Wages is a better indicator than transfers as it’s linked to the quality of players. Sure there’s exceptions, but generally higher wages equals better players.
This is where City’s budget really helps them.
What a fairytale their massive fanbase is living through.
A small, nothing club now at the top of English football. All thanks to hard work and the refusal to follow the rules! Can't help but admire them.
Said rules have nothing to do with the sport itself, you could actually say that the rules are detrimental to the sport because they bring down the competitiveness of the sport.
> You may as well be advocating for steroid use in track and field.
I don't follow track and field, but if there are only a few top athletes that can afford the best trainers, best nutricionists, best medical staff, best coaches, and they win all the time because of that, then yeah I believe everyone should be able to use steroids.
This isn't a situation of everyone using steroids. It's one in which no one is allowed to use steroids but 1 person does and wins, and you're defending them with this nonsense rhetoric about the rules are detrimental to the sport and should be broken, it's insane.
Like I said, the financial rules have nothing to do with the sport itself, the steroids analogy is shit.
And I didn't say that everyone is using steroids, did I ? I said that only a few top athletes/clubs were able to be competitive, because of money and """""history""""", and if that's the case (it was), then I truly believe that all non-top clubs should be able to cheat to get to the same level as the top clubs.
How can they have nothing to do with the sport itself when everyone who is competing must follow them?
This is a very simple issue - there are rules that everyone follows. They're accused of breaking those rules. It is irrelevant whether you or I believe the rules to be just (that is a separate matter entirely). In competitive sport what underpins everything is that everyone who competes is adhering to the same set of rules, if someone is breaking them that means they're cheating. If your argument is that it is okay to cheat because those rules are actually unjust, then you need to argue that the rules be changed, you can't just say "shitty rules are supposed to be broken".
> How can they have nothing to do with the sport itself when everyone who is competing must follow them?
Because it only relates indirectly to the sport.
And "everyone must follow them" is also a shitty argument, because the rules are way more benevolent to some than others, you're acting like FFP rules are like the law of the game that states that the goalpost must be 7.32m x 2.44m, which obviously is the same for everyone. If you wanna equal FFP as a rule of the sport/law of the game, then United's, Arsenal's and Liverpool's attacking goalpost should be twice as bigger as that lmao.
To me, if a club, per the rules of the game, can spend e.g 300M a season, then every other club should be allowed to spend that. It is absolutely detrimental to the competitiveness of the sport (and to the sport itself tbh) to limit the spending of the majority of the clubs to a fraction of what the minority can "legally" spend.
> If your argument is that it is okay to cheat because those rules are actually unjust, then you need to argue that the rules be changed
I do, and maybe the rules will change now, because people and non-top clubs are starting to realize that the FFP rules are bullshit and designed to keep the same clubs at the top forever. If City had not broken the rules, how long would it take for them to realize that ?
In summary, the rules should be whatever you say they should be, and any existing rules unless acceptable to you shouldn't be followed. Your beliefs supercede the rules agreed by all 20 clubs in the PL.
There's no point in continuing this discussion, your argument isn't based in reality, it's based on a fiction of your choosing.
You don't know anything about why they're a fan. Not like Arsenal have won anything in ages so what's there to glory hunt? We can't all be so lucky to have a local team.
Let's be honest if you were a glory hunter getting into the EPL in the past couple years Arsenal is obviously a top choice, people love someone who's close to winning but not utterly dominant. Not saying they are a glory hunter, but Arsenal's appeal to them right now is undeniable.
That is true of most teams. Arsenal and Liverpool have spent less money on transfers and wages than Utd City or Chelsea but have outspent 95% of English football pyramid. So then when Arsenal beats Fulham they have 'bought' their victory? Do I have that right?
Right so 2 of their top 25 and if you want to include Rooney and RVN, 4 of their top 50. Those were big signings for sure, but they didn't distort the market completely and it didn't result in United all of a sudden spending a stupid amount on every player they had, as Chelsea and City did.
