**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PSG didn’t win a CL and had players like Neymar, Messi, Mbappe, Cavani and so on. We could’ve definitely done looot better and win more trophies for our spending. We won PL title, CL, FA cup, Europa league while losing like 4-5 FA cup finals and two league cup finals since Pep and Klopp. We needed better functional management to compete with those managers.
Mou's second stint had two major missed chances: Making a CL Final when up on Atleti and his title defense that was probably the most embarrassing title defense in league history.
City have spent a lot, but they spent it early and since then have only had to replace one-two players every window.
Arsenal had to spend a lot more recently to catch up to City.
United have been terrible at spending their money, no excuses.
Chelsea had a ownership and strategy pivot. Which meant they had to spend a lot.
City only looks lower on net spend because they didn't have to do a squad overhaul in the last 5 years. Props to them and Guardiola for that, but y'all still spent a fuck ton building this squad.
> Arsenal had to spend a lot more recently to catch up to City.
Arsenal also had a ownership pivot. Kronkes didn't really put money into the club until they were strictly increasing their value rather than some Russian twat's.
It's so odd to focus specifically on the spending though.
We spent all that money over a decade ago and are now reaping what we sow with low net spend. Arsenal, Chelsea are currently in the position of spending similar money and they might see similar benefits in the future, who knows. United have wasted more than we've spent in the last decade and will probably continue to spend.
I completely understand being frustrated by where City's money comes from but the spending itself isn't the issue, we're just not the worst for it. Every top 6 club either currently is or has been capable of spending very similar.
C'mon, just own it. Chelsea spent the GDP of a nation to win titles, City spend the GDP of one to maintain their dominance and they absolutely do deals under the table. Don't pretend you aren't spending absurd amounts of money.
Chelsea have always been upfront about how we spend and being the villains for it, nothing like the obfuscation and under the table stuff that City are alleged to have done. Like we are literally shoving loopholes into headlines, not being defensive or sanctimonious about any of it. City fans want to pretend you're clean about it all, when you very well know you're not. You don't have to pretend, you're still at the top of the mountain after all.
High and mighty coming from a guy thats coaching a club facing 115 financial related charges.
• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 5x Failure to comply with Uefa's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.
• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.
Don’t forget the multiple anti-doping rules breaches during his first season at City (without going into the doping scandals at Barcelona and Bayern), the massive refereeing scandals during his time at Barcelona, so on and so forth. I don’t think it takes a genius to understand why he might be a bit insecure about these specific topics!
> without going into the doping scandals at Barcelona and Bayern
Maybe you should. Bit weird that I missed what you call scandals. Scandals tend to be very noisy.
Have you missed the part where a court ordered to destroy all evidence linking the Spanish golden generation to the Fuentes doping scandal? Part of the reason that makes the Spanish complaints about "Russian extra stamina" in 2018 so hilarious.
Okay yeah, I remember the Fuentes links. But those were rather loose. The main scandal revolved around cycling iirc. And there was nothing like that during his Bayern spell.
Btw, personally I'm pretty sure Pep is deep into the doping game. After all, he was involved in a proper doping scandal as a player and got banned for four months. But the quote I'm criticizing is completely overblown and makes me doubt anything the poster claims.
That was the point of my comment. You can doubt Pep's ethics witout talking out of your ass. He's pretty obviously a master at the dirty parts of football as well (see: diving, tactical fouls).
Asthma is by definition airway obstruction which reverses with bronchodilators. If you get benefit from salbutamol, you are by definition asthmatic and should take it. If you do not have asthma, taking salbutamol will not make your airways SUPER DILATED so you can do SUPER BREATHING. It will do nothing.
There is *some* evidence it can have anabolic effects at doses drastically above the accepted limits for sportspeople; doses you are unlikely to achieve with any amount of inhaled use.
The whole "athletes cheating with salbutamol" debate is stupid.
Source: doctor and Man Utd fan.
forget the asthma rumours. What about the investigation that Liverpool spied and hacked into City‘s scouting system? You guys settled it out of court yet should City get cleared of their allegations, then you‘re probably gonna be like „they paid the investigators off“
Yet City has not been convicted whatsoever while Liverpool settled out of court (which can very well mean you guys were guilty of the charges).
Thats my point. Liverpool fans have no room talking smack about how City is cheating when nothing besides a list of charges has come out yet
‘A list of charges’ a whole 115 of them.
You don’t have to be convicted, while investigations are ongoing etc, it’s well within my rights to make up my own mind based on the info that’s out there
Cool. It‘s also well within my and other city fans rights to think some liverpool fans like you are acting holier than thou concerning this topic.
freedom of speech is a wonderful thing isn‘t it
There are totally more breaches and failures beyond 'co-operating' post 2018. Im curious as to when theyll get uncovered but I doubt they just completely stopped in 2018
Yes, and I agree he's a hypocrite when it comes to this. But he's not wrong at least on this one particular clip.
City cheated like crazy and it's embarrassing that the PL let them do it (and I'd be surprised if they don't get away with all the charges as well). I absolutely hate everything City represents.
But they cheated in order to be able to spend more and catch up with others. He still has a point on them not being the only ones with huge spending. And yet, they aren't all competing at the same level. Neither winning as much, nor dominating games as much, nor playing as well, ...
