'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
You said that, but you provided no evidence. Until you do, it can’t be accepted as fact. That’s how these things work. Provide the evidence and I’ll gladly accept
See above.
No evidence that Ferguson spent less on his players than Liverpool. The only time he may have spent considerably less than Liverpool was in that mid 90s period when he used a lot of the young players, courtesy of the fact that United had spent years whilst Ferguson was getting average results and on the verge of the sack (‘3 years of excuses and it’s still crap. Ta-ra Fergie!) building the best youth and scouting system in the country. These things are not free and not an option for ‘provincial’ clubs (read his first autobiography ‘Managing my life’)
Before this period I’m pretty sure he would have spent about the same as Liverpool (86-92) and from the late 90s until 2013, I’m sure he spent more than Liverpool. But if you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.
I’ve considered your representations. Can’t find any ‘facts’ therein. I’ll reassess if further evidence is provided.
It’s not the same thing as this at all to be fair.
These events are not happening inside two different worlds. Klopp had his pick of clubs after leaving Dortmund and he chose a project at Liverpool.
He had limited resources, spent far less than Pep and proceeded to beat his overpowered squad to the title after running them very close the year before. He also won a CL and, crucially, made the right call on so many transfers. He got the key ones absolutely spot on and moulded a team at the first time of asking.
Liverpool are not McDonalds. It was a proper job at a big club. He just didn’t have 1 billion to spend and had to make the right calls consistently to get to where he got them to. It’s infinitely more impressive than what Guardiola has done at City with those vast resources and advantages that he has.
No one is asking him to go to McDonalds, but I don’t think anyone should be praising him for signing Dias and having a great season and finally getting the defensive balance right. He took about 4 stabs at it and his vast resources and the players available to him meant he could make those mistakes.
It’s just not as impressive as the media want us to believe. He has far too many advantages for that to be true.
There’s not really any sporting achievement at all with what City have done. I’m sure @padr81 knows this deep down, just prefers to delude himself like the rest of them. It’s entertaining to see them get increasingly defensive.
Look it up not difficult. Biggest net spender in PL
92/93 Blackburn
93/94 Blackburn
94/95 Everton
95/96 Newcastle
96/97 Newcastle
97/98 Newcastle
98/99 Man utd
99/00 Liverpool
00/01 Leeds
01/02 Man utd
02/03 Man utd
03/04 Chelsea
04/05 Chelsea
05/06 Chelsea
06/07 Chelsea
07/08 Liverpool
08/09 Man City
09/10 Man city
10/11 Man city
11/12 Man city
12/13 Chelsea
So he didn't buy the title did he? We spent the most money in only three seasons. Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Makes our 5 premier league's and 1 CL (3 finals) in 7 years all the more incredible. Managerial God.
Rich that you’re talking about me ignoring what other people said. Try and go back and actually read what I wrote
Its pointless to do this on an united forum. The fans here live in their own world where fergie rules all. Thankfully majority of fans will disagree.
Pep will never go to arsenal or roma to manage just to prove a point to RedCafe warriors. He will always have better options at his disposal, that's just reality. Same way no one will go out of their way to date Susan Boyle when they have Adriana Lima chasing them. Just as ferguson himself never won CL anywhere other than United (maybe we should hold that against him??). People used to say the same stupidity about Messi and not having done it on a rainy cold night in stoke. Unsurprisingly that narrative is dead now.
If he is still managing by the time he is 70, there is a strong likelihood he will be the best manager of all time with most trophies, regardless of what RedCafe feels. Thankfully the football world doesn't revolve around this site.
Pep will never go to arsenal or roma to manage just to prove a point to RedCafe warriors. He will always have better options at his disposal, that's just reality. Same way no one will go out of their way to date Susan Boyle when they have Adriana Lima chasing them. Just as ferguson himself never won CL anywhere other than United (maybe we should hold that against him??). People used to say the same stupidity about Messi and not having done it on a rainy cold night in stoke. Unsurprisingly that narrative is dead now.
If he is still managing by the time he is 70, there is a strong likelihood he will be the best manager of all time with most trophies, regardless of what RedCafe feels. Thankfully the football world doesn't revolve around this site.