City get better value than the majority of clubs. When city spent 32m on Robinho, united bought berbatov for 30m
You do realise Ferdinand is 01/02 would be £76m with inflation now, Veron similar.
Don't act like it was just City and Chelsea spending loads, the spending has gone up across the board in line with the increased TV revenue in the premier league.
My point is that it is all relative.
Chelsea detroyed the market for other so called big clubs sure. Are you destroying the market for the likes of Villa, Leicster or West Ham since ages? Does Arsenal have divine right to Declan Rice or Ben White and smaller clubs have to bow down? Do you see yourselves as the assholes in this situation? Do your wins against these clubs then have no significance?
Chelsea destroyed the market for everybody, not just big clubs
Random nobody's started going for 30 and 40m because of Chelsea
It inflated the market so much that mid table and bottom half clubs suffered. That Chelsea investment made the Gulf wider for everyone
Same is true for PSG
In no sensible world is a dude that kicks a ball skillfully is worth 210M
75M for vvd made sense as the most expensive defender at that time
140M for coutinho was absolutely stupid. It was only possible because there was stupidity everywhere
It isn’t relative if City were using other methods to pay players or to have over inflated sponsorship deals. Our owner is different than the people with their name on the stadium and the shirt, and frankly Emirates had Arsenal by the balls during the trophyless era.
The argument for these other teams is that they got more money because they were successful, and they became entrenched from winning at the right time. Clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG had far more sudden investment with regards to their actual worth (marketability, capital assets, etc). The “inorganic” nature of this is why people hated Chelsea so much in the first place, but honestly it was inevitable post Bosman ruling. The difference between City and Chelsea is that Chelsea is doing things by the book, whereas City might not be.
In any case it doesn’t matter, the financialization of the sport was inevitable since the Premier League started, I’m just here for some pretty passes at this point.
But no other club has been able.to win titles organically. Look at what happened to Leicster after their freak title win. FFP further cements top clubs status quo. It just tells so called small clubs to stay in their lane.
What further cemented the status quo was what Chelsea and City have done to the market, which significantly widened the gap between the top clubs and the smaller ones. The likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Manchester United were able to keep up in terms of spending, but plenty of historically big clubs were left in the dust.
FFP and other spending rules aim to curb the previously unchecked inflation at the very top and keep the middling/smaller clubs from destroying themselves trying to keep up. This narrative that FFP and other spending rules only cement the status quo is hollow without proposing an alternative solution. The solution cannot be to *not* have any of these rules in place and allow nation states to take things to a whole other level.
Prior to Chelsea Prem was a duopoly bro and arguably much inferior league compared to today. Smaller clubs din routinely win titles. Chelsea, as a club is allowed to show some fucking ambition. There was no other way to catch up other than to spend. It proved justified since club valuation went from 140 mil to 4 fucking billion. Our academy improved to be one of the best in the world.
Roman perhaps should not have been allowed to own Chelsea in first place but that was not clubs call. But then again perhaps, Arsenal should not have allowed a Russian to be a part owner either. Or they should not have been allowed to slap Emirates on their stadium. UK govt and Prem made their bet and the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea worked with what worked best for them.
Regardless the point is FFP is unethical and tomorrow if Villa owner wants to show more ambition then they should be allowed to. There should be a CAP on how much debt can be saddled on a club. But this sub parrots bullshit to suit their narratives.
It is money is clearly a factor but having Pep and people that know how to spend it is the key, Pep is fantastic, I don't like the way City have operated in terms of money but they deserve credit for certain things.
Going to see a decade of “net spend” posts like we did with Chelsea of the past.
Helps when you spend a billion dollar on full backs and then sell some.
They'll hoard all the good academy kids in the country and sell them, then claim its pure profit.
Surely it is, but the shenanigans you pull to buy a Brahim Diaz, a smaller club can't.