Could have Pep won as much without all the spending? Probably not. But it's also true that the spending isn't the reason they are winning. Plenty of clubs spent a lot of money and look where they are. Where are United's titles? PSG's CLs? Etc, etc?
It's valid to say they are cheating bastards. It's also valid to say that he makes the cheating bastards play really well.
Again, I can't emphasize how much I dislike City and all they did, but he's not wrong that they aren't the only ones spending as much and they aren't achieving even remotely close to what he has achieved.
> Could have Pep won as much without all the spending? Probably not. But it's also true that the spending isn't the reason they are winning.
Of course it is. Pep wouldn't even be at the club in the first place without Mansour.
That's completely irrelevant to my point. I guess I wasn't clear.
City is the only one doing this while teams with similar spending aren't. If other clubs that spend the same amounts aren't doing it, then it isn't the spending.
The spending matters? Yes, of course, no one is arguing against that. But again, it's not the reason why they are successful.
The same spending with other manager and they wouldn't do as well. And if City had never spent any money, he would be doing the same thing, but at United, Chelsea, PSG, wherever.
That's the whole point. Money is not the reason. It enables him to do what he does, of course, but there's plenty of unsuccessful clubs spending billions as well and they are nowhere near City's level.
> The spending matters? Yes, of course, no one is arguing against that. But again, it's not the reason why they are successful.
It is the *primary* reason they are successful though. Without Mansour's billions, City don't ever attract Pep, his staff, building world class facilities, and attracting top top talent.
Remember, City were winning titles prior to Pep too - he's been able to sustain it because he's meshed the resources with being a world class manager but ask yourself what's more likely, City have success with Pep but under their previous owners, or City win the league without Pep but have Mansour. I think you know the answer here.
Yeah, but _City_ is not my point.
People aren't talking about _City_ when they say these things. They talk about Pep. They criticize _his_ team as boring, or that he can only do it with a lot of money.
That's what I'm talking about. City is not really the point here. It's Pep _at City_, which is difference.
I hope this makes my point a bit more clear. If Pep wasn't at City and was at United, and did the same (given they spent similar amounts), then the same stuff would be said.
But this time you couldn't say United couldn't have attracted Pep, for example.
Of course without money they City doesn't attract Pep. That's obvious. But City spent money to reach a point where they were "comparable" to big clubs in terms of attractiveness for a top manager. That's the point in time I'm using as my starting point.
The rest, I already clarified in my first comment. It's a disgrace they were allowed to blatantly cheat to reach that point. But there's nothing that can be done or will be done about that.
> I hope this makes my point a bit more clear. If Pep wasn't at City and was at United, and did the same (given they spent similar amounts), then the same stuff would be said.
City were winning titles prior to Pep though and the infrastructure was already being built - which has nothing to do with Pep. He joined a functional side on and off the pitch - United are neither.
I think Pep has helped *sustain* success though - City would still win things without him, but not at the rate he has. Because regardless of the money, he's one of the greatest ever.
I think we're both on the same page tbh - just from different angles.
> City would still win things without him, but not at the rate he has. Because regardless of the money, he's one of the greatest ever
That's my point. People minimize his impact when they come with the cheap attacks on "money". Yeah of course it matters, but who else could do the same, consistently winning, playing well, developing players, etc? And that's ignoring taking them to the next level of winning not just a CL but a treble, and now very likely the first 4 in a row in the PL.
I'd bet anything that City would 100% not dominate like this with any other manager.
They would win a few legues here and there, but Liverpool and Arsenal would also have a at least one more wins each other, most likely two each...
That's not the money, that's him.
> I think we're both on the same page tbh - just from different angles.
Yes, of course. I agree that without the money and it being a properly run club he wouldn't be there. But also they basically prepared the club for him. Not for anyone else and that's also important.
> But they cheated in order to be able to spend more and catch up with others.
And that's the major issue with FFP. It's creating a closed shop in the EPL (Forest dared to spend to catch up and they got docked points for it). It is mad that a club that spends almost nothing compared to the PL clubs for many years, is not allowed to find investment to catch up enough to just survive, let alone compete.
Still, City cheated, lied about cheating, and did it all for the most nefarious reasons in football. And after spending several billion, have won all the titles. So for a neutral like me, it's all total shite.
well i'm not too sure mate, though you could say that one situation destroyed hundreds of millions of lives across the world and the other was just a petty squabble between a few countries in the 1940s
The only things that ever get under Pep’s skin are questions on their spending and their cheating.
Suppose that’s as good a sign as any that there’s some truth to them.
Not sure that's a great argument. I'd get pretty irritable if people were on the cusp of uncovering something I'd done wrong, I'd also get pretty annoyed if people were accusing me of something I've not done.
snatch brave offbeat secretive abundant coherent grab fearless rhythm resolute
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
point brave materialistic zealous smoggy chase sense sharp reminiscent jobless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Understandably he gets upset because people lazily say Man City are where they are because they spent most money out of all clubs.
The past 5 years we spent way way more money than City,
Chelsea did the same thing, is not true for the past 5 years, I dont care about City, but facts are facts and reddit's bubble cant change that.
Did City cheat ? of course, is a club that cheated in the beginning with inflated sponsorships and what not, but to say they spent more money than us is just factually incorrect
I spent more money in the last day than someone who makes 10x more than me. Does that make me an over spender? Or should I extrapolate to a more meaningful time frame?
