I'll rewrite that for you. Guardiola's strength is having infinite resources
Will we get top 4?
-
Fuck the Glazers
- Legend
- Posts: 10804
- Joined: 11 years ago
Exactly.
There's a stat going round that Pep has spent more on defenders since managing City than Burnley have spent on every player they've ever signed in their 141 year history
It will taint his legacy compared to other greats like Fergie, Mourinho (Porto), Clough etc cos they achieved greatness within the rules and on budgets. Other than Aberdeen, Fergie's best achievements for me were during the Glazer austerity era aka being successful in an era of turbo financial doping - not just City but Chelsea who were up to all sorts of cheating.
Manchester United basically has the competitive profile of Spurs now. That’s where we are. The owners hire and fire managers on their perceived ability to get CL football. United is no longer a club that signs the most exciting players.
And to be honest, the Spurs comparison flatters United. It’s an apt comparison for the level of performance you can expect over a season, but Spurs are run by more competent businessmen. Spurs has the best stadium in the country, United surely the worst of any big club stadium.
And to be honest, the Spurs comparison flatters United. It’s an apt comparison for the level of performance you can expect over a season, but Spurs are run by more competent businessmen. Spurs has the best stadium in the country, United surely the worst of any big club stadium.
Nothing new about that statement tbf. You could've made the case that we no longer sign the most exciting players when Fergie was still in charge. Apart from Van Persie, can't think of any other top top players he bought after about 2006. The biggest problem IMO was Woodward's attempt to reverse that by buying names instead of the best fit - counts for managers as well.
I'd actually not be too arsed if it wasn't for the power of state wealth. I'd believe we'd find our way back one day. But now the choice is obvious - stay at this level (like you say, old school Spurs, nearly men but not winning anything of note) or accept the blood money and "sign the most exciting players". Sad decision we're being forced to make. And honestly upsetting that the 1958 (among others) support the Qatari bid so explicitly under the banner of "getting OUR club back". Yeah right, because it'll be OURS again then. Sure.
Woodward didn’t try to sign the most exciting players, he tried to sign famous established players. Ferguson kept his focus on signing younger players with the potential to be great. In his last few years his success rate there wasn’t great. But at the time, the likes of Nani, Anderson, Jones etc had a lot of potential. And we won with them.Felwin wrote: ↑1 year agoNothing new about that statement tbf. You could've made the case that we no longer sign the most exciting players when Fergie was still in charge. Apart from Van Persie, can't think of any other top top players he bought after about 2006. The biggest problem IMO was Woodward's attempt to reverse that by buying names instead of the best fit - counts for managers as well.
I'd actually not be too arsed if it wasn't for the power of state wealth. I'd believe we'd find our way back one day. But now the choice is obvious - stay at this level (like you say, old school Spurs, nearly men but not winning anything of note) or accept the blood money and "sign the most exciting players". Sad decision we're being forced to make. And honestly upsetting that the 1958 (among others) support the Qatari bid so explicitly under the banner of "getting OUR club back". Yeah right, because it'll be OURS again then. Sure.
The transfer market has been professionalized. Well-run clubs like Borussia Dortmund, Brighton, or Leicester (a few years ago) now hoover up the kinds of up-and-coming players that Ferguson was always on the hunt for. There were basically two options for United in the 2010s: go for a Galactico-type transfer policy, or professionalize recruitment the way those types of clubs did. Woodward chose the Galactico approach, and it was a disaster because (a) the state-owned clubs have infinite wealth and (b) Woodward was also shit at picking galacticos.
No we’ve the worst of both worlds. Too broke for galacticos, but because the club decided not to modernise player recruitment, we’re missing out on sensible transfers that we ought to be able to afford.
Very fair assessment. Splitting hairs a bit because Galacticos signings are by definition the most exciting players, but you're spot on about the recruitment strategy.bman2 wrote: ↑1 year agoWoodward didn’t try to sign the most exciting players, he tried to sign famous established players. Ferguson kept his focus on signing younger players with the potential to be great. In his last few years his success rate there wasn’t great. But at the time, the likes of Nani, Anderson, Jones etc had a lot of potential. And we won with them.Felwin wrote: ↑1 year agoNothing new about that statement tbf. You could've made the case that we no longer sign the most exciting players when Fergie was still in charge. Apart from Van Persie, can't think of any other top top players he bought after about 2006. The biggest problem IMO was Woodward's attempt to reverse that by buying names instead of the best fit - counts for managers as well.
I'd actually not be too arsed if it wasn't for the power of state wealth. I'd believe we'd find our way back one day. But now the choice is obvious - stay at this level (like you say, old school Spurs, nearly men but not winning anything of note) or accept the blood money and "sign the most exciting players". Sad decision we're being forced to make. And honestly upsetting that the 1958 (among others) support the Qatari bid so explicitly under the banner of "getting OUR club back". Yeah right, because it'll be OURS again then. Sure.
The transfer market has been professionalized. Well-run clubs like Borussia Dortmund, Brighton, or Leicester (a few years ago) now hoover up the kinds of up-and-coming players that Ferguson was always on the hunt for. There were basically two options for United in the 2010s: go for a Galactico-type transfer policy, or professionalize recruitment the way those types of clubs did. Woodward chose the Galactico approach, and it was a disaster because (a) the state-owned clubs have infinite wealth and (b) Woodward was also shit at picking galacticos.
No we’ve the worst of both worlds. Too broke for galacticos, but because the club decided not to modernise player recruitment, we’re missing out on sensible transfers that we ought to be able to afford.
Not really sure where to put this, put I noticed once again our goal difference is shocking (-3), and remembered even last year it took ages to get it to a positive number.
Below really sums up our struggles. Since the start of 2021/22 the following are the goal differences of the "top clubs"
Man City 154
Liverpool 117
Arsenal 78
Spurs 48
Chelsea 36
Newcastle 32
Man Utd 12
Its only when you see this, you realise how bad we have become! This is taking into account Newcastle before the takeover where they had a season with -18, and Chelsea/Spurs have been mediocre at best.
As a club we are so far off the pace.
Below really sums up our struggles. Since the start of 2021/22 the following are the goal differences of the "top clubs"
Man City 154
Liverpool 117
Arsenal 78
Spurs 48
Chelsea 36
Newcastle 32
Man Utd 12
Its only when you see this, you realise how bad we have become! This is taking into account Newcastle before the takeover where they had a season with -18, and Chelsea/Spurs have been mediocre at best.
As a club we are so far off the pace.