One thing is for sure. Pep picks his "projects" very well. He takes on already strong squads and still invests heavily.
Pep's spending is insane (£941m and counting at City)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I suspect that's why their player retention is so good.
Look at Girona and Peps brother. Looks dodgy as feck to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions
Could it be extra curricular benefits for Pep working with City? Do these types of benefits also apply to players?
It's a great formula tbh. He gives himself the biggest chances of winning silverware which increases his CV and improves his future contracts.
He is the smartest of the lot. He would never have joined United, heck if rumors are to be believed he rejected Chelsea's job as he did not fancy working for Roman. He knows which project to pick and which to stay away from. I won't be even surprised if he retires from management soon. Maybe Juve could be his next destination and that's it for management. He may work in other roles for Barcelona but I cannot see him managing for long.
Then he delivers results as well the best football in the world, so that clubs who have those type of resources are tripping over themselves to sign him.
Still like to give himself a real challenge one day.
If you take inflation into account, Mourinho's spending in his first tenure at Chelsea is far more insane. He was outspending his closest rivals by 2-3x
Why? His challenge is to win as much as possible by playing the best football in the world.
Best football in the world is highly subjective. For example, I find the possession style of play very boring to watch.
Can also be seen as Chelsea has 3(4) managers from that list
Mourinho Ancelotti, Ranieri, (Benitez)
or Bayern having 2 Pep and Carlo
It would show he’s more that just a chequebook manager if he could do it without being at the richest club in each league buying until he gets its right or has the worlds best player in his team already.
Show that to who? Why would he care what some random bloke on the internet thinks, and leave 10s of millions on the table to take a job at a poorer club? He's not a complete idiot.
Probably doesn’t care but I know I respect someone like fergie who started off at East Stirlingshire than someone whose 3 jobs are Barca, Bayern and Abu Dhabi FC
Last edited:
He needs to get sacked from City and the next big club foolish enough to hire him, up until where he becomes damaged goods. Then he can go to a small club and prove himself.
Yep, the raw numbers are pointless. If you want to make a statement about normal or exceptional a team's or manager's spending is, the absolute values, even adjusted for inflation, don't tell the real story. We need to relate the spending to that of other teams per each season in the time frame of comparison to arrive at a conclusion on how much the manager or team in question relied on money to get an advantage over the contemporary opposition.
In the last few years City routinely outspent many rivals, but by what percentage, and how do previous spending sprees of other teams compare to that? I'd be very interested in 2004 Chelsea as a point of comparison, and then there are several other teams who spent big for their time (Blackburn?). Now if someone had the data and tons of time...
I did between 2004 and 2007 when Mourinho was at his first Chelsea gigYep, the raw numbers are pointless. If you want to make a statement about normal or exceptional a team's or manager's spending is, the absolute values, even adjusted for inflation, don't tell the real story. We need to relate the spending to that of other teams per each season in the time frame of comparison to arrive at a conclusion on how much the manager or team in question relied on money to get an advantage over the contemporary opposition.
In the last few years City routinely outspent many rivals, but by what percentage, and how do previous spending sprees of other teams compare to that? I'd be very interested in 2004 Chelsea as a point of comparison, and then there are several other teams who spent big for their time (Blackburn?). Now if someone had the data and tons of time...
Chelsea 395.4M
Man Utd 137M
Liverpool 169.1M
Arsenal 83.8M
All figures from transfermarkt
https://www.transfermarkt.us/chelse...31/plus/0?saison_id=2006&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=
https://www.transfermarkt.us/manche...85/plus/0?saison_id=2006&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=
https://www.transfermarkt.us/arsena...11/plus/0?saison_id=2006&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=
All data from transfermarktYep, the raw numbers are pointless. If you want to make a statement about normal or exceptional a team's or manager's spending is, the absolute values, even adjusted for inflation, don't tell the real story. We need to relate the spending to that of other teams per each season in the time frame of comparison to arrive at a conclusion on how much the manager or team in question relied on money to get an advantage over the contemporary opposition.