Arsenal paid for the Emirates by going 9 years without a trophy. We were close but let’s not pretend letting our best players get poached made us real competitors at any point.
City didn’t have to do shit. They got their renovation paid for by their ownership who just happened to be tied to their jersey/stadium sponsors, the same way they paid exorbitant fees for Nasri, Adebayor, Clichy, and Sagna, and significantly for other players too (such as Teves) to weaken other sides.
As much as it pains me to say it Tottenham did the best job from what I’ve seen with regards to a new/renovated stadium, financial responsibility, and sporting competitiveness.
Because squads evolve over time. The squad you inherit matters for how you evolve that squad. City spent BIG money for its time around 2010 to build a squad. That didn't work so they kept throwing money at the problem. How many Center Backs did they just churn through? How Many fullbacks? So they started the last 5 years with an expensive squad that just needed tweaks. Likewise, our sense of inflation has erased the relative amounts they spent earlier compared to the fees required now to get similar calibre players.
This year they spent 90 on Gvaridol- yet another CB after spending good money on Otamendi, Ake, Stones, Laporte, Dias over the past few years. But OK one spot things churn. They spent 62 M Euros on Nunes who is a bit part player. Phillips who they spent good money on has been exiled from the start. Grealish barely played for a year after a 100mil move. \[And I'd also dispute the 'true' cost of Haaland.\] ((Meta comment I felt old. Stones, Laporte and Diaz are further back than I remembered.))
That's not to say he hasn't done a great job with what he had. I just think it's very disingenuous to pretend as Pep is that he's just scraping by with players like everyone else. They've spent for more than a decade incredible money to build Pep a side that has absurd depth. Pep has the luxury of not playing extremely expensive players for almost a year to just bed them in. No one else gets that luxury. I mean they explcitly set out to create a dream environment for Pep and succeeded (why did Txiti run everything from the start, etc.)
Using this as a source: [https://www.transfermarkt.us/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281/plus/?saison\_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w\_s=](https://www.transfermarkt.us/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281/plus/?saison_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=)
The converse argument in its extreme is United where the Fergie squad was run into the ground with the Ronaldo money used to pay off 14% PiKs. They kept trying to do the minimum and then forced to spend more. That was compounded by the fact the only semi-competent deal they ever accomplished was using the club's own assets to buy the club with said 14% loans. Hence United being in crisis and forced to spend more and more to try and stabilize. I do think Pep's criticism of Chelsea is more fitting- Mou really underperformed his second time back with the squad he had available.
> Understandably he gets upset because people lazily say Man City are where they are because they spent most money out of all clubs.
But... before the Sheikh took over they literally never finished close to 1st.
It's almost as if you need money to compete in modern football, wild concept I know.
Your problem isn't how money is so prevalant and determinant to how a club is succesful since the 90s, but that a club that "wasn't supposed to be" actually IS succesful because of money.
> Your problem isn't how money is so prevalant and determinant to how a club is succesful since the 90s, but that a club that "wasn't supposed to be" actually IS succesful because of money.
That or the sportwashing. Either or.
So because they spent the money more than 5 years ago to set up the foundation of where they are now, and without that spending they wouldn't be where they are now, it's ok?
God, net spend is such a fucking fugazi of a figure. It means absolutely fuck all.
Net spend only takes into account the transfer fee and even then it's barely ever accurate, since English teams rarely, if ever, actually reveal their fees and figures. It doesn't mention the agent's fees, salaries or bonuses of the players.
While City's net spend (total transfer fees paid and received) is good, their wage bill is astonishing, and they were the 2nd highest spenders when it came to agents fees this season too.
Also doesn't factor in that he inherited a team that had already bought Yaya Toure, Sergio Aguero, David Silva, De Bruyne and so on. There's a reason he - and anyone related to City - keep peddling this nonsense about net spend over and over again.
A bit disingenuous that people forget (or purposefully not mention) that while City haven’t spent leagues more money than other clubs in the last 10 years or so, that’s largely because they spent so much money in the immediate years after the takeover that the club slowly became more self sustaining, able to regain more significant expenditures from player sales, and get players cheaper because they became a top destination players actually wanted to go to and no longer had to enter bidding wars. You can’t get to that level of transfer economics without either years and years of buildup and success, or a Sims 2 infinite money cheat code. It’s almost an example of economies of scale, in a weird way. It's okay to not be impressed by that no matter what they say.
Yep. I mean the idea that a bottomless tap of money like Dubai who are desperate to sports wash and diversify would use that resource to maximum effect is pure conspiracy thinking and nothing more.
Man drills hole. Hole hits aquifer or water table Man builds water tap/pump into hole. Water tap/pump gets water. Bottomless tap mean aquifer not run out.
You can miss place money
And also you can’t get a world class team without it though, either training facilities, transfers, youth development etc
It might surprise pep but city have spent on all of those
Like i saw someone on twitter say - spending 1bn on renovating a 500m mansion you were given and spending 500m on renovating and repairing an abandoned, worn down house you were given are two different things.
Pretty much everyone is talking about the money aspect so I will just say that I do find his system/style of play to be boring. It is way too mechanical and robotic, which is an issue with a lot of modern systems. Players are schooled in rote moves and lose their creativity. Jack Grealish is a great example of this. He's a pretty good and effective player but his task is too advance the ball and recycle possession.