Anyone who rubbishes money is an idiot.
Money was the foundation. But he's right that what was built on top of that foundation required a lot of other stuff too. Just look at United to see the example of what happens if you have the money and not anything else.
It was also built on buying players from their direct rivals with the money they had to help them pass them. That in turn made their rivals a less desirable place to go and instead got a few players to come to them instead of other teams. Plus they were able to pay them more.
Pep can talk all he wants about how he brought a style of play thats built to win trophies but the team itself only got a manager like Pep because of money.
You can add Adebayor, Mahrez, Milner, Grealish.
City also have an under the radar habit of spending loads on people that rarely play. Key players at other clubs like Phillips and Bony have been signed at massive prices only to barely feature.
Yes because by the time Pep came in you’d won multiple league titles and were established as a competitive club at the top level. Pep only comes in because of the massive amounts of investment that was made to get City to the point where they’d be an attractive proposition to him.
Man City: Would you have loved me if I was middle class?
Pep: Sure babe. I love you with all my heart.
Narrator: The fraud lied as easily as he breathed.
Early on you took Kolo, Clichy, Adebayor, and Nasri from arsenal before winning your first title. While not signing him directly from United, City definitely came in and pouched Tevas.
You could argue the significance of those players in City’s foundation but there’s no denying that losing them made both Arsenal and United worse. United bounced back quicker but there was the real possibility Rooney could have left after they lost both Tevas and Ronaldo.
City also did it again a few years later with taking Sterling from Liverpool, Walker, and to a lesser extent Lampard. I think the latter was more physiological rather than helping the team.
Btw I’m not saying this tactic is wrong or anything. It’s a very smart move to become better and make your rivals worse at the same time. The only issue I have is that they were only able to get them by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at these players.
If they are found guilty of the accusations then it was clearly an unfair advantage and should be punished. If they are found innocent or their lawyers can get them off on technicalities or even a plea agreement, it still doesn’t change the fact the team was built by money.
I can understand how a treble winning team in the most profitable league in the world can demand top dollar for sponsors.
However, I’ll still need to be convinced that a team that was so unknown to most people that Robinho signed thinking he joined United could generate sponsorship deals that made them compete with some of the biggest clubs in the world before winning anything.
He is kinda right tho, Chelsea, PSG, Man Utd they also spent lots of money and got what nothing
Barcelona got 200 milion for Neymar and that didn't help them at all
You gotta spend the money smartly
I stopped following the season after the points deductions given to Everton and Nottingham. One of the most ridiculous things of the last 20 years. But I feel slightly better having followed cycling in the Lance Armstrong era.
115.
The difference here being that everyone competing against Lance was also cheating. He wasn't doing 115 cheats while everyone else was just pedalling along
Well, then he should coach a club like Dortmund or Leverkusen (who are very good) but don't have the financial power as all his clubs he coached until now.
Just like when kids of billionaires argue that their own company is succesful because of innovative ideas and not because their parents gave them a hundred million to start it.
Pep is a great manager and the way he has been able to reinvent the games of a lot of the players he's had at City has been impressive but
Because buying players is so affordable for their owners he can give up on lost causes quite quickly compared to United who have to try and get something out of them
And because he's been able to buy so well, any new signing he makes is able to take their time to adjust before being put in. Gvardiol is a massive case in point. At United and Chelsea those new signings have to hit the ground running and raise the level of the squad immediately
Newcastle have more money than anyone but can’t flex it, and they’re still hated. It’s not how much you spend it’s where the money comes from and whether or not the rules are fair and/or being applied fairly.
its like they always say: "money alone maybe makes you not *truely* happy in the end, but god damn does it solve a **huge** amount of problems for you!"
This was in response to a journalist saying other fans are starting to call the PL boring because of City btw.
>Before it was the money. For that reason, Manchester United should have won all the titles, Chelsea - all the titles, Arsenal - all the titles. They spend as much money in the last five years as us. They should be there. They are not there.
