It’s not though is it. City have been spending disproportionate sums of money for about 10 years now and this is the first time they’ve looked so utterly incredible. And that’s testament to the work Pep has done.
It’s been proven that simply spending big money doesn’t necessarily buy success.
Tired and flawed argument.
2 Likes
Yeah, for Man City’s most expensive player to be shitty Riyad Mahrez at 60mil just goes to show they’re building a team, not making superstar signings. I’m in awe of them.
Liverpool have 2 players more expensive than that (VVD and Alyson) as do Manchester United (Pogba and Lukaku) and they’ve still won nothing in the last 2 seasons
2 Likes
Haha what?
Chelsea?
City?
PSG?
Haha
1 Like
I think he meant more Man U and Fulham.
Does Portsmouth count? They bought and it did bring temporary success but it destroyed them in the end.
Leeds United, Newcastle United, Liverpool…
Tbf, though, I do get where you’re coming from. Chelsea, Man City and PSG do have the reassurance, the comfort, if you will, of trial and error.
Expensive flops won’t matter to them. When the sheikhs took over at Man City, the strike force they bought was Santa Cruz and Adebayor. We’d still be lumbered with such players right now
They failed because they couldn’t continue to spend money.
But why would spending disproportionate sums just have that one effect where you win the league and that’s it. Why would that cap out the effect you could have. City hadn’t won the league in 50 years until they started spending and voila they beat the shit out of clubs like United, us and Liverpool and even the previous top spender Chelsea.
Pep then spent another £350m, an is insane amount of money, almost the cost of our entire stadium, that you ADD to what they already had in the squad that just won the league prior and got even more points in the league if you will. Why do you not think that just says it keeps scaling with money.
1 Like
Bc over 38 games, cream rises and in knockout you can get unlucky one or two games and have critical injury, etc.
One interesting thing the Soccernomics guys found was that wages correlate much more highly than transfers for results.
At the end of the day, you don’t get an extra trophy for reaching 90points.
Pep achieved nothing that Mancini & Pellegrini didn’t & at lesser spend.
what’s their hypothesis? amongst top teams in the world wages seem to deviate far less off the mean, maybe a few tens of %, than net spending does, which can fluctuate a few hundred % or more. Example, our wages are about the mean of the top teams in the PL, United’s wages are the highest and scums the lowest and they’re about 25% higher/lower than ours. The top spenders can easily outspend the bottom ones by several times their net spend however.
Did they perhaps just consider Barca and Real’s insane wages with how they won things lately maybe? Because they get much more from their TV deals than their competitors in their league than for example PL teams do etc. And have a bunch of other advantages. I don’t know.
Another thing is that when you look at a team’s wages rather than their net spend you disregard what it cost to assemble the squad, and it takes away from how well a manager increases the value of their players etc. If you can keep buying players and trying them out until you hit gold over and over you’ll still end up with a squad that costs at least reasonably close to the rest of the top teams in terms of wages as wages normalise while transfer’s don’t (as long as FFP doesn’t do anything), the top team in a league can have a few times higher wage bill than the lowest team but their team can cost a hundred times more to assemble.
Wages are like maintenance and there is almost a fixed almost normalised cost to it, all top clubs have between maybe £(200 ± 100)m wages per year (across all the top leagues iirc), not a big sway compared to how differently they can spend in transfers season in and out, some sell every window, others spend £200m net and afterwards the wages are maybe £1m higher per year. or maybe even lower, depends.
But he built the greatest team in Europe when he was at Barcelona.
What other manager has achieved what he has in just over ten seasons, at three different clubs, while playing the most entertaining football?
You’re so fucking salty man.
Comparing what Pep has done to Mancini and Pellegeini is hilarious.
1 Like
Would have to analyze and read through it, but they were doing it from a statistical standpoint. Lots of challenges with the data I imagine and eras create other dynamics.
I meant in Man Citt
Why not?
He was brought in not to achieved what has already been achieved.
In the last 3 seasons Everton have spent over £300m+
United have spent in the region of £300m+
Chelsea have spent £500m+
Teams are spending vast sums of money but just not spending it very well. The reality is that City have been spending VERY well over the last few years. Yes the investment has been sustained over a long period of time but it’s unfair to beat Pep with the spending stick when other clubs around him are spending vast sums of money themselves.
Look at some of the shit Chelsea, United and Everton have signed over the last 3 years and compare is who City have signed. It’s light and day the difference.
3 Likes
Well you need to account for that Everton sold for £180m and Chelsea for £330m during that time :unai:
Everton for example can’t really stop it when United want Lukaku and City want Stones, two players they sold for £120m in the same period and it’s hardly easy for a team in their position to replace that. But they’re rich compared to most leagues as they get the sweet TV deal, so the money figures are big, they’re #17 in the Deloitte money league this year, above for example AC Milan (which is insane lol)
United are stupid, everybody knows that and it doesn’t mean Pep hasn’t bought an entirely new starting eleven with almost £40m players on average to pad a squad that just won the league, and to conclude that he made the new team perform even better afterwards, yeah that’s bang on what I expect tbh and it says very little about him.
and Chelsea won the league 2 years ago and beat the good Pep at it, so.
Yeah this really isn’t said enough. In fact I’ve heard people make arguments like “they can afford to waste money on bad signings” which is something other clubs can’t afford to do so it’s not fair, yet I really struggle to find a high profile bad signing.
They spent something like £145m on De Bruyne, Sterling and Bernardo. They’re probably worth like £300-400m now.
Ederson, Sane, Jesus probably capable of landing a hefty profit if they wanted it too.
7 Likes