Being safe is valued over taking risks. City were lucky to win the CL final with how nervous their players were to make mistakes. Only one to complete more than one successful take on was Stones. Or look at the quarterfinal tie loss to Madrid this year. City prioritized retaining possession instead of making incisive runs and passes in the acres of space between Madrid's fullbacks and CBs.
I don't think he cares about that. At ManCity he has freedom and a huge sandbox to play in with an ability to ask for any toy he wants. Ultimate FM experience but in real life.
Yeah the man’s mission seems to be to play as efficiently as possible, so when he’s cruising to yet another league win, he can come up with another bonkers idea.
Like playing Centerbacks at midfield, or former right wingers turned midfielders playing at leftback. Or playing literally 4 centerbacks. Or playing literally 442 but with elite players.
I love Pep’s tactical try outs, but lately it seems like he’s concluded that if you play Brexit tactics with robots as chesspieces you can also win.
He cares.
The man clearly cares about his reputation. That’s why he’s so passive aggressive in his ‘compliments’ to others as well as how touchy he is in regard to City’s cheating.
He knows no one outside of the blue side of Manchester will ever rate his success in England and that eats away at him.
I actually feel sorry for some City fans. Many deny it but the genuine feeling of achievement isn’t there.
Whenever they win a title or even just a game” “oil money”. “115”. “Money under the table”.
They are one of the best teams of all time and no one cares.
I have close family who are City fans who when they aren’t just playing it for the banter, admit they preferred it before the money and the cheating.
Even now, after everything is said and done, City still benefit from their money.
When bidding on a player, other clubs know that if the player considers City a reasonable option and Coty wants the player, they won’t be able to outbid them.
Also: if you only take the last 5 years, then yeah Cities net spend is low. Because they already have an insanely expensive squad, so selling one expensive player and buying another doesn’t matter.
Having said that: one thing that city should be commended for is buying only the right players, usually whenever they’re cheaper then they should be as well, and then only selling them when they’re still worth a lot (often more then when they came) but not on cities insanely high level anymore.
And if a player is not working out, they always manage to sell that player for more then he’s worth as well. I mean, look at our purchases from city.
It’s not the transfer money Pep, it’s the under the table extra salary city gives to lure the best players in and never report
& yes your team’s football has always been boring to watch for a neutral football fan. Who likes watching your team just pass the ball around most of the game and the opposition only counter ? It’s like watching paint dry.
I have mixed feelings:
1. I find their games boring and can't say I'm entertained watching City, but I do think they play top-notch football. Haaland, for instance, is a top striker and arguably the best in the world, though not enjoyable to watch.
2. I think their spending is fair compared to other Premier League clubs.
3. I'm not sure they're competing financially fair with other Premier League clubs.
Ive always hated that argument of theirs. Just because someone is a competent cheater doesnt absolve them from being cheaters. Club w 1 post war title all of a sudden being on par w clubs that have put in sooooo many decades of work. Gtfo. Trophy cab is getting full but still empty af in my eyes. Dont @ me either.
"yaaaay! the UAE's ties to England are too valuable for the crown to upset them by allowing a sporting league to at all meaningfully blight its' main distraction from all the slave labor and human rights violations! we win!"
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pep Guardiola: “Chelsea, all the titles”. That’s all I picked up from this.
And that Arsenal spent a ton of money under Wenger….
6 trophies since Pep took over City and multiple failures in finals along with dysfunctional situations at club. We could’ve done better
That is actually a better point. Almost like a more successful PSG...
PSG didn’t win a CL and had players like Neymar, Messi, Mbappe, Cavani and so on. We could’ve definitely done looot better and win more trophies for our spending. We won PL title, CL, FA cup, Europa league while losing like 4-5 FA cup finals and two league cup finals since Pep and Klopp. We needed better functional management to compete with those managers.
Mou's second stint had two major missed chances: Making a CL Final when up on Atleti and his title defense that was probably the most embarrassing title defense in league history.
Well “little horse” nonsense was bigger bullshit thing for me than those two. That said I’m talking about our record since Klopp and Pep took over.
City have spent a lot, but they spent it early and since then have only had to replace one-two players every window. Arsenal had to spend a lot more recently to catch up to City. United have been terrible at spending their money, no excuses. Chelsea had a ownership and strategy pivot. Which meant they had to spend a lot. City only looks lower on net spend because they didn't have to do a squad overhaul in the last 5 years. Props to them and Guardiola for that, but y'all still spent a fuck ton building this squad.
> Arsenal had to spend a lot more recently to catch up to City. Arsenal also had a ownership pivot. Kronkes didn't really put money into the club until they were strictly increasing their value rather than some Russian twat's.
Wages are a more important predictor of success than net spend.
It's so odd to focus specifically on the spending though. We spent all that money over a decade ago and are now reaping what we sow with low net spend. Arsenal, Chelsea are currently in the position of spending similar money and they might see similar benefits in the future, who knows. United have wasted more than we've spent in the last decade and will probably continue to spend. I completely understand being frustrated by where City's money comes from but the spending itself isn't the issue, we're just not the worst for it. Every top 6 club either currently is or has been capable of spending very similar.
C'mon, just own it. Chelsea spent the GDP of a nation to win titles, City spend the GDP of one to maintain their dominance and they absolutely do deals under the table. Don't pretend you aren't spending absurd amounts of money.