In the last few years City routinely outspent many rivals, but by what percentage, and how do previous spending sprees of other teams compare to that? I'd be very interested in 2004 Chelsea as a point of comparison, and then there are several other teams who spent big for their time (Blackburn?). Now if someone had the data and tons of time...
In 04/05 :
Total PL spend was €505.8m
Chelsea spent : €166.4m (32.8%)
Arsenal spent : €12.5m (2.5%)
Man Utd spent : €61.2m (12.1%)
Liverpool spent : €58.4 m (11.5%)
In 05/06 :
Total PL spend was €501m
Chelsea spent : €91.5m (18.3%)
Arsenal spent : €46m (9.1%)
Man Utd spent : €31.8m (6.3%)
Liverpool spent : €46.0 m (9.2%)
In 06/07 :
Total PL spend was €541m
Chelsea spent : €88.9m (16.4%)
Arsenal spent : €15m (2.7%)
Man Utd spent : €27.2m (5%)
Liverpool spent : €46m (8.5%)
In 07/08 :
Total PL spend was €936m (Man City got their first billionaire owner)
Chelsea spent : €59m (6%)
Arsenal spent : €30.1m (3.2%)
Man Utd spent : €104m (11%)
Liverpool spent : €90.7m (9.7%)
Chelsea spent more than Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal (the big 4) combined
I always find it funny how people want Pep to go to Burnley to prove himself. I mean why should he. He has proven to be a smart employee and why would he want to change that.
16/17
Total PL Spend : £1.49bn
Man City spent : £192m (12.3%)
Man Utd spent : £166.5m (11.1%)
Liverpool spent : £71.9m (4.8%)
Chelsea spent : £119.5m (8%)
Totenham spent : £75.15m (5%)
Arsenal spent : £101.74m (6.8%)
17/18
Total PL Spend : £1.95bn
Man City spent : £285.75m (14.7%)
Man Utd spent : 178.6m (9.1%)
Liverpool spent : £156.5m (8%)
Chelsea spent : £234.5m (12%)
Totenham spent : £109.3m (5.6%)
Arsenal spent : £137.5m (7%)
18/19
Total PL Spend : £1.48bn
Man City spent : £70.73m (4.9%)
Man Utd spent : £74.43m (5%)
Liverpool spent : £163.9m (11.1%)
Chelsea spent : £189m (12.7%)
Totenham spent : £0
Arsenal spent : £72.14m (4.9%)
19/20
Total PL Spend : £1.39bn
Man City spent : £151.2m (10.8%)
Man Utd spent : £143.1m (10.3%)
Liverpool spent : £1.7m (<1%)
Chelsea spent : £40.5m - says for Kovacic (3.2%)
Totenham spent : £102.5m (7.3%)
Arsenal spent : £137.2m (9.9%)
Total PL Spend : £1.49bn
Man City spent : £192m (12.3%)
Man Utd spent : £166.5m (11.1%)
Liverpool spent : £71.9m (4.8%)
Chelsea spent : £119.5m (8%)
Totenham spent : £75.15m (5%)
Arsenal spent : £101.74m (6.8%)
17/18
Total PL Spend : £1.95bn
Man City spent : £285.75m (14.7%)
Man Utd spent : 178.6m (9.1%)
Liverpool spent : £156.5m (8%)
Chelsea spent : £234.5m (12%)
Totenham spent : £109.3m (5.6%)
Arsenal spent : £137.5m (7%)
18/19
Total PL Spend : £1.48bn
Man City spent : £70.73m (4.9%)
Man Utd spent : £74.43m (5%)
Liverpool spent : £163.9m (11.1%)
Chelsea spent : £189m (12.7%)
Totenham spent : £0
Arsenal spent : £72.14m (4.9%)
19/20
Total PL Spend : £1.39bn
Man City spent : £151.2m (10.8%)
Man Utd spent : £143.1m (10.3%)
Liverpool spent : £1.7m (<1%)
Chelsea spent : £40.5m - says for Kovacic (3.2%)
Totenham spent : £102.5m (7.3%)
Arsenal spent : £137.2m (9.9%)
Last edited:
Yea so he is good at managing football teams when given unlimited resources. Could he do an SAF at Aberdeen or Graham Taylor at Watford? We will never know as he probably never get that kind of job! I assume he can’t unless he proves otherwise but he probably dont care. It is a bit like the SAF argument that Messi couldnt cut it in lower leagues and Ronaldo would - depends how they want to be remembered i am sure ronaldo chose to move to juve for this reason
Ronaldo chose to move to the most dominant team/club in the history of Italian football, for what reason?