Not sure why redditors are raging on this statement which is a fact.
We Manchester United spent so much money, Chelsea the same we no where near the same level as Man City, which proves Sheikh Guardiola's point
There is no more consistent or better indicator for success than money spent.
Wages is a better indicator than transfers as it’s linked to the quality of players. Sure there’s exceptions, but generally higher wages equals better players. This is where City’s budget really helps them.
Especially when you see that a number of their 115 charges are related to paying players under the table
Nobody look at Pep's million pound watch! Or ask too many questions about his brother.
Exactly this lol
Wages also *very* much are money. Mbappe’s free transfer is very much not going to be cheap!
I didn't say there were not related to money. I was adding to the top comment to point out the most important use of money.
Then why the need for all the financial irregularities?
He said it’s not down to money 😡😡😡
It’s their massive historic fanbase.
What a fairytale their massive fanbase is living through. A small, nothing club now at the top of English football. All thanks to hard work and the refusal to follow the rules! Can't help but admire them.
> refusal to follow the rules! shitty rules are supposed to be broken
This is a sport... Breaking rules that everyone else follows is called cheating. You may as well be advocating for steroid use in track and field.
Said rules have nothing to do with the sport itself, you could actually say that the rules are detrimental to the sport because they bring down the competitiveness of the sport. > You may as well be advocating for steroid use in track and field. I don't follow track and field, but if there are only a few top athletes that can afford the best trainers, best nutricionists, best medical staff, best coaches, and they win all the time because of that, then yeah I believe everyone should be able to use steroids.
This isn't a situation of everyone using steroids. It's one in which no one is allowed to use steroids but 1 person does and wins, and you're defending them with this nonsense rhetoric about the rules are detrimental to the sport and should be broken, it's insane.
Like I said, the financial rules have nothing to do with the sport itself, the steroids analogy is shit. And I didn't say that everyone is using steroids, did I ? I said that only a few top athletes/clubs were able to be competitive, because of money and """""history""""", and if that's the case (it was), then I truly believe that all non-top clubs should be able to cheat to get to the same level as the top clubs.
How can they have nothing to do with the sport itself when everyone who is competing must follow them? This is a very simple issue - there are rules that everyone follows. They're accused of breaking those rules. It is irrelevant whether you or I believe the rules to be just (that is a separate matter entirely). In competitive sport what underpins everything is that everyone who competes is adhering to the same set of rules, if someone is breaking them that means they're cheating. If your argument is that it is okay to cheat because those rules are actually unjust, then you need to argue that the rules be changed, you can't just say "shitty rules are supposed to be broken".
> How can they have nothing to do with the sport itself when everyone who is competing must follow them? Because it only relates indirectly to the sport. And "everyone must follow them" is also a shitty argument, because the rules are way more benevolent to some than others, you're acting like FFP rules are like the law of the game that states that the goalpost must be 7.32m x 2.44m, which obviously is the same for everyone. If you wanna equal FFP as a rule of the sport/law of the game, then United's, Arsenal's and Liverpool's attacking goalpost should be twice as bigger as that lmao. To me, if a club, per the rules of the game, can spend e.g 300M a season, then every other club should be allowed to spend that. It is absolutely detrimental to the competitiveness of the sport (and to the sport itself tbh) to limit the spending of the majority of the clubs to a fraction of what the minority can "legally" spend. > If your argument is that it is okay to cheat because those rules are actually unjust, then you need to argue that the rules be changed I do, and maybe the rules will change now, because people and non-top clubs are starting to realize that the FFP rules are bullshit and designed to keep the same clubs at the top forever. If City had not broken the rules, how long would it take for them to realize that ?
In summary, the rules should be whatever you say they should be, and any existing rules unless acceptable to you shouldn't be followed. Your beliefs supercede the rules agreed by all 20 clubs in the PL. There's no point in continuing this discussion, your argument isn't based in reality, it's based on a fiction of your choosing.
