Welcome to the EPL Señor Guardiola...

[cic old boy]

Did Ferguson have financial advantage over his counterparts before the dawn of the Oligarchs?

Yes. They were the richest club in the land.

[theYemster]

@ The Yemster....we also need to put in context when BIG money became an issue in football. That is the era that the likes of Pep found themselves in.
Remember when Sir Alex, and to some extent, AW could get any player they wanted, even from EPL clubs, just because of their reputations and club's accomplishments? Remember Vidic once proclaiming that he was ready to trek to Manchester when he heard Sir Alex was interested in him?

Now the only way to get the best players is spend some MONEY!

I've not disputed that. All I've done is recognised the advantage he's enjoyed in achieving the feat that was posted.

At Barcelona he inherited a team that had Messi, Iniesta and Xavi blossoming into their prime (all three joined the team I believe during Rijkaard's tenure and had started to show their superstar qualities taking over from the Eto and Ronaldinho UCL winning team. That plus Barca deep pockets was a helluva advantage for any coach. Kindly post Barca's results stove he left.

At Bayern he inherited a recent UCL winning team that routinely cannibalized it's rival's roster thus making domestic competition virtually impossible. Kindly post Bayern's results since he left. I'll find you a hint, they've won the Bundesliga every single season since he left.

And then there's City. Someone please put up the table showing expenditures in the EPL for the last five seasons.

Could be have still won regardless? Possibly, who knows. However you can't deny the advantage he's clearly enjoyed which any half decent coach should be able to maximize.

[cic old boy]

I didn't mean he only had academy kids in the team, I meant they formed a major part of the team he won with.

Gibbs, Phil Neville, Gary Neville, Beckham, Scholes, Butt, and youngster Olé who wasn't from the academy but still a kid nonetheless. Schmeichel was not a big money buy. Yes Staam and Keane were. Yorke came as replacement for Cantona. And unlike the United kids who were all brought into the academy under Fergie, Please Pep inheritted Messi, Iniesta and Xavi. Yes technically they came thru the academy but they were all stars and big money earners in the team when Pep took over. Messi was arguably the best player in Spain by then so please it's not the same.

Almost every player on the City team (certainly every starter) is a big money player. It's not the same.

And do not forget that Fergie already won titles including the CWC at Aberdeen beating European heavyweights. It's note worthy that since Fergie left both Aberdeen and United and both teams have struggled whereas both Barca and Bayern haven't missed a beat since Pep left. Their records before, during and after Pep are almost statistically identical.

Also, the fact that UEFA is on City's a$$ regarding FFP is also quite telling.

Anyways this isn't supposed to be a knock on Pep's abilities, just like I said, putting some context into that tweet.

So Fergie didn't win the CL with just a bunch of academy kids as you tried to suggest.

You are wrong again about Barca. The main guys there when Pep took over were Ronaldinho, Deco, Van Bommel, etc. Messi was about potential then. Xavi and Iniesta were bit part players. So while Pep inherited those three, he made them the mainstays of the club and got rid of Ronaldinho, etc. He also brought in Busquets from the B team.

How many academy players at Barca have become regulars since Pep left? Only Sergi Roberto. What you don't get is the fact that you don't just promote academy players for the sake of doing so. You promote only those that cut the mustard. Mark Bartra was given every chance by every Barca coach from Pep to be the regular centre-back. They cut him loose when he couldn't deliver.

Barca or Bayern can't possibly crumble like Manure when a coach departs. For starters, Fergie was at Manure for 20 years. The club was in his image. At Bayern/Barca you have clubs with institutions and structures that are solid regardless of who the coach is. Both clubs are also owned by the fans, so decisions are not made on purely financial terms.

City has spent money, the facts are there. But spending doesn't adequately explain their success.

[cic old boy]

If that's the case you might as well toss Papa Ajasco into the lineup.

Point Cruyff was making is that the players still had to deliver on the pitch. This is true, but it sure increases the odds of that performing if you buy most of the top players in the market.

So you still have to buy the right players. This means it is not just about spending money. We have coaches idolised here that got rid of Salah, KDB and blew 50m on Fred!

[cic old boy]

Pay attention, the context is the budget. United's failures despite also having a huge budget was mentioned as if somehow that negates the advantage Pep has had with the teams he's coached. It doesn't. The fact that United is struggling despite also having a huge budget is irrelevant. That's like trying to prove a negative.