Good question actually.
To help Juve win another scudetto, Like Messi proving himself by going to Bayern/PSG to help them win another League title to prove he can help a "small team" win the league
Yep. He's very canny.
Same. And the tactical fouls which prevent the more exciting counter attacking football also kill enjoyment. No way it's the best football in the World for me. It's certainly effective though.
1. Real Madrid no longer appreciated him. They thought he could be replaced and was happy to take 100m transfer fee and also the massive saving in salary
2. The pace is slower in Italy so it may help older player to extend their professional career
3. To lift the league title in England, Spain and Italy is an achievement.
@kaiser1 , @Skills Thanks!
So at least between Chelsea 04-07 and City 16-19 we can clearly see that Chelsea outspent everyone by (much) greater margins. Especially the 04-05 season certainly deserves the tag 'insane'.
Across other leagues and eras there are more examples of exceptional spending. I mean, we (Bayern) are bound to pull Chelsea-like numbers for many of all Bundesliga seasons. In our case the spend is certainly harder to evaluate relative to other leagues, given our domestic status, and the pull towards domestic players. Similar thing with PSG, the domestic comparison will be hilarious and rather pointless, because the competition in the clubs' eyes is in Europe. Juventus across the last few years and Jose's Inter are further candidates where a look at the spend relative to domestic vs European competition would be interesting.
So at least between Chelsea 04-07 and City 16-19 we can clearly see that Chelsea outspent everyone by (much) greater margins. Especially the 04-05 season certainly deserves the tag 'insane'.
Across other leagues and eras there are more examples of exceptional spending. I mean, we (Bayern) are bound to pull Chelsea-like numbers for many of all Bundesliga seasons. In our case the spend is certainly harder to evaluate relative to other leagues, given our domestic status, and the pull towards domestic players. Similar thing with PSG, the domestic comparison will be hilarious and rather pointless, because the competition in the clubs' eyes is in Europe. Juventus across the last few years and Jose's Inter are further candidates where a look at the spend relative to domestic vs European competition would be interesting.
The fraud is getting exposed.
Oh this should be funny, in before someone tries to prove Ole is better than Pep
He picks his departures well too. I remember he left Barca just as that team started to slow down.
EDIT: Seriously though, he's still a great manager.
He said something about city having no money? Watch him spend 100 mil on new players in January.
That would require City to sell a foreign player in their squad first, but I'm not sure anyone will pay real money for Otamendi after today...
I'm sure we will give you some good money for Sane.
No one will ever say that but ofcourse you like to bring Ole in every post.Oh this should be funny, in before someone tries to prove Ole is better than Pep
No doubt he's a top manager. But he does have a massively unfair financial advantage at City. If he doesn't win the league it will be a massive failure.
Poor Manchester United, always the plucky underdogs against clubs with massively unfair financial advantages.
I agree with that. He has a much stronger hand than Klopp, the same was true in Germany and in Spain.
No one is saying that we're at a disadvantage. We're saying Pep has an unfair advantage over everyone else.
Obviously United have spent poorly, but you don’t see the difference between a club that operates to win as much as possible to create PR/glory for their owners vs a club that operates basically to maximise their owners profit?