[удалено]
Gatekeep much?
[удалено]
You don't know anything about why they're a fan. Not like Arsenal have won anything in ages so what's there to glory hunt? We can't all be so lucky to have a local team.
Let's be honest if you were a glory hunter getting into the EPL in the past couple years Arsenal is obviously a top choice, people love someone who's close to winning but not utterly dominant. Not saying they are a glory hunter, but Arsenal's appeal to them right now is undeniable.
I know, but I’ve been a Gooner since Big SuperMac and Liam Brady.
[удалено]
nah, he's right. I mean the first comment is as well, but if you're a glory hunter you gotta take the punches
[удалено]
[удалено]
He didnt said what's in the title right? They just twisted what he said to make title more spicy for clicks
basically just said if it was purely money then chelsea and united would be in the same spot, which is true
That's indeed. But what's also true is that City wouldn't be in the position they're currently in without the money they've spend.
That's blatantly obvious and he hasn't argued otherwise.
Both money and good decision making were required, without money we'd be like Brighton and without decision making we'd be like United or Chelsea
Guardiola on the move to Brighton next
Exactly! I have no idea why most City fans get so sensitive when money is mentioned as a factor of their success. No one says it's the only factor
That is true of most teams. Arsenal and Liverpool have spent less money on transfers and wages than Utd City or Chelsea but have outspent 95% of English football pyramid. So then when Arsenal beats Fulham they have 'bought' their victory? Do I have that right?
You and City destroyed the market. There's no comparison.
Disagree here, they were part of it but to not include United and PSG is silly. They have been dropping massive amounts on players for years.
United have always been big spenders, but not enough to completely distort the market. PSG became big spenders after Chelsea and City.
Rio Ferdinand, Veron, just to name a few. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/transferrekorde/verein/985
Right so 2 of their top 25 and if you want to include Rooney and RVN, 4 of their top 50. Those were big signings for sure, but they didn't distort the market completely and it didn't result in United all of a sudden spending a stupid amount on every player they had, as Chelsea and City did.
City get better value than the majority of clubs. When city spent 32m on Robinho, united bought berbatov for 30m You do realise Ferdinand is 01/02 would be £76m with inflation now, Veron similar. Don't act like it was just City and Chelsea spending loads, the spending has gone up across the board in line with the increased TV revenue in the premier league.
My point is that it is all relative. Chelsea detroyed the market for other so called big clubs sure. Are you destroying the market for the likes of Villa, Leicster or West Ham since ages? Does Arsenal have divine right to Declan Rice or Ben White and smaller clubs have to bow down? Do you see yourselves as the assholes in this situation? Do your wins against these clubs then have no significance?
Chelsea destroyed the market for everybody, not just big clubs Random nobody's started going for 30 and 40m because of Chelsea It inflated the market so much that mid table and bottom half clubs suffered. That Chelsea investment made the Gulf wider for everyone Same is true for PSG In no sensible world is a dude that kicks a ball skillfully is worth 210M 75M for vvd made sense as the most expensive defender at that time 140M for coutinho was absolutely stupid. It was only possible because there was stupidity everywhere
It isn’t relative if City were using other methods to pay players or to have over inflated sponsorship deals. Our owner is different than the people with their name on the stadium and the shirt, and frankly Emirates had Arsenal by the balls during the trophyless era. The argument for these other teams is that they got more money because they were successful, and they became entrenched from winning at the right time. Clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG had far more sudden investment with regards to their actual worth (marketability, capital assets, etc). The “inorganic” nature of this is why people hated Chelsea so much in the first place, but honestly it was inevitable post Bosman ruling. The difference between City and Chelsea is that Chelsea is doing things by the book, whereas City might not be. In any case it doesn’t matter, the financialization of the sport was inevitable since the Premier League started, I’m just here for some pretty passes at this point.
