Do people seriously believe this?
'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
Do people seriously believe this?
No no, "it's diet and data"
I can and do. Like I care about anything other than my club and my own entertainment.
Anything beyond that is politics and I couldn't care less.
Sorry but who said that these are the only authentic ways of winning trophies? That's just a weird and unfounded logic.
And about Arteta, he hasn't won anything major yet and he's also spent a lot to get to where his team is now (not that I have a problem with that personally). Oh yeah he's also one of many inspired by Pep.
I always ask myself the same question whenever i see someone typing that.
I try to stay out of these discussions on a United forum both because the narrative here is understandable and I do certainly have mixed feelings about everything going around at the club I love, and also modern football as a whole but these statements are such nonsense
Multiple people on a United or Liverpool forum, or certain parts of football twitter insisting that the successes is forgettable and doesn't matter doesn't make it forgettable on the world stage. Rivals success is usually always handled as forgettable because as a rival you want to forget it. I hated Liverpool winning the league in 20, but I remember absolutely nothing about the celebrations now. As a United fan you probably remember fondly the last time you won the league, but as a rival I certainly don't care enough to remember too much about that success 11 years later. Or the fact that you won the Carabao Cup only last year, which I doubt anyone outside of the United fan base ever think about. Extremely forgettable. Most fans avoid their rivals success.
The point is that for better or worse the way our success has effected our reputation around the globe does not harmonise at all with what people try to convince themselves of here. I can even agree that the shadow of the charges should be mentioned more often when the titles are mentioned but the fact is straight after the treble we went on a pre-season tour unlike any I can remember with massive turn-outs by obviously mostly new City fans, we have pretty much cemented our position as top-dogs currently in fotball proven by the fact that we are mentioned pretty much by default in the same breath as Real Madrid, Liverpool and maybe Bayern Munich now (which as a City fan my age you really do notice) by opposition fans, media, and probably most importantly every single young talented footballer that gets asked in interviews the type of level he wants to reach. The QPR game always gets reeled out as probably the most iconic Premier League moment of them all, our team from 17-19 is mentioned alongside the great United teams, the Mourinho Chelsea team and the Invincibles every time the greatest PL teams are discussed now. The treble, and the fact that we are reigning European Champions has been mentioned every single time we have taken to field this year. How then, can anyone argue that these successes are more forgettable than any other success? And if you don't think the titles have been celebrated by City fans themselves I'm really not sure what to tell you?
I'm not discussing the fact that it all can be taken away (all though I doubt it) but the fact that so many posters can state that "nobody cares" as such a factual statement is as delusional as it gets. Anyone can argue that "but I honestly don't care at all" but that has no bearing on the growth we have had as a club in the last 10 years.
Last edited:
Nobody did.
That logic is not just weird and unfounded, but entirely invented by you.
Quoting messages has just stopped working, but the remainder of your reply was just you making comments about Arteta that weren't relevant ("he hasn't won anything major yet" - no one said he has / "he's also spent a lot" - no one said he hasn't / "he's also one of many inspired by Pep" - no one said he wasn't).
In fact, you somehow managed to write four sentences where not a single one dealt with what I actually said.
In the very post you're replying to I call Guardiola a "genius". Exactly how much fawning is required?
City cannot really lie about how much was paid in transfer fees because the selling/buying club has to also report it in their books the amount received
Unless you are insinuating that clubs who sell to/buy from City are also in on this conspiracy to commit fraud.
It's not fraud if you are not obliged to publish such information.
Please stop talking so much sense. Thank you.
The numbers on transfermarkt for example on Sane sale matches what is recorded by Bayern as expense.
Bayern won't report 50m if they actually spent 30m
Neither will Chelsea report 50m for Kovacic sale if they actually got 30m, nor Atletico for Rodri, nor Dortmund for Haaland nor Spurs for Walker
These buying and selling clubs too have to balance their books to their shareholders and management
What will be the motivation for these clubs to assist City in committing crimes
Yes, but you thinking that how you and "probably others" "feel" regarding our titles and triumphs is significant enough to warrant it as a factual statement that the successes means less and are ultimately forgettable instead of actually taking a look around and seeing that in fact the success has well and truly been recognised by the football world in all capacities and had the expected effect of turning us into a modern football powerhouse, is the very epitome of why that statement is delusional nonsense.
