to twist the narrative.
The amount of times I've called City out on their spending in the office has been shouting down is untrue. Even people who've written about football for years seem to think it doesn't matter where the money comes from, or how much is spent. A lot of people seem to actually think the Glazers put money into United like Mansour does!
My editor told us a few months ago to stop writing so much about City as people weren't reading the stories.
If you look at the analytics of articles which do well online (and I have, extensively), the list of most popular clubs probably runs as follows:
1. United
2. Liverpool
3. Arsenal
4. Chelsea
5. Tottenham
6. Everton
7. Newcastle
8. City
So editors don't really give a shit about City spending such ridiculous money. And you've also got to remember that Guardiola is a media darling and Mourinho isn't, so it fits the journalists' prejudices to twist the narrative.
The amount of times I've called City out on their spending in the office has been shouting down is untrue. Even people who've written about football for years seem to think it doesn't matter where the money comes from, or how much is spent. A lot of people seem to actually think the Glazers put money into United like Mansour does!
Thanks for the clarification. I should've added that i somewhat remember O'Shea being a jack of all trades at that point, but i would never have recalled Brown being a starter at right back.
So if comparing the spending of managers solely during the time he has been active, for some reason inflation needs to be considered. Why? From day one he became a manager until now, spending totals in that time only, why? Please explain this 'math' to me.
You know they won the champions league in 2006 and lost la Liga on goal difference in 07, got to champions league semi final in 2008 and at that time messi was about to explode. Not discrediting what he did but it's hardly a championship manager fairytale.
i'm hearing about a lad called jadon sancho that's started last couple of games for dortmund and has impressed
I never thought it possible but maybe with Saint Pep's spendings the arabs might actually run out of money.
I can't speak for certain regarding Pep & the Barca boys but Ferguson had to work his bollocks off to make the class of 92 happen, it didn't just fall into his lap. The amount of hours spend scouting for local talent, getting Giggs from Man City, Beckham from London, Scholes despite his size, he deserves all the credit, along with his staff.
Basically if Big Ron had still been Utd manager then the class of '92 would never have happened. I might be guessing but Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets would probably still have been majorly successful at Barca even if Pep never became manager.
He's not just spending but winning too so it's not like its bad spending but does show he's a bit of an overrated coach.
They wouldn't let him spend if they didn't have the money. It's not like the Arabs arent earning from other businesses
Pep bankrupts a country?
Also, any argument from rival fans that "United have spent lots of money themselves" is missing the point that we are only spending money that we have earned through football activities, living within our means (in fact our owners take money OUT in interest and dividends) whereas City's spending is nearly all money pumped in by their owner and his associates
Simple example. Using Excel-fu.
Let's say manager A and manager B start their careers in 2008. They both spend 20 million over 10 years. Assume inflation of 5%.
Manager A spends 5 million in years 1, 4, 7 and 10.
Manager B spends 1 million in year 1, 2 in year 4, 3 in year 7, and 14 in year 10.
Adjusted for inflation, manager A's total spend is 25.2 million. Manager B's total spend is 21.7 million.
Total transfer sums over decades are meaningless. Saying Pep has spent more this season than Ferguson is an indication of how inflated things are in the football market, not an indictment on Pep. Normalize the numbers and if Pep is still ahead by a significant amount, I'll concede the point.
Why are you wasting your time
It's like calling Donald trump a genius for being rich and the US president, even though he got a 'small loan of $1m' to start off.
Certain football fans will bend over for anyone that plays in a way that gets them excited. Basically ignoring anything and everything that goes against their belief in that style of play.
In real life most people would dislike these type of managers; that have a silver spoon in their mouth; and use their advantages to dominate people with lesser resources. But in football they are the second coming of Jesus Christ.
who knows, stranger things have happen and countires have gone broke before in history.
If having that level of scrutiny then you need to factor in the jobs they were at , level,of squad they had and many more variables. Do a year vs year comparison then. Or, If you don't like a broad point fair enough but it's reasonable to compare his spend to other top managers over the same time frame. How just use the last 18 months then
Or if against comparison altogether for those reasons, how about just looking at him solely, and accepting he is an absolute spending machine that simply can't achieve success without insane outlays of money or the best player ever in the form of his life. Thees just no way around the fact he is just out of control with spending, excel or not
Pep over money.
I don't see what the big deal is with their spending, they are entitled to do so as they meet FFP regulations. If they keep Pep and the group of players they will be close to untouchable.
Only because the current FFP has loopholes which clubs are able to exploit. I guess the next version will definitely test their spending ability.
I agree there is no way City are legitimately spending within there means, but if they are finding loopholes who can blame them. The thing is if FFP was to come in and do what its supposed to do United would have a massive advantage over most clubs in the world.
Just heard that Aguero has a case of the 24hour sniffles, quick, put in a £300m bid in for Harry Kane pronto!!
Then do that then. Don't be lazy.
Or be lazy, for banter purposes. I was 10 posts deep before I realized this thread is an industrial WUMming machine. The time I've spent on this nonsense...
You could pick the last 12 months, but you'd be contradicting yourself saying above you need to factor in the squad level, and so on...Do a year vs year comparison then. Or, If you don't like a broad point fair enough but it's reasonable to compare his spend to other top managers over the same time frame. How just use the last 18 months then
I have no problem admitting that the bolded applies to every top manager in the game today.
City are outspending United despite being a fraction of the financial force. This is because they can cook up sponsorship deals using the influence of their owners. City are backed by a nation; so sponsors are not actually sponsoring the football club; they are sponsoring the nation.
feck... I got the tag.
Can I get another one saying "contrarian bastard"?
Can I get another one saying "contrarian bastard"?