I guess it’s too much to ask for objectivity from someone who calls themselves ‘Fergie’s coat’, but I guess that’s my problem. I expect too much intelligence of people and am constantly let down.
First of all, no one claimed that he ‘bought the title’. I said that he had access to significant resources at the biggest club in the country in getting and maintaining his success. Anyone who’s borne witness to Manchester United wasting a billion on players since he left knows that’s it’s not enough to have money. You also have to spend wisely and be a top manager, both of which apply to him. But it doesn’t change the fact that he spent a lot of money.
Secondly, the other guy claimed that Liverpool spent more than Fergie during Fergie’s time. From the list you’ve provided, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Moreover, just showing who spent the most each season doesn’t actually tell the full story. Who spent the second most each year? The third most? Fergie spent half a billion, which club spent more in his time? Is half a billion not a lot of money?
The list that you’ve provided suggests that he spent more money than every single club in the country except the ones with oil money. If that’s your argument, then fair enough.
Cry more.
He's your Liverpool comparison. We have a slightly higher net spend, but not bad considering they won 0 PL titles in that time.
Rich coming from the guy spending half his life defending Pep’s honour on a United forum.
He's your Liverpool comparison. We have a slightly higher net spend, but not bad considering they won 0 PL titles in that time.
Ok, so what the other guy said was wrong, as I suspected, but I appreciate you providing the break down. Obviously Ferguson, Kenyon, Gill and the United set up were far ahead of Liverpool in that time, who tried to cling on to the outdated ‘boot room’ ethos and then just tried to throw as much mud as possible at the wall to see what stuck. They did at least get a CL though.
Last edited:
No one cares about regional league with Barca B, it’s just basically reserve team competition with no credits in GOAT comparison. He only has to prove he could do that in a team that is not guarantee trophies with “any managers”. If he couldn’t prove that, then he should try to be at least the undisputedly most successful ever. Otherwise, where would he earn his credits from his legacy?
It’s not really that hard to understand that. Unless you have no idea what legacy are meant for in football world.
So 2 more years of Pep at City then he will I presume be placed by Erik Ten Hag who i'm sure not coincidentally extended recently with Ajax to 2023.
But that will be based on the assumption for him to take another 15-20 years to win with another 20+ trophies, isn’t it?
As of this moment, in reality, he isn’t there yet.
At least for Messi, he is already “there”.
Well of course he isn't there yet, didn't I imply that by saying "strong likelihood"? I've also said on this thread, repeatedly, it is unlikely he will manage for another 20 years. WTF?
Also for Messi, when he was tearing everyone apart, there were plenty that said he couldn't hack it in EPL playing against stoke on a cold rainy night. That is until he tore us a new one in 2 CL finals and then other english teams repeatedly. That narrative died shortly thereafter.
You can’t just predict the future like this and use this as the basis of your argument.
For example, no one could have predicted Mourinho downfall back in 10 years time (won 20 trophies in his first 10 years, then only 5 trophies in next 9 years) Same goes LVG or Wenger etc, to some extent. It’s much harder in reality than what you think it’s likely for a manager to keep winning across different era which span for 30+ years. Although in Pep case, he does have all the oil money to back him up.
Last edited:
Can we say Klopp for example also avoid high pressure jobs where they expect trophies every season and just any trophy won't be enough?
He hasn't shown he can handle the pressure the likes of Zidane and Pep deal with in clubs with complex backroom and egos
Basically a club he can spend 6 seasons and be trophyless in multiple of them without questions
Not winning a title in Barcelona or Madrid in 1 season is enough to get a sack while Klopp might miss top 4 and never have to worry about his job
He hasn't shown he can handle the pressure the likes of Zidane and Pep deal with in clubs with complex backroom and egos
Basically a club he can spend 6 seasons and be trophyless in multiple of them without questions
Not winning a title in Barcelona or Madrid in 1 season is enough to get a sack while Klopp might miss top 4 and never have to worry about his job
Yes absolutely. Klopp has specialised in one area which is great but he definitely hasn't done what Pep has (super high pressure environment) and visa versa. The point is to understand this context does matter and acknowledge that different CVs (and individuals) have different strengths and weaknesses. And it's fine to accept and acknowledge those. Some are unable to as it impacts their view of a manager as being perfection.