Does the fact that you personally doesn't care about City and not watching them have more merit than me saying I didn't watch the 2008 CL final because I didn't care enough who won? Or the fact that plenty of supporters of lower-league clubs probably gives zero fecks about anything that happens in the shitshow that is elite level football? Does that make every top team, title winner, final to an extent forgettable? That is pretty nonsensical, but that is where the discussion would be heading if we discussed it further
It is easy to become arrogant in discussions like these. I feel I cone across that way myself in these posts. But the wider point is that you will be surprised about how many people have no interest in the rich history and triumphs of the likes of United, Liverpool and Arsenal. And certainly loads of people have no interest in the modern success of City. But it certainly hasn't taken away from the stature it has got the clubs in the eyes of the world, or the emotions of the fans has it?
Last edited:
We are currently in the time of typing a modern football powerhouse though, by all metrics. The bolded is also complete nonsense that has just been spewed over and over until people believe it is true. We are currently in a situation where our games are so attractive for tourists and fans abroad that the British is being priced out. Which is certainly the case for many of the top clubs but also certainly wouldn't happen if how you "feel" were in any shape or form how our success has effected us in reality. Your comments about the financials certainly has merit because of the obvious reason that we are investigated, but the only thing we know for certain there is that none of us really knows anything about it. I could argue that the last several years it would be reasonable to believe that the revenues have been organic, but the fact is that to get to that situation there is beyond no doubt that we have done things we should (and hopefully properly) be scrutinised for.
But the thing is that all of this doesn't really matter in terms of what we were discussing. You were stating that most doesn't care, and by extension City fans can't really care either. It simply isn't true. There might come a day where it is true, as mentioned for obvious reasons. But as of right now there is no way anyone can argue that and not sound nonsensical. If you fail to see the stature we have got to (despite how we may got to it) you are probably avoiding it. And if you avoid it you probably even care a little bit yourself
Last edited:
The only thing more tediously boring than watching Man City play and win… is their fans endlessly telling everyone how much they don’t care about how much everyone else doesn’t care about them and how actually everyone does care because they always say they don’t care about their success because everyone actually cares.
What's the gross spend for each?
On the contrary I care way too much. This is why I am a lone idiot trying to convince a United fan on a United forum that he is wrong about people not caring about City
It was so much easier back on Blue-Moon where I only had to type out "rag" all day
You're trying to play with words and actually being disingenuous about it.
You said everything that City had won didn't feel authentic because it lacked the reasons I quoted from your post. You were clearly insinuating that those were what you consider the genuine paths to success.
You said with City, it's less passionate because it's just about a genius spending a lot of money unlike Arsenal who're back to being competitive now with an ex club player. So i only pointed out that Arteta has also spent a lot to get to where his is now with Arsenal, just like City and other clubs are doing. There's really nothing more passionate about it than it is for other clubs.
Ineos’s job is solely preparing for when this man leaves. Get everything in place and strike when that happens.
IMO, United would have won the league already with Pep, and more than once with the squad that Mourinho and OGS finished 2nd with because he's a better coach than the both of them.
Yes, I said their success feels hollow. Because it does, at least to me - and a fair few others. That doesn't mean the examples I listed are the only authentic ways of winning trophies.
I can't speak for how City fans feel. But as Arsenal fan looking on, while City's treble was clearly impressive (and Guardiola winning two trebles is literally unprecedented) there was something empty about it. As we're now seven years in and Pep has spent a great deal of money (very wisely) it feels a little bit like a Football Manager game - leave Guardiola at a club with lots of money for a long enough time and he'll win the Treble eventually. It really doesn't matter what club it is.
Even just comparing trebles I've seen in my lifetime (United with Ferguson, Barca with Guardiola, Barca with Enrique, Inter with Mourinho, Bayern with Heynckes and Bayern with Flick) each of them had a real sense of magic and jeopardy. City last season felt more like an inevitability.
I'm not saying City's success isn't "authentic". I'm not saying their success isn't "genuine". I'm saying that it isn't particularly moving.
But it's all just opinions, innit?
Dunno, I think City's gross spend is higher, though. They sell very well because they hoard the best talent at youth level and improve their players through elite coaching. Teams want their players.
Also, I've been on RedCafe for long enough to remember United fans laughing at Arsenal and Liverpool fans for bringing up net spend.
They do have loan deals with other "City group" clubs. I don't think that's fraud but its an obvious example of how the system can be gamed by a state.