Like I posted, none of those two former Pep teams have missed a beat since he left. Compare their records/performance before, during, and after Pep. Bayern's still winning the Bundesliga; Barca's still winning the La Liga. Compare with Dortmund since Klopp left, and Aberdeen/United since Fergie left. Compare Liverpool before Klopp with during Klopp. He's reached a European final in back to back to back seasons and just set a record on number of points in the league despite being a close runner up. And yeah, his team isn't under threat of sanctions from UEFA for financial doping.

The context can't be the budget if other teams have a huge budget too. The fact that Manure are struggling with a huge budget means a coach makes a difference.

Klopp has spent megabucks on Van Dijk and the goalie. Both the most expensive in the world in their positions. There are many others that he bought too including Naby Keita. Liverpool actually won the CL with Djimi Traore and have come 2nd a few times too on a relatively small budget. Do you remember what Klopp said when Pogba was bought for millions? He went out and spent similar amounts on a defender and goalie. But you are happy to overlook his spending and say Pep's success is down to the budget.

[cic old boy]

In a nutshell I'm saying his record that was posted earlier in this thread about winning back to back titles in the different leagues should be put in its proper context.

Never said he's not special, in fact I believe I said we won't know for sure until he accomplishes something while not having a huge advantage over his rivals. Other coaches I mentioned have done it, Pep hasn't...yet!

His 1st coaching job was with the Barca B team in the Spanish 2nd div. He got them promoted.

[theYemster]

So Fergie didn't win the CL with just a bunch of academy kids as you tried to suggest.

I didn't try to suggest he did, I explicitly stated that he did. And he did. However he DIDN'T win with ONLY academy players, but with a good amount of academy players playing regularly sprinkled with some big money buys. He didn't have a bunch of multi million dollar players regularly coming off the bench like City did. Scholes, G Neville, P Neville, Giggs, Beckham, Olé and Butt were about 50% the main team.

You are wrong again about Barca. The main guys there when Pep took over were Ronaldinho, Deco, Van Bommel, etc. Messi was about potential then. Xavi and Iniesta were bit part players. So while Pep inherited those three, he made them the mainstays of the club and got rid of Ronaldinho, etc. He also brought in Busquets from the B team.

Nah, Messi, Iniesta and Xavi were already the kings in waiting by the time Pep took over. In fact I believe Messi and Iniesta were already valued at choose to a hundred million. If I remember correctly wasn't Messi's Spanish citizenship rushed through so he could count as an EU player so he could play with Eto'o and Ronaldinho? Their rise happened not because of Pep, but regardless of him. Yes he maximized the opportunity but I wouldn't give him too much credit.

Fergie on the other hand groomed those boys right from their academy days and integrated them into the team. I remember United losing regularly in Europe until they finally broke the duck in 99.

How many academy players at Barca have become regulars since Pep left? Only Sergi Roberto. What you don't get is the fact that you don't just promote academy players for the sake of doing so. You promote only those that cut the mustard. Mark Bartra was given every chance by every Barca coach from Pep to be the regular centre-back. They cut him loose when he couldn't deliver.

Are you asking how many other Messis Barca has discovered since Pep left? Is that what you're asking?

By the same token I could also ask how many other Messis Pep has unearthed from an academy since he left Barcelona.

Barca or Bayern can't possibly crumble like Manure when a coach departs. For starters, Fergie was at Manure for 20 years. The club was in his image. At Bayern/Barca you have clubs with institutions and structures that are solid regardless of who the coach is. Both clubs are also owned by the fans, so decisions are not made on purely financial terms.

Exactly my point. Hence why I say put his accomplishments at those clubs in context when discussing his coaching acumen.

City has spent money, the facts are there. But spending doesn't adequately explain their success.

Yes it doesn't, but it also could. It may/mayn't explain Pep's success especially with the UEFA financial doping investigation, but we won't know that since unlike Klopp/Fergie he's never won without such advantages which again is my point. Context is everything.

[theYemster]

If that's the case you might as well toss Papa Ajasco into the lineup.

Point Cruyff was making is that the players still had to deliver on the pitch. This is true, but it sure increases the odds of that performing if you buy most of the top players in the market.

So you still have to buy the right players. This means it is not just about spending money. We have coaches idolised here that got rid of Salah, KDB and blew 50m on Fred!