I totally agree.
I think you are far too optimistic. If United were to even start doing what they were you can bet your bottom bollox that the rules would change quick time.
Why do you think that?
Genuine mind blowing bias. Not even going to begin that absurd discussion about the squad he inherited, and no, the rate guardiola is spending is exclusive to him.
Also I'm not justifying an initial post to you if you deem it lazy. As a broader statement is perfectly acceptable to make it and if you don't think so then every single post you've ever made on this forum is redundant , and I can say that without checking. Or do we only ever need to explore every nuance in absurd length when we risk upsetting the guardiola babies?
Ha exactly. Fergie took over at Aberdeen, had the likes of Mark McGhee as his main forward. While Pep takes over Barca with Messi.If having that level of scrutiny then you need to factor in the jobs they were at , level,of squad they had and many more variables. Do a year vs year comparison then. Or, If you don't like a broad point fair enough but it's reasonable to compare his spend to other top managers over the same time frame. How just use the last 18 months then
With the squad's that Pep has had, his spending has been even more ridiculous.
Were United mate. The exception to every rule
Because we do things by the book like Arsenal and Spurs and pool so it would be impossible to hide the fact we were getting money from a state.
The guardiola thing is unprecedented. Even when mourinho was at Chelsea first and worship was nauseating it was nothing like this. This is **** likeWhy are you wasting your time
It's like calling Donald trump a genius for being rich and the US president, even though he got a 'small loan of $1m' to start off.
Certain football fans will bend over for anyone that plays in a way that gets them excited. Basically ignoring anything and everything that goes against their belief in that style of play.
In real life most people would dislike these type of managers; that have a silver spoon in their mouth; and use their advantages to dominate people with lesser resources. But in football they are the second coming of Jesus Christ.
So Pep's year with the B team where he trained the likes of Pedro and Busquets for a year, I presume he didn't work his bollocks off either? Just picked eleven players to play every week and that was it. Again, Messi, Xavi, Iniesta are all fantastic talents, but Pep developed them and created the perfect system for them.
Yeah but if those academy options at Barcelona were not good enough then he would have turned to the transfer market as well. Majority of his spending has been on the defence, and as I've pointed out there is no denying our defence needed vast improvement. Our most promising youth talents in that area were Maffeo, Angelino, and Adarabioyo. Maffeo has suggested in his time at Girona that he could be good enough, and I'd expect him to be given a chance next season. Angelino has not done anything on his loan spells to suggest he deserves a chance yet, and Adarabioyo has played games and while he's clearly decent he's not good enough to be playing regularly for us, unfortunately.
If at the end of his tenure he's not given talents like Brahim Diaz and Phil Foden a fair chance then I'll be annoyed and he merits criticism. As of now, I do not feel we've had, with the exception of Maffeo perhaps, players who he should have given a chance to who he hasn't.
I jus do not understand at all, how people can't say, I think guardiola is an incredible manager etc etc etc, but yes, he seems to be heavily reliant on unprecedented levels of spending.
You don't have to hate him to accept he has never challenged himself and in the case where he was making an arse of a job he went even more money crazy
The whole FFP stuff is bullshit anyways, in many ways.
Firstly, it was obvious clubs/owners would find use complex financial deals to circumvent its limitations... or otherwise bribe the easily corruptible football authorities to not look their way. Secondly, form the start of it, it stank of protectionism with grand old clubs worried that clubs with new money would surpass them. This FFP 2.0 even more so.
When in fact the only things that should matter are:
a) is the money used legal/clean and
b) is the money "given" from owners' companies as sponsorships or whatever...or are they loaned to them. I.e. is the club and its finances heavily leveraged and a club at risk of financial failure when the loans need to be repaid or not.
So long as the above are good, I don't care what happens. It's a free market. If Jeff Bezos decides to buy Rotherham United and sink 3-4 billion into making them the biggest team in the world that's his prerogative and his money.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a feck how much City or PSG spend. I'm only concerned with how much we can spend and it's safe to say it's enough to be able to be competitive.
Firstly, it was obvious clubs/owners would find use complex financial deals to circumvent its limitations... or otherwise bribe the easily corruptible football authorities to not look their way. Secondly, form the start of it, it stank of protectionism with grand old clubs worried that clubs with new money would surpass them. This FFP 2.0 even more so.
When in fact the only things that should matter are:
a) is the money used legal/clean and
b) is the money "given" from owners' companies as sponsorships or whatever...or are they loaned to them. I.e. is the club and its finances heavily leveraged and a club at risk of financial failure when the loans need to be repaid or not.
So long as the above are good, I don't care what happens. It's a free market. If Jeff Bezos decides to buy Rotherham United and sink 3-4 billion into making them the biggest team in the world that's his prerogative and his money.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a feck how much City or PSG spend. I'm only concerned with how much we can spend and it's safe to say it's enough to be able to be competitive.
Not read most of the comments here but it's comical if people still defend pep for his spending. He is no youth developer, he is like a spoilt child in a candy shop . So sane gets injured and he cannot wait to spend more. Why cannot he play Phil foden in some matches till sane and jesus come back? This is why i say he would not have been a successful at Liverpool or arsenal. No way he would have been able to spend so much there.
Ok boss. If you say so.
You're free to say whatever you deem correct. As I'm perfectly free to call you out when your logic is faulty or non-existent.
But happy chatting.
Ok let's leave it there, only it's not just if I say so. NOBODY is spending more.
City currently have four players for front three positions, Sterling, Sane, Jesus and Aguero, five if you include B. Silva, out of which two are injured. Hardly great depth, so i to an extent don't understand the whole uproar over potential Mahrez transfer.