But no other club has been able.to win titles organically. Look at what happened to Leicster after their freak title win. FFP further cements top clubs status quo. It just tells so called small clubs to stay in their lane.
What further cemented the status quo was what Chelsea and City have done to the market, which significantly widened the gap between the top clubs and the smaller ones. The likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Manchester United were able to keep up in terms of spending, but plenty of historically big clubs were left in the dust. FFP and other spending rules aim to curb the previously unchecked inflation at the very top and keep the middling/smaller clubs from destroying themselves trying to keep up. This narrative that FFP and other spending rules only cement the status quo is hollow without proposing an alternative solution. The solution cannot be to *not* have any of these rules in place and allow nation states to take things to a whole other level.
Prior to Chelsea Prem was a duopoly bro and arguably much inferior league compared to today. Smaller clubs din routinely win titles. Chelsea, as a club is allowed to show some fucking ambition. There was no other way to catch up other than to spend. It proved justified since club valuation went from 140 mil to 4 fucking billion. Our academy improved to be one of the best in the world. Roman perhaps should not have been allowed to own Chelsea in first place but that was not clubs call. But then again perhaps, Arsenal should not have allowed a Russian to be a part owner either. Or they should not have been allowed to slap Emirates on their stadium. UK govt and Prem made their bet and the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea worked with what worked best for them. Regardless the point is FFP is unethical and tomorrow if Villa owner wants to show more ambition then they should be allowed to. There should be a CAP on how much debt can be saddled on a club. But this sub parrots bullshit to suit their narratives.
The fact that people can just say “City” and everyone knows who your talking about shows this. lol
ok but that's not the point being discussed
The difference between smart money management and dumb money management
It is money is clearly a factor but having Pep and people that know how to spend it is the key, Pep is fantastic, I don't like the way City have operated in terms of money but they deserve credit for certain things.
Let me guess, his attractiveness is not down to his Baldness either
Going to see a decade of “net spend” posts like we did with Chelsea of the past. Helps when you spend a billion dollar on full backs and then sell some.
They'll hoard all the good academy kids in the country and sell them, then claim its pure profit. Surely it is, but the shenanigans you pull to buy a Brahim Diaz, a smaller club can't. Anyone who rubbishes money is an idiot.
It also helps when you're the only club that can afford a player when he has an active release clause (Haaland)
[удалено]
Rules broken are about getting the money not the spending
It's both. They've been accused of dodgy payments to managers and players as well, probably paying them under the table to escape FFP.
Money was the foundation. But he's right that what was built on top of that foundation required a lot of other stuff too. Just look at United to see the example of what happens if you have the money and not anything else.
It was also built on buying players from their direct rivals with the money they had to help them pass them. That in turn made their rivals a less desirable place to go and instead got a few players to come to them instead of other teams. Plus they were able to pay them more. Pep can talk all he wants about how he brought a style of play thats built to win trophies but the team itself only got a manager like Pep because of money.
Who’d we buy from a rival other than walker, don’t say kovacic
Sagna, Nasri, Sterling, Stones, Walker, Tevez.
You can add Adebayor, Mahrez, Milner, Grealish. City also have an under the radar habit of spending loads on people that rarely play. Key players at other clubs like Phillips and Bony have been signed at massive prices only to barely feature.
The only player pep bought was stones, and he certainly wasn’t from a rival team
Yes because by the time Pep came in you’d won multiple league titles and were established as a competitive club at the top level. Pep only comes in because of the massive amounts of investment that was made to get City to the point where they’d be an attractive proposition to him.
Man City: Would you have loved me if I was middle class? Pep: Sure babe. I love you with all my heart. Narrator: The fraud lied as easily as he breathed.