The fact that I recognise the advantages Pep enjoyed while coaching Barcelona, Bayern and City in no way suggests he's a bad coach. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to accept? Surely I know it's not a problem of lack of comprehension, you just don't want to accept that basic fact.

[theYemster]

The context can't be the budget if other teams have a huge budget too. The fact that Manure are struggling with a huge budget means a coach makes a difference.

Riddle me this, athlete A takes drugs before a race and ends up losing, coming last. Athlete B also juices up, runs the same race and come first. Does the fact that athlete A lost nullify athlete A's unfair advantage?

Klopp has spent megabucks on Van Dijk and the goalie. Both the most expensive in the world in their positions. There are many others that he bought too including Naby Keita. Liverpool actually won the CL with Djimi Traore and have come 2nd a few times too on a relatively small budget. Do you remember what Klopp said when Pogba was bought for millions? He went out and spent similar amounts on a defender and goalie. But you are happy to overlook his spending and say Pep's success is down to the budget.

I have not overlooked it. My MAIN criteria for rating Klopp was his work at Dortmund, not Liverpool. Without his Dortmund record I'd be saying the same thing about him that I'm saying about Pep. But Klopp has already proven he can win without the advantage in trying to highlight. Pep as of now, hasn't.

I also mentioned that Liverpool unlike City didn't just go spending like a drunken sailor, most of the money they spent was from the revenue/profit they made from selling players. Knowing you can only spend that you make does a long way in determining how you build your team as opposed to knowing you have a point-and-buy organisation.

[theYemster]

In a nutshell I'm saying his record that was posted earlier in this thread about winning back to back titles in the different leagues should be put in its proper context.

Never said he's not special, in fact I believe I said we won't know for sure until he accomplishes something while not having a huge advantage over his rivals. Other coaches I mentioned have done it, Pep hasn't...yet!

His 1st coaching job was with the Barca B team in the Spanish 2nd div. He got them promoted.

Really? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

If you have to stoop this low to make your point then perhaps you don't have such a strong case.

[YUJAM]

How is he scraping the bottom of the barrel? Guardiola did an amazing job with Barca B. He didn't have an expensive roster.

BTW, do you believe Phil Jackson isn't an exceptional coach because he coached the Bulls with Jordan and the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq? The top coaches don't coach crappy teams because they can name their price. They are highly sought after by the teams with the most resources

In a nutshell I'm saying his record that was posted earlier in this thread about winning back to back titles in the different leagues should be put in its proper context.

Never said he's not special, in fact I believe I said we won't know for sure until he accomplishes something while not having a huge advantage over his rivals. Other coaches I mentioned have done it, Pep hasn't...yet!

His 1st coaching job was with the Barca B team in the Spanish 2nd div. He got them promoted.

Really? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

If you have to stoop this low to make your point then perhaps you don't have such a strong case.

[Mr. Piffington]

The context can't be the budget if other teams have a huge budget too. The fact that Manure are struggling with a huge budget means a coach makes a difference.

Riddle me this, athlete A takes drugs before a race and ends up losing, coming last. Athlete B also juices up, runs the same race and come first. Does the fact that athlete A lost nullify athlete A's unfair advantage?

Klopp has spent megabucks on Van Dijk and the goalie. Both the most expensive in the world in their positions. There are many others that he bought too including Naby Keita. Liverpool actually won the CL with Djimi Traore and have come 2nd a few times too on a relatively small budget. Do you remember what Klopp said when Pogba was bought for millions? He went out and spent similar amounts on a defender and goalie. But you are happy to overlook his spending and say Pep's success is down to the budget.

I have not overlooked it. My MAIN criteria for rating Klopp was his work at Dortmund, not Liverpool. Without his Dortmund record I'd be saying the same thing about him that I'm saying about Pep. But Klopp has already proven he can win without the advantage in trying to highlight. Pep as of now, hasn't.

I also mentioned that Liverpool unlike City didn't just go spending like a drunken sailor, most of the money they spent was from the revenue/profit they made from selling players. Knowing you can only spend that you make does a long way in determining how you build your team as opposed to knowing you have a point-and-buy organisation.

Right, because we know that Klopp got all his players for free.

[cic old boy]

I didn't try to suggest he did, I explicitly stated that he did. And he did. However he DIDN'T win with ONLY academy players, but with a good amount of academy players playing regularly sprinkled with some big money buys. He didn't have a bunch of multi million dollar players regularly coming off the bench like City did. Scholes, G Neville, P Neville, Giggs, Beckham, Olé and Butt were about 50% the main team.