I'd also add that managers these days are more training ground coaches rather than complete managers of clubs so that context also makes comparison's harder.
He is not wrong in terms of total spending. Just that Liverpool has raised more cash from selling their players, hence their “net spend” is less. But don’t forget during first 10+ years of Fergie reign (during 90s), Man Utd had spend considerably less than Liverpool, which defeat the notion of Fergie being given far more money to spend at the beginning than his rivals. Then from 2000 onwards, Man Utd has spend more, where the money are mostly generated from their success under Fergie back in the 90s, which aligned with what we have been discussing. And of course, there is also inflation factor between market in 90s vs market in 2000s not being taken account into.
Last edited:
You just don’t get it do you. You can’t base your argument on what you think will happen in the future. Genuine question, if City lose the CL final is Pep still you GOAT?
With regards to your ‘Susan Boyle’ analogy you keep using, going to a Milan for me would be more going for a Jennifer Aniston or Halle Berry rather than the latest bimbo off Love Island, who sold her soul to the plastic surgeon.
Yeah analogies are good. This chef one is a little off though.
Imagine a restaurant that is being pumped full of money. The manager, let's call him Pep, is able to hire the best chefs in the world. Everyone agrees that it's a great restaurant, but there are some loonies at a table who keep saying that the success is down to the manager, rather than all the money and the fact that they are able to hire the best chefs. There were also other managers that had the restaurant running very well before with similar calibre chefs.
Pep's story is a strange one. He got a gig at another world class restaurant because he did stellar work at......... McDonalds(Barca B)
.They had the greatest chef of all time at the peak of his culinary powers. The loonies at the other table tell us Pep turned him into a great chef by whispering sweet nothings into his ear, which has us all scratching our heads considering he was the 3rd best chef the year prior to Pep's massive jump from McDonalds and the great chef also got his recurring hand injury fixed when Pep arrived. He has also continued to be the greatest chef even though Pep left that restaurant 9 years ago.Meanwhile Pep is regarded by the looneys, on a par with previous managers who built their world class restaurants from scratch without the help of billions or established chefs.
This analogy seems a bit more apt.
Last edited:
He may still be wrong even if you’re looking at the gross because the breakdown that the poster helpfully provided only starts in 1990. Obviously Fergie didn’t start at United in 1990. I’m not sure how the remainder of the years would affect the figures.
However, net spend is still the better measure because if you can bring players to the club without having to get rid of any to balance the books, it makes for a more advantageous situation and speaks to the financial strength of your club.
Just amazing to think what he achieved given these figures. It firmly puts the buying titles myth where it belongs.
He did what other great managers did but he did it over 27 years, and at Aberdeen beforehand.
Undoubtedly the best manager of all time.
The current player manager set(Zidane,Enrique, Pep) just can't hold a candle to these achievements let alone the achievements of Busby, Shankly, Clough etc.
What the other guy said was not wrong. I said he spent less than Liverpool. He did. I didn't say they sold less than United.
You really are digging a hole for yourself at this stage. You asked for evidence, this guy gave it to you, and now you're changing what I said. You talk about Fergie spending half a billion. In his reign Liverpool spent more. You can't talk about his gross spend when it suits, and their net spend when it suits. It's called fairness my man. This shiftiness isn't doing you any good.
In every aspect that counts (spending, playing squad, pedigree) Liverpool were the bigger club. Of course Ferguson had funds. We weren't Chester.
But Liverpool had more. 75 million in the 90s against 46 million for us. They also started from a much better position. Other clubs also outspent us as has been shown. The fact at this stage is undeniable. We weren't in any important way(finances) the biggest club when Ferguson wrestled us to the top. We became the biggest club because of his immense achievements.
Please repeat the underlined to yourself every now and again Yimby. It'll help.
So British managers are automatically better than continental managers. Got it.
Also, you do know that Brian Clough was a pretty handy player, right…..?
By general consensus, Guardiola is already a greater manager than any of the 3 you mentioned. He might have a tough time ever teaching Michel's and Ferguson's level but he's already regarded as a better manager than the ones you listed.
Fair point. Now you're getting it.