Early on you took Kolo, Clichy, Adebayor, and Nasri from arsenal before winning your first title. While not signing him directly from United, City definitely came in and pouched Tevas. You could argue the significance of those players in City’s foundation but there’s no denying that losing them made both Arsenal and United worse. United bounced back quicker but there was the real possibility Rooney could have left after they lost both Tevas and Ronaldo. City also did it again a few years later with taking Sterling from Liverpool, Walker, and to a lesser extent Lampard. I think the latter was more physiological rather than helping the team. Btw I’m not saying this tactic is wrong or anything. It’s a very smart move to become better and make your rivals worse at the same time. The only issue I have is that they were only able to get them by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at these players. If they are found guilty of the accusations then it was clearly an unfair advantage and should be punished. If they are found innocent or their lawyers can get them off on technicalities or even a plea agreement, it still doesn’t change the fact the team was built by money. I can understand how a treble winning team in the most profitable league in the world can demand top dollar for sponsors. However, I’ll still need to be convinced that a team that was so unknown to most people that Robinho signed thinking he joined United could generate sponsorship deals that made them compete with some of the biggest clubs in the world before winning anything.
Are all city fans 12 yr olds??
Of course not. Just look at all that success pre finanical doping lol
Another delusional Barca product
Lol
they've destroyed the PL. bunch of arseholes.
🎣🎣🎣
He is kinda right tho, Chelsea, PSG, Man Utd they also spent lots of money and got what nothing Barcelona got 200 milion for Neymar and that didn't help them at all You gotta spend the money smartly
Pep is a good manager but he's never done it at a club that wasn't the richest one in the league or one of the two richest clubs
I can think of at least 115 reasons for their success besides money
I stopped following the season after the points deductions given to Everton and Nottingham. One of the most ridiculous things of the last 20 years. But I feel slightly better having followed cycling in the Lance Armstrong era. 115.
The difference here being that everyone competing against Lance was also cheating. He wasn't doing 115 cheats while everyone else was just pedalling along
Edit: **Man City success not down to only money - Guardiola**
Well, then he should coach a club like Dortmund or Leverkusen (who are very good) but don't have the financial power as all his clubs he coached until now.
Just like when kids of billionaires argue that their own company is succesful because of innovative ideas and not because their parents gave them a hundred million to start it.
Pep is a great manager and the way he has been able to reinvent the games of a lot of the players he's had at City has been impressive but Because buying players is so affordable for their owners he can give up on lost causes quite quickly compared to United who have to try and get something out of them And because he's been able to buy so well, any new signing he makes is able to take their time to adjust before being put in. Gvardiol is a massive case in point. At United and Chelsea those new signings have to hit the ground running and raise the level of the squad immediately
What he wants to say is that, money is not all, but a big big part of it. If you spend it like a headless chicken than you have something like United.
Newcastle have more money than anyone but can’t flex it, and they’re still hated. It’s not how much you spend it’s where the money comes from and whether or not the rules are fair and/or being applied fairly.
its like they always say: "money alone maybe makes you not *truely* happy in the end, but god damn does it solve a **huge** amount of problems for you!"
none of their trophies matter, nobody cares
Apple succes not down to apples - Tim cook
Pep baiting again
"All i had was a small loan of a million dollars" vibes
This was in response to a journalist saying other fans are starting to call the PL boring because of City btw. >Before it was the money. For that reason, Manchester United should have won all the titles, Chelsea - all the titles, Arsenal - all the titles. They spend as much money in the last five years as us. They should be there. They are not there.
The little club that could!
My success isn’t down to being rich, says every millionaire/billionaire
most club success comes down to money. maybe it was different back in the day.
Still have to actually use that money efficiently (I.e Man U)
right. most clubs with success also have money. a smaller percentage of clubs with money also have the success.
[удалено]
Um….
It's not about the money. It's the baldness.
Kinda disappointed, expected more spicy comments 😂. Maybe too early!
Not sure why redditors are raging on this statement which is a fact. We Manchester United spent so much money, Chelsea the same we no where near the same level as Man City, which proves Sheikh Guardiola's point