Nah, Messi, Iniesta and Xavi were already the kings in waiting by the time Pep took over. In fact I believe Messi and Iniesta were already valued at choose to a hundred million. If I remember correctly wasn't Messi's Spanish citizenship rushed through so he could count as an EU player so he could play with Eto'o and Ronaldinho? Their rise happened not because of Pep, but regardless of him. Yes he maximized the opportunity but I wouldn't give him too much credit.

Fergie on the other hand groomed those boys right from their academy days and integrated them into the team. I remember United losing regularly in Europe until they finally broke the duck in 99.

Are you asking how many other Messis Barca has discovered since Pep left? Is that what you're asking?

By the same token I could also ask how many other Messis Pep has unearthed from an academy since he left Barcelona.

Exactly my point. Hence why I say put his accomplishments at those clubs in context when discussing his coaching acumen.

Yes it doesn't, but it also could. It may/mayn't explain Pep's success especially with the UEFA financial doping investigation, but we won't know that since unlike Klopp/Fergie he's never won without such advantages which again is my point. Context is everything.

You said Fergie won the UCL with a bunch of academy kids. That implies the entire team were from the academy or at least most of the team. I don't know why you are padding up your academy list with OGS. He had already played for 2 clubs in Norway b/4 moving to Manure.

Iniesta and Xavi were not the main guys at Barca b/4 Pep. They were mainly squad players. Messi was used sparingly and only became a regular starter in Rijkaard's last year. Pep built the team around those three and got rid of Rijkaard's main men. He was also the B coach from where he brought in Pedro and Busquets.

The question is how many academy players have become first team regulars since Pep left Barca. The only one is Sergi Roberto and he got his debut from Pep. He also gave a debut to Thiago, but Xavi and Iniesta restricted his appearances and Pep took him to Bayern where he became a regular. He also promoted Christian Tello, Isaac Cuenca, Rafinha, Gerard Deulofeu, Bartra, etc. The point is that you can give youth a chance without youth taking that chance b/c they are not good enough. Now Foden is getting a chance to prove his worth at City.

The contexts at both Barca and Bayern go beyond money. That is my point. If it were just about money PSG will win the CL every year, Manure will be in the running too.

You can clearly show there are other factors at play beyond money by looking at the clubs like Manure finishing 6th with pots of money.

[cic old boy]

Really? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

If you have to stoop this low to make your point then perhaps you don't have such a strong case.

The man that keeps talking about context misses the context. You said Pep has never done it without a huge advantage over his rivals. You seem to want to rule out facts about his career that don't suit your agenda. He has coached 4 teams and you only want to talk coaching the last 3 with huge resources.

[cic old boy]

The fact that I recognise the advantages Pep enjoyed while coaching Barcelona, Bayern and City in no way suggests he's a bad coach. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to accept? Surely I know it's not a problem of lack of comprehension, you just don't want to accept that basic fact.

City are among the richest clubs in the world, so are Barca, Real, Bayern, Manure, PSG, etc. Whoever coaches those clubs has financial advantages. But they don't all break records and some can't even finish in the top 4.

[theYemster]

How is he scraping the bottom of the barrel? Guardiola did an amazing job with Barca B. He didn't have an expensive roster.

BTW, do you believe Phil Jackson isn't an exceptional coach because he coached the Bulls with Jordan and the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq? The top coaches don't coach crappy teams because they can name their price. They are highly sought after by the teams with the most resources

In a nutshell I'm saying his record that was posted earlier in this thread about winning back to back titles in the different leagues should be put in its proper context.

Never said he's not special, in fact I believe I said we won't know for sure until he accomplishes something while not having a huge advantage over his rivals. Other coaches I mentioned have done it, Pep hasn't...yet!

His 1st coaching job was with the Barca B team in the Spanish 2nd div. He got them promoted.

Really? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

If you have to stoop this low to make your point then perhaps you don't have such a strong case.

Come on.

Anyways regarding Phil Jackson, I've had that discussion many times, I regard Pop as a better coach primarily because Phil only won rings when he had the best player in the league on his team. Jordan, Shaq, Kobe. Nothing against him but it sure made his job easier having those guys especially in a sport where one player is more impactful then in a sport with a larger roster. Had he won other titles without them then okay.