I don't know about other country's footballing histories outside the past 30 years.
I know Clough was a player but he had to prove himself as a manager to get a somewhat decent job, unlike somebody I know.
I'm not sure how the fact that Ferguson was only the top spender 3 times in 27 years and was routinely outspent by Liverpool despite the fact that Liverpool boosted a much stronger squad than United when Ferguson was handed the reigns at United speaks to the financial strength of United.
You were wrong, as has been proven. So Liverpool spent a lot of money too and won less (20 trophies to 38). That doesn’t mean that Man United didn’t spend a lot of money. They just had better executives and a better manager. United have spent almost as much as City (net and gross) in the last 5 years and have a Europa League and an FA Cup win to show for it. Why?
Well you should maybe learn about the footballing history of other countries.
I hope the first part of your post was ironic, for your sake…..
I think this is because in the late 80's early 90's United were progressive and had real progressive football and business people at the club, Liverpool tried to keep the boot room going and it didn't work they weren't looking 10 years ahead and were complacent, now, 30 years later United are still running on the way Fergie ran the club, there isnt a DoF yet, there isn't a real footballing structure like City / Chelsea / Liverpool have now and they're being left behind like Liverpool were in the late 80's.
might be total bollox but that's how I see things anyway.
Yes finishing 2nd in the league is being left behind. What you said had some semblance of truth but you missed how things have moved forward under Ole, on and off the pitch.
I guess I'll have to use my last post for today on this. Look you clearly know your stuff Yimby. I just think you were being a bit unfair in your analysis of Fergie's time at United.
At the end of the day this is just a football discussion and we don't need to get too hot about it.
You think Pep is up there with Alex and I don't. I think it's way more difficult to do what Alex has done and therefore his career is way more impressive.
Pep's a very good manager but he's also always had the best players. That's very rare and because of that I'm not too impressed.
I honestly don't see progress, I think fair enough you've finished second this season and played some good stuff but next season I don't think you'll be able to give teams goals headstarts like you've done so often this season, I think winning from behind is great, but picking up so many points from a losing position is masking a deficiency in your playing style and might catch up with you shortly. A couple of astute signings may totally change things but I just don't think the structure at United is right for the now and going forward in the future, every time you sack a manager you appear to bring in a manager who plays a totally different brand of football... (I haven't time for this I've an online job interview in 6 mins, might finish what I'm trying to say later)
I don’t think that anything you’ve said here is unreasonable TBF. I have great respect for Fergie, how could you not? Unless you are a Liverpool fan; they hate him with the fury of a thousand suns. But that just further speaks to his greatness.
This thread is embarassing, really
Winning the league, and a final of CL, and a runner up of league cup is a sack watch material.
Winning the league, and a final of CL, and a runner up of league cup is a sack watch material.
I think your views were relevant but are now outdated.
You're about 18 months behind in your analysis.
We don't... at least not according to most neutrals.
Is Ederson the best goalkeeper in the world? Most people wouldn't have him in their top 5. Certainly very few think of him as the best in the league.
Walker? People think he's a disaster. Zinchenko? Forget about it. Nobody talks about him and those that do think he's just a kid playing out of position.
Everyone knows Mendy isn't even top 20 left-backs in the world either, and Cancelo is famously poor defensively.
Ruben Dias and Aymeric Laporte were both little-known in England and Dias was said not to be good enough for the Premier League (until people watched him play). Don't even get me started on Stones... and by all accounts Aké is a waste of money.
Rodri? Do most people in England even know who he is? I certainly never hear him discussed, let alone praised. City fans love Bernardo and Gundogan but until this season what other PL fan would be that enthusiastic about either? Certainly neither were considered top class midfielders.
Foden isn't as good as Greenwood according to a thread on this very website, Mahrez is considered a top-tier winger by absolutely nobody, not even myself, and neither Jesus nor Ferran Torres come up in conversations when you talk about the great forwards of world football. As for Sterling, well, he might be the most criticised player in the world. Certainly very few people actually think he's more than a "tap in merchant".
It's fascinating to me that our players are only really praised when people want to downplay Pep's achievements, because when you look at them individually only Agüero and De Bruyne have been considered one of the world's best in their position for more than a year.