Do not need a state to do this. Multi-club ownership is sadly going to become the norm, because it is the smart thing to do
Not really as he wouldn’t be competing with Jose or Ole’s United but a vastly superior City who would have finished ahead of us regardless. We’d probably have had a 5 point improvement with Pep. We’d also have you supporting us so I’m not sure it would have been worth it.
Wrong. It implies that part of that success can be attributed to cheating and hence loses its validity which it eventually will once the punishments are handed out. If FC Hull scam their way into signing the best 10 footballers in the world tomorrow, then fair play to their players and coaches in achieving whatever but it’s attained to a great degree though cheating. That’s obviously an extreme example but explains the viewpoint clearly.
That's simply because they played better than every other team though. It was the same with Bayern the last time they won the treble. It always "feels" inevitable when you see a team show such force on the pitch.
No I wouldn't have as I don't actually support City, but i love the way Pep makes his teams play so I watch them a lot (was the same at Barca and Bayern). But we definitely wouldn't have been having this silly arguments as you wouldn't have been bringing up most of these ridiculous arguments against Pep like you've done so far in this thread.
And I stand by my opinion that United would have won with that squad under Pep as he's a better manager than the other 2 and also because any stacked City (or any other) team wouldn't have Pep coaching them.
Based on all the times he’s over performed with an inferior squad
Like when? His first season at City when he had the oldest squad (and especially oldest defense) in the league, and still finished 3rd while being able to clear intent in how he wanted his team to play?
My statement wasn't also based on one season, which I think was clearly obvious. It's in comparison to how long he's been at City.
That "inferior" United squad finished 2nd with Mourinho and OGS playing an uninspiring football, there's no reason Pep can't do much better than they did with the same squad.
You’re right. It was a heroic effort to get such a terrible City squad to 3rd that year. Minstrels shall sing of it for decades to come.
You are entitled to incorrect opinions. Our issues go much deeper than not having a top coach. Pep would be smothered by the Glazer’s incompetence negating his qualities and eventually leave with his tail between his legs. Needless to say that he’d do better than Ole.
They only had premier league duds like Aguero, Silva and KDB to rely on.
Last edited:
Shows how spoilt and deluded they are when they consider that as a weak squad. Money FC.
Mourinho and OGS had the same issues and finished 2nd. I believe the same context (same issues, same squad), Pep would have done much better than both did.
Who called those players you listed were not good though?
They however had one of the oldest (if not the the oldest) squad in the league, true or false?
They had the oldest defense (and Kompany barely played and only really contributed in the 2nd half of his last season for City), true or false? You can't teach old dogs new tricks.
It was also Pep's first season in the most competitive league where many pundits were saying that his style of play will never cut it, well we've all seen how that turned out.
Why bring age into in the first place if not to suggest the squad was substandard? The squad was one of, if not the strongest in the league. That’s what he inherited. He then went on to spend a fortune to increase the squad strength gap between him and the rest of the league. You really can’t separate Pep and the amount of resource he’s had during his time at City, as much as you’re trying to bend the conversation to do so.
I don’t really understand why you’re here in all honesty if not to wind up the forum, you should just feck off and worship him somewhere else.
Certainly wasn't a weak squad in relative terms, but especially defensively it had huge glaring issues. Old full-backs in decline, that simply didn't have the physical attributes necessary to support the way he wanted to play any longer, which resulted in him often converting Delph to a left-back (which we later won titles with), and Fernandinho & Navas as right-backs (a position switch Sevilla also made him do, which probably prolonged his career at the highest level). His centre-backs were injury-prone and other than a young and unfinished Stones they had all played most of their careers in a style that was unsuited to Guardiola. The keeper situation became a bit of a mess, considering Hart probably had to be let go and Bravo never really recovered from early mistakes and a lot of pressure, in decline himself. Other than that the midfield consisted of extremely talented playmakers like David Silva and De Bruyne that we in hindsight know were very capable of playing in a midfield 3 but at that point in their career had never done it, and spent most of that season learning their new positions. Especially De Bruyne had a pretty difficult season despite having an obscene amount of assists. Gundogan were injured for most of the season.
In attack large part of the season were spent acclimatising Aguero to add more responsibility to his role in the new system, and while Sterling, Sane and Jesus were extremely talented players, Sterling had just come from a very difficult season and a racist media campaign after being scapegoated in the Euros, while Sane and Jesus at that point had very little first-team experience. We also had a pretty poor season in 15/16 were most fans felt that our big players were in decline due to age, and we just scraped 4th on the last day against a similiarily poor United side under Van Gaal.
