Fecking hell it’s not the Da Vinci code is it. You’re being an idiot deliberately.
'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
Wasn't there a lot of news about the blood bags, Dr Fuentes and all that during his Barca time.
Fuentes said he had given drugs to several athletes across various sports and offered to name them but was ordered not to, as the criminal case at the time was focused on the cyclists he had worked with.
Last year the World Anti Doping Agency removed some cases from Spain's own anti-doping agency and gave the cases over to international authorities, such were the delays in dealing with them and suspicions the authorities in Spain were turning a blind eye.
It wasn't until 2007 that anti doping laws came into effect in Spain, being toughened up in 2013 because there was a belief not enough was being done.
Didnt the Spanish courts order all the evidence destroyed after the cycling case was finished? I remember him saying Spain would lose its World Cup if he told all he knew.
As far as I'm concerned Pep's legacy will always have a big cloud over it.
Whether it was Barça or not, there's obviously a lot more doping in football than is being said, on a systemic level.
I remember in a recent Overlap episode, Neville was saying that there were games in Europe where they'd come off the pitch and Utd players would be exhausted and the opposition team looked absolutely fine, and that he didn't believe for a second there wasn't doping going on.
City have got 115 charges against them for cheating. They are quite literally the biggest cheats in the history of English football.
It's irrelevant what City do on the pitch because all of it is achieved by players they shouldn't have due to years and years of breaking the rules.
I find it unlikely that it isn't rife across elite football. How else can you explain teams suddenly being almost super human in terms of endurance when a new manager or coaching system comes in?
Words have meaning, so it seems like you're the one being an idiot here.
It isn't though, because that will be implying that just buying players is enough to get you performing the way City are doing. It's pretty clear given examples like United and Chelsea, that it isn't the case.
But I can see how that simplification can make some people feel better though.
Well, he’s Catalonian and the darling of Barcelona. Of course they’re going to herald him. Either way, this is going down a rabbit hole. He’s obviously a very good coach, nobody is arguing that, however his record benefits from the somewhat privileged and very selective squad strengths he has inherited.
I think it happens but I think everyone does it and some are better at it than others. What I can't imagine is happening is half the league are clean but know that say, the City rumors or Liverpool asthma rumors are true, and don't go doing that themselves to even the playing field. Back in the day it seems to be Italian teams and Spanish ones were mad for it as a league while others in Europe weren't. Pirlo alleged in his book that the famous Deportivo comeback team were doping, and I think Nev in that overlap episode might have been referring to them too.
Yep and we are still stuck with all our bad buys, which was my point.
City was able to spend on duds and still get them replaced relatively quickly while other clubs are stuck with them
City have cycled through countless players. How many fullbacks and defenders alone have they bought?
Players aren’t classed as duds because City spend fortunes on players and happily sit them on the bench for long periods. That’s what a bottomless pit of cash gets you. There’s less pressure because they aren’t forced to play out of form players week in week out, just swap in another expensive option. Stones has practically sat entire seasons on the bench while another £50m buy tries his luck. Then he’s back in when he’s fashionable again.
He’s not turning water into wine, he’s got the most expensive squad ever assembled at his disposal, hence why he still has second string star lineups hammering the league cup every year.
That's because you're unable to sell them, but at the same time, you also kept buying more.
Every defender that has been bought under Pep has had a lot of playing time and have actively participated in their success except for Mendy (Injuries and the infamous case).
United don't spend a lot on players too? How many £50m defenders doe United have?
City actually have a smaller squad than United and most teams, Pep just makes each of his players (except Rodri, Grealish & Haalland) play 2 or more positions.
I don’t think you’re going to win an argument of who spent the most over the last decade or so, are you.
You are not, DiMaria left faster than anyone. He left in 1yr. You signed Pogba for a record fee for EPL midfielder, he is gone, you signed Lukaku for a record fee for an EPL striker he is gone, Sancho has been sent off to Dortmund after he spent like 1yr on the bench and off to rehab, Van der Beek is off
You need a buyer willing to pay and pay the players salaries, to sell off bad players
Last edited:
Man Utd has spent more in the last 5yrs and in the last 10yrs
https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
This is net spend, not gross spend.