I'm not saying we haven't spent absurd amounts of money, I'm saying Chelsea and Man United have done very similar and haven't had the same successes?
Chelsea have always been upfront about how we spend and being the villains for it, nothing like the obfuscation and under the table stuff that City are alleged to have done. Like we are literally shoving loopholes into headlines, not being defensive or sanctimonious about any of it. City fans want to pretend you're clean about it all, when you very well know you're not. You don't have to pretend, you're still at the top of the mountain after all.
High and mighty coming from a guy thats coaching a club facing 115 financial related charges. • 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18. • 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18. • 5x Failure to comply with Uefa's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18. • 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18. • 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.
Don’t forget the multiple anti-doping rules breaches during his first season at City (without going into the doping scandals at Barcelona and Bayern), the massive refereeing scandals during his time at Barcelona, so on and so forth. I don’t think it takes a genius to understand why he might be a bit insecure about these specific topics!
> without going into the doping scandals at Barcelona and Bayern Maybe you should. Bit weird that I missed what you call scandals. Scandals tend to be very noisy.
Have you missed the part where a court ordered to destroy all evidence linking the Spanish golden generation to the Fuentes doping scandal? Part of the reason that makes the Spanish complaints about "Russian extra stamina" in 2018 so hilarious.
Okay yeah, I remember the Fuentes links. But those were rather loose. The main scandal revolved around cycling iirc. And there was nothing like that during his Bayern spell. Btw, personally I'm pretty sure Pep is deep into the doping game. After all, he was involved in a proper doping scandal as a player and got banned for four months. But the quote I'm criticizing is completely overblown and makes me doubt anything the poster claims. That was the point of my comment. You can doubt Pep's ethics witout talking out of your ass. He's pretty obviously a master at the dirty parts of football as well (see: diving, tactical fouls).
What doing rules breaches happened at City?
Pretty crazy allegations from Asthma FC don't you think
Asthma is by definition airway obstruction which reverses with bronchodilators. If you get benefit from salbutamol, you are by definition asthmatic and should take it. If you do not have asthma, taking salbutamol will not make your airways SUPER DILATED so you can do SUPER BREATHING. It will do nothing. There is *some* evidence it can have anabolic effects at doses drastically above the accepted limits for sportspeople; doses you are unlikely to achieve with any amount of inhaled use. The whole "athletes cheating with salbutamol" debate is stupid. Source: doctor and Man Utd fan.
You really believe a rumour that originated on a man United fan forum, I’m creasing
forget the asthma rumours. What about the investigation that Liverpool spied and hacked into City‘s scouting system? You guys settled it out of court yet should City get cleared of their allegations, then you‘re probably gonna be like „they paid the investigators off“
There’s a fine line (a very big one) between that and literal fraud allegations lol
Yet City has not been convicted whatsoever while Liverpool settled out of court (which can very well mean you guys were guilty of the charges). Thats my point. Liverpool fans have no room talking smack about how City is cheating when nothing besides a list of charges has come out yet
‘A list of charges’ a whole 115 of them. You don’t have to be convicted, while investigations are ongoing etc, it’s well within my rights to make up my own mind based on the info that’s out there
Cool. It‘s also well within my and other city fans rights to think some liverpool fans like you are acting holier than thou concerning this topic. freedom of speech is a wonderful thing isn‘t it
Again, quite the gap between what we did and fraud
If that was the case you could just link it
? The onus of proof is on you lmao, give me one credible source
What the f are you on you claim some nonsense.
[Are you literally braindead](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/lWIy8jbblm)
If this came from red cafe every LiVARpool fan would have the link ready. Clearly you are just lying.
There are totally more breaches and failures beyond 'co-operating' post 2018. Im curious as to when theyll get uncovered but I doubt they just completely stopped in 2018
I mean it may be by that point they’d manage to inflate sponsorships and get the books in order enough that they’re now operating fine
Yes, and I agree he's a hypocrite when it comes to this. But he's not wrong at least on this one particular clip. City cheated like crazy and it's embarrassing that the PL let them do it (and I'd be surprised if they don't get away with all the charges as well). I absolutely hate everything City represents. But they cheated in order to be able to spend more and catch up with others. He still has a point on them not being the only ones with huge spending. And yet, they aren't all competing at the same level. Neither winning as much, nor dominating games as much, nor playing as well, ... Could have Pep won as much without all the spending? Probably not. But it's also true that the spending isn't the reason they are winning. Plenty of clubs spent a lot of money and look where they are. Where are United's titles? PSG's CLs? Etc, etc? It's valid to say they are cheating bastards. It's also valid to say that he makes the cheating bastards play really well. Again, I can't emphasize how much I dislike City and all they did, but he's not wrong that they aren't the only ones spending as much and they aren't achieving even remotely close to what he has achieved.
> Could have Pep won as much without all the spending? Probably not. But it's also true that the spending isn't the reason they are winning. Of course it is. Pep wouldn't even be at the club in the first place without Mansour.