He also started that season very well, had a large period in the middle of the season were theproblems of adapting to the new system was obvious, and then from around March we were pretty great to watch getting results along the way. If it weren't for Chelsea being so dominating that year we might actually have had the incentive for a title-push March onwards. From August 2017 onwards he had obviously succeeded in turning us into a incredible team collecting 100 points that season, with mostly only Walker and Ederson signed as regular starters in that summer.
A lot of tools were already at his disposal, but I do believe that he deserves credit for the way he shaped them into the team they became. Most people had a completely different perspective on most of the same players in november 2016 than they had in November 2017. I'm not saying it can be compared to what the likes of Klopp did at Liverpool but there is enough adversity there to be anknowledged, and I do believe he did show that year that his improvement and coaching of pretty much everyone in the squad can be transferred to him being very succesfull and impressive with lesser teams, budgets and players. But his career trajectory has made it possible for him to skip over having to take those type of jobs, and his relentless obsession of trying to instill perfection on the pitch while being backed has given him the situation where he can focus on turning great players better, rather than good or decent ones into better. Which is understandable from his perspective.
I can definitely see the "feels a bit like football manager" argument but I definitely do believe he deserves a bit more credit than he sometimes gets. I think it is a reasonable opinion that he has shown he would pretty much improve any team
Last edited:
We'll never know unless he actually proves it though.
Any bang average manager can and has won things with City, Barcelona and Bayern.
To me that's why his achievements will never compare with what Ferguson did with Aberdeen and United, what Klopp has done with Dortmund and Liverpool, what Mourinho did with Porto and Chelsea and what Wenger did with Arsenal.
Guardiola has literally nothing on his CV to suggest he can win major trophies unless it's with a cheat team on easy mode!
What? Do you mean Inter? What he did there was impressive but they were already the top team in Italy when he took over.
I agree that his career feats can't be compared to these other examples though. But people seem be way to black/white in these things. If you actually looked at what Guardiola has done in his career the total domination he has achieved over sustained periods of time is a lot more impressive than simply waving it away as "good teams, much money, easy". People often say anyone could do it, but no one has really came close in this generation. Maybe for a season with similiar clubs like Flick and Heynckes at Bayern, and Enrique at Barca but not really over a sustained period of time. I am absolutely sure no manager currently on the planet would have achieved what he has done at City, maybe Klopp but considering he has spent most of his career losing titles to Guardiola it is reasonable to assume he would have done that here as well if Guardiola rocked up at another top club in England
Last edited:
Chelsea hadn't won a title in 50 years before Mourinho took over.
We had never won a Champions League, a treble or taken 100 points in the league before Pep took over. Barca had never won a treble before he won one in his first season.
Chelsea had a great squad that Mourinho spent insane amounts to reinforce. If your argument is "great teams, big budget, easy mode" then Mourinho at Chelsea is a very surprising and absolutely terribly example
In fact, Mourinho at Chelsea and Pep at City is very similiar. Great managers in their prime showing that with the right players and backing theybare unstoppable and a level above others
You'd barely even played in the Champions League so it's no surprise you hadn't won it!
Ok fine, Take Mourinho at Chelsea out of the equation then. At least he won the Champions League with Porto though which is a bigger achievement than anything Guardiola has ever done!
There's no question that Pep is a superb coach, none at all.
The question marks are around whether he would have success at other clubs that do not have the resources of the three clubs he has managed.
He has only managed clubs where success has been the footballing equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel... with a rocket launcher.
The question marks are around whether he would have success at other clubs that do not have the resources of the three clubs he has managed.
He has only managed clubs where success has been the footballing equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel... with a rocket launcher.
I actually agree with what you're saying here. As I said, I think Guardiola is a genius who's earned all of the praise that's showered upon him. His first game in the PL was against the legendary Stoke. I disagree that he has to win with an underdog team in order to be considered one of the best ever.
When I say that City's success feels hollow (to me, subjectively) I mean just that - City's success feels hollow. If you hire best Manager on the planet and give him near limitless resources, then he will dominate. Especially if six years in you give him the deadliest striker on Earth.
I think I'm agreeing with what you've said elsewhere, had Guardiola taken over at United, he would have won the league. And had United given him the money they gave Moyes, Mourinho, Ole and ETH, he would probably have won the treble at United within seven years too. That's what reminds me of Football Manager, not because Guardiola isn't brilliant - but because he is.