All depends on the criteria you use in which to base your argument. How many years you want to go back, whether to include outgoing sales and wages/bonuses/agent kickbacks, transfer inflation etc.
I've seen so many charts of various fanbases claiming moral victories over others by cherry picking the stats to suit their agenda that the only conclusion to draw is that the whole debate is muddy at best.
It’s really not that muddy at all, as much you all want to believe it.
Net spend, 10 years doesn’t account for all of it by a long stretch, also ignores the amount of money they’ve poured into hoovering up youth players, building state of the art everything, and the simple fact that they’ve committed systematic fraud with what they report. It’s not hard.
It's really, really not muddy at all.
How so?
United have spent more "new" money in the transfer market than City have in the last 5 and 10 years but add the 5 previous years and probably the positions are reversed.
As I said other factors such as transfer inflation and agents fees distort matters further.
Who spent more really isn't an exact science for all sorts of reasons. It's a tough enough square to circle when using accurate data but some posters muddy the waters still further by pulling figures out of the air to suit their agenda.
Don't they?
City dont provide accurate numbers so all we have is speculation.
You have the most valuable first team squad in world football by orders of magnitude, thats clear.
Na, from what I recall, he was referring to an Italian team.
So let me get this right.
The reported figures are to be believed for the clubs City's are being compared to but are speculative when it comes to them and only them?
Forgive me but I highly doubt your logic.
Some are more reliable than others. Because some clubs are traded on stock exchanges and therefore have to publish exact numbers. Others are not. City definitely is not the only club that isn't forced to publish real numbers, but there is a difference between them and United for example.
His logic is simple. One clubs facing 115 charges for breaching the rules and the others aren’t. It’s no surprise people are going to doubt the accuracy of the numbers involved with said club.
To be fair, other than dodgy payments to Mancini, City aren’t actually accused of fudging spending numbers. Which makes sense seeing as every club City bought players from would then be complicit in fraud with no incentive to do so.
The source of the spending is highly suspect. But the amount of spending is pretty well known. United really do have a higher net spend than City in recent years.
This is a tiny snippet of information that is not particularly interesting taken in isolation, the overall context as to how we got here (basically, years of systemic fraud and cheating which has distorted any sense of being able to judge them in their current situation) is more revealing.
That Utd have been poorly run and spend badly is not a hot take. We all know that.
It’s certainly not an exact science when your owners lie about what they spend, lie about contracts, and lie about their sponsorships.
Don’t they?
Always hilarious when people quote transfer spends, when half of this whole City case is they've not quite been honest to the true figures.
I wonder if the people who believe their figures believe they out "commercial" the likes of us and Real Madrid too.
I wonder if the people who believe their figures believe they out "commercial" the likes of us and Real Madrid too.
I have no problem with doubt. Folks can interpret a situation how they wish.
The fact is as it stands City are guilty of nothing at the moment and I think the charges will eventually will be dropped in which case many will believe they "got off with it".
There's nothing the club can do to prevent this opinion being held so I'll bow out of debating this issue on this thread which isn't really about the charges.
Do they?
What evidence do you have?
You recently lied about how much City had spent under Pep's tenure.
Didn't you?
Ah @Gentleman Jim is one of those, good to know.
Yeah but other fans love harping on about it given any opportunity, and we all know why.
The thread is about Guardiola, though. So you can judge his eye for talent and coaching ability by comparing his record with those who have had access to the same or greater resources.
To me, that’s why City’s success is ultimately hollow.
It’s not a Manager building a club up over the long term like Ferguson or Wenger.
It’s not the perfect marriage of city, club and Manager like Klopp.
It’s not a former captain returning to completely overhaul a club in his first ever job like Arteta.
It’s a genius coach spending tons of money. That’s a combination that would find success pretty much anywhere - it just happened to be City.
Why?