[cic old boy]

Riddle me this, athlete A takes drugs before a race and ends up losing, coming last. Athlete B also juices up, runs the same race and come first. Does the fact that athlete A lost nullify athlete A's unfair advantage?

I have not overlooked it. My MAIN criteria for rating Klopp was his work at Dortmund, not Liverpool. Without his Dortmund record I'd be saying the same thing about him that I'm saying about Pep. But Klopp has already proven he can win without the advantage in trying to highlight. Pep as of now, hasn't.

I also mentioned that Liverpool unlike City didn't just go spending like a drunken sailor, most of the money they spent was from the revenue/profit they made from selling players. Knowing you can only spend that you make does a long way in determining how you build your team as opposed to knowing you have a point-and-buy organisation.

Dumb analogy. If all athletes are juiced up, then something beyond dope provides the context for winning or losing.

Klopp at Dortmund was also buying players off smaller clubs. May not be Bayern type of money, but he wasn't working with peanuts like he was at Mainz.

When reminded of Liverpool spending, you shift to spending money made from selling other players. We are talking of a club that blew 30m on Andy Carroll.

[theYemster]

I didn't try to suggest he did, I explicitly stated that he did. And he did. However he DIDN'T win with ONLY academy players, but with a good amount of academy players playing regularly sprinkled with some big money buys. He didn't have a bunch of multi million dollar players regularly coming off the bench like City did. Scholes, G Neville, P Neville, Giggs, Beckham, Olé and Butt were about 50% the main team.

Nah, Messi, Iniesta and Xavi were already the kings in waiting by the time Pep took over. In fact I believe Messi and Iniesta were already valued at choose to a hundred million. If I remember correctly wasn't Messi's Spanish citizenship rushed through so he could count as an EU player so he could play with Eto'o and Ronaldinho? Their rise happened not because of Pep, but regardless of him. Yes he maximized the opportunity but I wouldn't give him too much credit.

Fergie on the other hand groomed those boys right from their academy days and integrated them into the team. I remember United losing regularly in Europe until they finally broke the duck in 99.

Are you asking how many other Messis Barca has discovered since Pep left? Is that what you're asking?

By the same token I could also ask how many other Messis Pep has unearthed from an academy since he left Barcelona.

Exactly my point. Hence why I say put his accomplishments at those clubs in context when discussing his coaching acumen.

Yes it doesn't, but it also could. It may/mayn't explain Pep's success especially with the UEFA financial doping investigation, but we won't know that since unlike Klopp/Fergie he's never won without such advantages which again is my point. Context is everything.

You said Fergie won the UCL with a bunch of academy kids. That implies the entire team were from the academy or at least most of the team. I don't know why you are padding up your academy list with OGS. He had already played for 2 clubs in Norway b/4 moving to Manure.

Iniesta and Xavi were not the main guys at Barca b/4 Pep. They were mainly squad players. Messi was used sparingly and only became a regular starter in Rijkaard's last year. Pep built the team around those three and got rid of Rijkaard's main men. He was also the B coach from where he brought in Pedro and Busquets.

The question is how many academy players have become first team regulars since Pep left Barca. The only one is Sergi Roberto and he got his debut from Pep. He also gave a debut to Thiago, but Xavi and Iniesta restricted his appearances and Pep took him to Bayern where he became a regular. He also promoted Christian Tello, Isaac Cuenca, Rafinha, Gerard Deulofeu, Bartra, etc. The point is that you can give youth a chance without youth taking that chance b/c they are not good enough. Now Foden is getting a chance to prove his worth at City.

The contexts at both Barca and Bayern go beyond money. That is my point. If it were just about money PSG will win the CL every year, Manure will be in the running too.

You can clearly show there are other factors at play beyond money by looking at the clubs like Manure finishing 6th with pots of money.

Now we're splitting hairs. Saying he won with a bunch of academy kids doesn't mean he won only with them. I've explained to you what I meant over and over again but you seem intent on twisting it to suit your agenda.

Anyways with regards to Pep discovering more, the point is whether he built a winning team with them or he went shopping. Look up the Bayern and City team and how many regulars made the jump like Messi, Iniesta and Xavi since you kept mentioning them.

Foden? Ha. Okay. I guess you've made your point. Pep's a genius.