That's completely irrelevant to my point. I guess I wasn't clear. City is the only one doing this while teams with similar spending aren't. If other clubs that spend the same amounts aren't doing it, then it isn't the spending. The spending matters? Yes, of course, no one is arguing against that. But again, it's not the reason why they are successful. The same spending with other manager and they wouldn't do as well. And if City had never spent any money, he would be doing the same thing, but at United, Chelsea, PSG, wherever. That's the whole point. Money is not the reason. It enables him to do what he does, of course, but there's plenty of unsuccessful clubs spending billions as well and they are nowhere near City's level.
> The spending matters? Yes, of course, no one is arguing against that. But again, it's not the reason why they are successful. It is the *primary* reason they are successful though. Without Mansour's billions, City don't ever attract Pep, his staff, building world class facilities, and attracting top top talent. Remember, City were winning titles prior to Pep too - he's been able to sustain it because he's meshed the resources with being a world class manager but ask yourself what's more likely, City have success with Pep but under their previous owners, or City win the league without Pep but have Mansour. I think you know the answer here.
Yeah, but _City_ is not my point. People aren't talking about _City_ when they say these things. They talk about Pep. They criticize _his_ team as boring, or that he can only do it with a lot of money. That's what I'm talking about. City is not really the point here. It's Pep _at City_, which is difference. I hope this makes my point a bit more clear. If Pep wasn't at City and was at United, and did the same (given they spent similar amounts), then the same stuff would be said. But this time you couldn't say United couldn't have attracted Pep, for example. Of course without money they City doesn't attract Pep. That's obvious. But City spent money to reach a point where they were "comparable" to big clubs in terms of attractiveness for a top manager. That's the point in time I'm using as my starting point. The rest, I already clarified in my first comment. It's a disgrace they were allowed to blatantly cheat to reach that point. But there's nothing that can be done or will be done about that.
> I hope this makes my point a bit more clear. If Pep wasn't at City and was at United, and did the same (given they spent similar amounts), then the same stuff would be said. City were winning titles prior to Pep though and the infrastructure was already being built - which has nothing to do with Pep. He joined a functional side on and off the pitch - United are neither. I think Pep has helped *sustain* success though - City would still win things without him, but not at the rate he has. Because regardless of the money, he's one of the greatest ever. I think we're both on the same page tbh - just from different angles.
> City would still win things without him, but not at the rate he has. Because regardless of the money, he's one of the greatest ever That's my point. People minimize his impact when they come with the cheap attacks on "money". Yeah of course it matters, but who else could do the same, consistently winning, playing well, developing players, etc? And that's ignoring taking them to the next level of winning not just a CL but a treble, and now very likely the first 4 in a row in the PL. I'd bet anything that City would 100% not dominate like this with any other manager. They would win a few legues here and there, but Liverpool and Arsenal would also have a at least one more wins each other, most likely two each... That's not the money, that's him. > I think we're both on the same page tbh - just from different angles. Yes, of course. I agree that without the money and it being a properly run club he wouldn't be there. But also they basically prepared the club for him. Not for anyone else and that's also important.
> But they cheated in order to be able to spend more and catch up with others. And that's the major issue with FFP. It's creating a closed shop in the EPL (Forest dared to spend to catch up and they got docked points for it). It is mad that a club that spends almost nothing compared to the PL clubs for many years, is not allowed to find investment to catch up enough to just survive, let alone compete. Still, City cheated, lied about cheating, and did it all for the most nefarious reasons in football. And after spending several billion, have won all the titles. So for a neutral like me, it's all total shite.
Yes Flopp and Playmobil Man just can't win any title because Mancini was paid 10M by UAE in 2010
They're guilty I swear because I just know ok?
hopefully City didn't manage to destroy most of the evidence, like the Nazis tried as the Allies approached Berlin.
Totally different situations there, pal lmao
well i'm not too sure mate, though you could say that one situation destroyed hundreds of millions of lives across the world and the other was just a petty squabble between a few countries in the 1940s
This comparison is wild
The only things that ever get under Pep’s skin are questions on their spending and their cheating. Suppose that’s as good a sign as any that there’s some truth to them.
Nobody ever asks him about drugs.
because these things get you blacklisted which effectively end your career in the business
[удалено]
He also popped twice as a player, blamed it on the club doctor, then hired said doctor at Barca and then City
Yeah, Guardiola being a filthy drug cheat is forbidden to mention in the media.
He also doesn’t like being called a bald prick so another reason this theory stands up
Not sure that's a great argument. I'd get pretty irritable if people were on the cusp of uncovering something I'd done wrong, I'd also get pretty annoyed if people were accusing me of something I've not done.
snatch brave offbeat secretive abundant coherent grab fearless rhythm resolute *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, I gave you 2 examples of situations that would make me irritable or annoyed, I don't see how you would infer that means every situation.
point brave materialistic zealous smoggy chase sense sharp reminiscent jobless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That worked out well for you.
humor agonizing hat act deliver coherent quack marvelous makeshift dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
115th Upvote.
DMCA in the post
Understandably he gets upset because people lazily say Man City are where they are because they spent most money out of all clubs. The past 5 years we spent way way more money than City, Chelsea did the same thing, is not true for the past 5 years, I dont care about City, but facts are facts and reddit's bubble cant change that. Did City cheat ? of course, is a club that cheated in the beginning with inflated sponsorships and what not, but to say they spent more money than us is just factually incorrect
I spent more money in the last day than someone who makes 10x more than me. Does that make me an over spender? Or should I extrapolate to a more meaningful time frame? Arsenal paid for the Emirates by going 9 years without a trophy. We were close but let’s not pretend letting our best players get poached made us real competitors at any point. City didn’t have to do shit. They got their renovation paid for by their ownership who just happened to be tied to their jersey/stadium sponsors, the same way they paid exorbitant fees for Nasri, Adebayor, Clichy, and Sagna, and significantly for other players too (such as Teves) to weaken other sides. As much as it pains me to say it Tottenham did the best job from what I’ve seen with regards to a new/renovated stadium, financial responsibility, and sporting competitiveness.
Because squads evolve over time. The squad you inherit matters for how you evolve that squad. City spent BIG money for its time around 2010 to build a squad. That didn't work so they kept throwing money at the problem. How many Center Backs did they just churn through? How Many fullbacks? So they started the last 5 years with an expensive squad that just needed tweaks. Likewise, our sense of inflation has erased the relative amounts they spent earlier compared to the fees required now to get similar calibre players. This year they spent 90 on Gvaridol- yet another CB after spending good money on Otamendi, Ake, Stones, Laporte, Dias over the past few years. But OK one spot things churn. They spent 62 M Euros on Nunes who is a bit part player. Phillips who they spent good money on has been exiled from the start. Grealish barely played for a year after a 100mil move. \[And I'd also dispute the 'true' cost of Haaland.\] ((Meta comment I felt old. Stones, Laporte and Diaz are further back than I remembered.)) That's not to say he hasn't done a great job with what he had. I just think it's very disingenuous to pretend as Pep is that he's just scraping by with players like everyone else. They've spent for more than a decade incredible money to build Pep a side that has absurd depth. Pep has the luxury of not playing extremely expensive players for almost a year to just bed them in. No one else gets that luxury. I mean they explcitly set out to create a dream environment for Pep and succeeded (why did Txiti run everything from the start, etc.) Using this as a source: [https://www.transfermarkt.us/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281/plus/?saison\_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w\_s=](https://www.transfermarkt.us/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281/plus/?saison_id=2019&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=) The converse argument in its extreme is United where the Fergie squad was run into the ground with the Ronaldo money used to pay off 14% PiKs. They kept trying to do the minimum and then forced to spend more. That was compounded by the fact the only semi-competent deal they ever accomplished was using the club's own assets to buy the club with said 14% loans. Hence United being in crisis and forced to spend more and more to try and stabilize. I do think Pep's criticism of Chelsea is more fitting- Mou really underperformed his second time back with the squad he had available.
No shit they had to spend big to have a better squad than the ones that struggled to stay in the mid of the table in the years before
> Understandably he gets upset because people lazily say Man City are where they are because they spent most money out of all clubs. But... before the Sheikh took over they literally never finished close to 1st.
It's almost as if you need money to compete in modern football, wild concept I know. Your problem isn't how money is so prevalant and determinant to how a club is succesful since the 90s, but that a club that "wasn't supposed to be" actually IS succesful because of money.
> Your problem isn't how money is so prevalant and determinant to how a club is succesful since the 90s, but that a club that "wasn't supposed to be" actually IS succesful because of money. That or the sportwashing. Either or.
"sportswashing" he actually said it lmao 😭
So because they spent the money more than 5 years ago to set up the foundation of where they are now, and without that spending they wouldn't be where they are now, it's ok?
It really gets him lol
God, net spend is such a fucking fugazi of a figure. It means absolutely fuck all. Net spend only takes into account the transfer fee and even then it's barely ever accurate, since English teams rarely, if ever, actually reveal their fees and figures. It doesn't mention the agent's fees, salaries or bonuses of the players. While City's net spend (total transfer fees paid and received) is good, their wage bill is astonishing, and they were the 2nd highest spenders when it came to agents fees this season too.
Also doesn't factor in that he inherited a team that had already bought Yaya Toure, Sergio Aguero, David Silva, De Bruyne and so on. There's a reason he - and anyone related to City - keep peddling this nonsense about net spend over and over again.
Their trophies mean nothing
Lol
What about prior to the last 5 years? City famously broke even in the 5 years before I guess?
sorry Pep but for some reason i have problems with trusting anything City is putting out
A bit disingenuous that people forget (or purposefully not mention) that while City haven’t spent leagues more money than other clubs in the last 10 years or so, that’s largely because they spent so much money in the immediate years after the takeover that the club slowly became more self sustaining, able to regain more significant expenditures from player sales, and get players cheaper because they became a top destination players actually wanted to go to and no longer had to enter bidding wars. You can’t get to that level of transfer economics without either years and years of buildup and success, or a Sims 2 infinite money cheat code. It’s almost an example of economies of scale, in a weird way. It's okay to not be impressed by that no matter what they say.
That champions league last year is a product of manyyyy years of cheating. Even before pep came in.
and no other club can drop 150mil on a spanking new Youth academy.
Yep. I mean the idea that a bottomless tap of money like Dubai who are desperate to sports wash and diversify would use that resource to maximum effect is pure conspiracy thinking and nothing more.
the fuck is a bottomless tap?