[theYemster]

Riddle me this, athlete A takes drugs before a race and ends up losing, coming last. Athlete B also juices up, runs the same race and come first. Does the fact that athlete A lost nullify athlete A's unfair advantage?

I have not overlooked it. My MAIN criteria for rating Klopp was his work at Dortmund, not Liverpool. Without his Dortmund record I'd be saying the same thing about him that I'm saying about Pep. But Klopp has already proven he can win without the advantage in trying to highlight. Pep as of now, hasn't.

I also mentioned that Liverpool unlike City didn't just go spending like a drunken sailor, most of the money they spent was from the revenue/profit they made from selling players. Knowing you can only spend that you make does a long way in determining how you build your team as opposed to knowing you have a point-and-buy organisation.

Dumb analogy. If all athletes are juiced up, then something beyond dope provides the context for winning or losing.

Klopp at Dortmund was also buying players off smaller clubs. May not be Bayern type of money, but he wasn't working with peanuts like he was at Mainz.

When reminded of Liverpool spending, you shift to spending money made from selling other players. We are talking of a club that blew 30m on Andy Carroll.

It's not dumb. Both scenarios give you an advantage. The fact that one still failed having the advantage doesn't automatically mean it's not an advantage.

United failing despite having a huge budget doesn't automatically invalidate the advantage City had with its own huge budget.

By your logic you're implying that using the steroids wasn't an advantage for the winner because someone else used steroids and still lost the race.

And again, hello, even UEFA is investigating City for financial doping and may strip them of their UCL slot. Yet you're still arguing.

[theYemster]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer ... 3?mode=amp

At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.


Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.

[cic old boy]

Now we're splitting hairs. Saying he won with a bunch of academy kids doesn't mean he won only with them. I've explained to you what I meant over and over again but you seem intent on twisting it to suit your agenda.

Anyways with regards to Pep discovering more, the point is whether he built a winning team with them or he went shopping. Look up the Bayern and City team and how many regulars made the jump like Messi, Iniesta and Xavi since you kept mentioning them.

Foden? Ha. Okay. I guess you've made your point. Pep's a genius.

So Fergie won the CL with a bunch of kids - Scholes, Becks and co from the academy and Pep didn't win the CL with a bunch of kids - Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and co from the academy?

The point about building a team around academy kids is that you need the academy to produce players of the standard required. When the Xavis and Iniestas and Busquets came through, they became the fulcrum of the team. He blooded other youngsters that I have mentioned. But they were not up to the required level. Thiago, for example, was given his debut at Barca by Pep. But he couldn't dislodge Xavi or Iniesta. So Pep bought him at Bayern.

You don't play youngsters for the sake of playing them. You play them if they are good enough. Since Pep left Barca, they haven't produced youngsters at the level of Xavi or Iniesta. Alena is the new hope and he is being eased in gently. Same as Pep is doing with Foden. Fergie would tell you anytime that for about 5 academy kids good enough for the first team to come up at once is almost a miracle. At Ajax they say if one comes up every three years, that would have repaid the investment in the academy.

[cic old boy]

It's not dumb. Both scenarios give you an advantage. The fact that one still failed having the advantage doesn't automatically mean it's not an advantage.

United failing despite having a huge budget doesn't automatically invalidate the advantage City had with its own huge budget.

By your logic you're implying that using the steroids wasn't an advantage for the winner because someone else used steroids and still lost the race.

And again, hello, even UEFA is investigating City for financial doping and may strip them of their UCL slot. Yet you're still arguing.

Dope can't be an advantage if everyone is doing it! Where's the advantage?

Manure failing despite a similar budget means there's more to City's success than the budget!

It appears you don't understand FFP. Everyone is allowed to spend. Uefa is looking at whether City inflated their earnings via govt sponsorship. It doesn't mean City spent significantly more than the others. City can't compete with clubs like Manure in terms of pure commercial appeal.

[cic old boy]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer ... 3?mode=amp

At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.


Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.

Comparing City and Chelski in the early Roman days doesn't tell the whole story as transfer fees are more inflated now than then.

Guardiola didn't buy KDB. KDB was in Chelski's books and their coach decided he wasn't good enough. If Pep was the coach at Chelski, KDB would most likely still be a Chelski player. So budgets don't tell the whole story. Despite all the money spent on Stones (grossly inflated b/c he is English), he hasn't held down a regular place and cheaper players like Kompany and Otamendi are usually preferred to him. Which again shows that money is not the whole story.