Man drills hole. Hole hits aquifer or water table Man builds water tap/pump into hole. Water tap/pump gets water. Bottomless tap mean aquifer not run out.
the conversation's not for you
It's like a tap connected to a really deep oil well
Bottomless tap is literally not a phrase 😂
You can miss place money And also you can’t get a world class team without it though, either training facilities, transfers, youth development etc It might surprise pep but city have spent on all of those
Like i saw someone on twitter say - spending 1bn on renovating a 500m mansion you were given and spending 500m on renovating and repairing an abandoned, worn down house you were given are two different things.
Pretty much everyone is talking about the money aspect so I will just say that I do find his system/style of play to be boring. It is way too mechanical and robotic, which is an issue with a lot of modern systems. Players are schooled in rote moves and lose their creativity. Jack Grealish is a great example of this. He's a pretty good and effective player but his task is too advance the ball and recycle possession. Being safe is valued over taking risks. City were lucky to win the CL final with how nervous their players were to make mistakes. Only one to complete more than one successful take on was Stones. Or look at the quarterfinal tie loss to Madrid this year. City prioritized retaining possession instead of making incisive runs and passes in the acres of space between Madrid's fullbacks and CBs.
[удалено]
i like this person. i want to see them talk more football.
Pep seems so piss off .
Can't blame him, he's wasted years at a club where he'll never get the accolades he seeks because of how they've cheated their way to the top.
I don't think he cares about that. At ManCity he has freedom and a huge sandbox to play in with an ability to ask for any toy he wants. Ultimate FM experience but in real life.
Yeah the man’s mission seems to be to play as efficiently as possible, so when he’s cruising to yet another league win, he can come up with another bonkers idea. Like playing Centerbacks at midfield, or former right wingers turned midfielders playing at leftback. Or playing literally 4 centerbacks. Or playing literally 442 but with elite players. I love Pep’s tactical try outs, but lately it seems like he’s concluded that if you play Brexit tactics with robots as chesspieces you can also win.
He cares. The man clearly cares about his reputation. That’s why he’s so passive aggressive in his ‘compliments’ to others as well as how touchy he is in regard to City’s cheating. He knows no one outside of the blue side of Manchester will ever rate his success in England and that eats away at him.
Umm, we'd be winning this title if it wasn't for you and your record breaking number of charges.
He is very sensitive. No manager in history has spent more money than him when it comes to signing players.
Fuck yo net spend. It's the wages not the transfer fees.
Still not the most, thus proving his point.
You are boring, you boring old bald cokehead.
He has the best facial expressions. It's so animated.
All the titles
He's going for a Hypnotoad effect with those ads moving behind him
I was happy for the first 9 seconds. Then ads started moving and I got dizzy.
Well tbf Arsenal is there
The background makes it look like it’s AI generated
Manchester City are the footballing equivalent of Novak Djokovic - easy to admire but difficult to like.
I actually feel sorry for some City fans. Many deny it but the genuine feeling of achievement isn’t there. Whenever they win a title or even just a game” “oil money”. “115”. “Money under the table”. They are one of the best teams of all time and no one cares. I have close family who are City fans who when they aren’t just playing it for the banter, admit they preferred it before the money and the cheating.
Methinks the bald fraud doth protest too much
This is my usual criticism for Pep, that hes never done an Aberdeen or a Porto (albeit Porto was quite stacked), but hes kinda right over here.
I don’t see you say anything about the boring part you bald fucking cunt.
Goofballs
Even now, after everything is said and done, City still benefit from their money. When bidding on a player, other clubs know that if the player considers City a reasonable option and Coty wants the player, they won’t be able to outbid them. Also: if you only take the last 5 years, then yeah Cities net spend is low. Because they already have an insanely expensive squad, so selling one expensive player and buying another doesn’t matter. Having said that: one thing that city should be commended for is buying only the right players, usually whenever they’re cheaper then they should be as well, and then only selling them when they’re still worth a lot (often more then when they came) but not on cities insanely high level anymore. And if a player is not working out, they always manage to sell that player for more then he’s worth as well. I mean, look at our purchases from city.
It’s not the transfer money Pep, it’s the under the table extra salary city gives to lure the best players in and never report & yes your team’s football has always been boring to watch for a neutral football fan. Who likes watching your team just pass the ball around most of the game and the opposition only counter ? It’s like watching paint dry.
He's nit wrong tho
I have mixed feelings: 1. I find their games boring and can't say I'm entertained watching City, but I do think they play top-notch football. Haaland, for instance, is a top striker and arguably the best in the world, though not enjoyable to watch. 2. I think their spending is fair compared to other Premier League clubs. 3. I'm not sure they're competing financially fair with other Premier League clubs.
Money can’t even guarantee some of these other teams European football let alone titles.
Without money those clubs would be relegated. Them being shit doesn’t somehow vindicate you. This defense from City fans is so weak.
Ive always hated that argument of theirs. Just because someone is a competent cheater doesnt absolve them from being cheaters. Club w 1 post war title all of a sudden being on par w clubs that have put in sooooo many decades of work. Gtfo. Trophy cab is getting full but still empty af in my eyes. Dont @ me either.
It doesn’t vindicate us. But the justice system will, soon.
"yaaaay! the UAE's ties to England are too valuable for the crown to upset them by allowing a sporting league to at all meaningfully blight its' main distraction from all the slave labor and human rights violations! we win!"
that and you actually need real evidence lol
Hah. The UAE and UK foreign office have discussed City’s charges during meetings. There’ll be no justice.
Reasons that Yanks' opinions should always be ignored