Summary of Premier league's big spending teams

Golazo111 6 years ago Edited

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Basically Man City has been in top 4 in the last 7-8 years, with our without Pep they are there.
With extra money invested in an already great squad the only results is that they dominate the league, with our without Pep, just like Chelsea did years back with huge investments, with or without the actual manager in question.

Would Pep win dominate the league without these huge money investments? No.
Did Pep dominate last season with already investing pretty much? No he won nothing.

Pep should thank the owners of Man City.

PSG invested a lot as well, they are also dominating their domestic league, Chelsea invested a lot as well and won the league with breaking half of the PL records, just 1 or 2 Man City broke this season. What Pep has done is and was just expected with all things considered.

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T02:09:45+00:00

Basically Man City has been in top 4 in the last 7-8 years, with our without Pep they are there.
With extra money invested in an already great squad the only results is that they dominate the league, with our without Pep, just like Chelsea did years back with huge investments, with or without the actual manager in question.

Would Pep win dominate the league without these huge money investments? No.
Did Pep dominate last season with already investing pretty much? No he won nothing.

Pep should thank the owners of Man City.

Lodatz 6 years ago Edited

Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre, which you could go and add up for yourself (if it's not too taxing for you), but certainly one could say something more false. For instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 12 men all season, with only Fabregas outside that managing even 10 league starts all year. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, since they had only come 10th the season before.

Just in case you forgot. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, but don't despair because when Barcelona knock you out of the CL, you'll go back to just one game a week and might still scrape Top 4 yet!

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

Also, do you remember when, a couple of months back, you and Lolazo were crowing about how you were title contenders, and I warned you that you'd end up scrapping for 4th place, but you didn't believe me?

enter image description here

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T07:39:41+00:00

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, for instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 11 men all season, with only Fabregas and Terry outside that XI managing 10 appearances all season. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, because they had come 10th the season before. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, though the season ain't over yet, and in fact when Barcelona knock you out, you'll go back to just one game a week and might make Top 4 yet.

Just in case you forgot.

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

2018-03-03T07:44:01+00:00

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, for instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 11 men all season, with only Fabregas and Terry outside that XI managing 10 appearances all season. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, because they had come 10th the season before. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, though the season ain't over yet, and in fact when Barcelona knock you out, you'll go back to just one game a week and might make Top 4 yet.

Just in case you forgot.

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

Also, do you remember when, a couple of months back, you and Lolazo were crowing about how you were title contenders, and I warned you that you'd end up scrapping for 4th place, but you didn't believe me?

enter image description here

2018-03-03T07:47:01+00:00

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre, which could go and add up for yourself (if it's not too taxing for you), but certainly it be more false. For instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 11 men all season, with only Fabregas and Terry outside that XI managing 10 appearances all season. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, because they had come 10th the season before. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, though the season ain't over yet, and in fact when Barcelona knock you out, you'll go back to just one game a week and might make Top 4 yet.

Just in case you forgot.

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

Also, do you remember when, a couple of months back, you and Lolazo were crowing about how you were title contenders, and I warned you that you'd end up scrapping for 4th place, but you didn't believe me?

enter image description here

2018-03-03T08:36:46+00:00

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre, which you could go and add up for yourself (if it's not too taxing for you), but certainly one could say something more false. For instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 11 men all season, with only Fabregas and Terry outside that XI managing 10 appearances all season. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, because they had come 10th the season before. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, though the season ain't over yet, and in fact when Barcelona knock you out, you'll go back to just one game a week and might make Top 4 yet.

Just in case you forgot.

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

Also, do you remember when, a couple of months back, you and Lolazo were crowing about how you were title contenders, and I warned you that you'd end up scrapping for 4th place, but you didn't believe me?

enter image description here

2018-03-03T08:38:31+00:00

@LOLazo:

Can this be more false? I hardly doubt it,

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre, which you could go and add up for yourself (if it's not too taxing for you), but certainly one could say something more false. For instance, this following statement is more false:

fact is Conte just as much reforms as Pep but with less money,

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 12 men all season, with only Fabregas outside that managing even 10 starts appearances all season. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, because they had come 10th the season before. Now, with midweek football again, you're 5th, though the season ain't over yet, and in fact when Barcelona knock you out, you'll go back to just one game a week and might make Top 4 yet.

Just in case you forgot.

Pep Guardiola, by contrast, looks like he could win a treble this season.

Pep can put up 2 sets of defenders capable of winning the title at any given time,

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

Man City was already a contender for the title even before the huge investments made when/by Pep's arrival.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

If you can't appreciate that, then football isn't what you love.

@Marcus:

Lodatz is a master of pulling fictional facts from spurs forums to enlighten us.

I'm more of a master of spanking you around the entire thread when I feel like it. Mostly, I don't bother to waste my time, but it's amusing to watch you whine about being rumbled there. ;)

Also, do you remember when, a couple of months back, you and Lolazo were crowing about how you were title contenders, and I warned you that you'd end up scrapping for 4th place, but you didn't believe me?

enter image description here

Lodatz 6 years ago Edited

Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

@raimondo90: I must admit, I never thought I'd see the day when Chelsea fans would start pointing to the net spend for their high ground. As if the club isn't literally upwards of £1bn in debt to its owner.

That's what financial doping really looks like. By contrast Manchester City have a debt of £11m.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T08:34:29+00:00

@raimondo90: I must admit, I never thought I'd see the day when Chelsea fans would start pointing to the net spend for their high ground. As if the club isn't literally £1bn in debt to its owner.

Golazo111 6 years ago Edited

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre

Where you can see clearly that Man City outspent every other team in the league but Pep is using the same key players from 2013 anyway, Chelsea bought players but sold by almost he same amount of money, fact is Chelsea invested by now around 50 million pounds but Man City invested around 200 million pounds.

Pep didn't create anything from scratch he only added new players and he keeps rotating them because he has a big depth and everyone is more fit to play, thats the main difference.

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 12 men all season, with only Fabregas outside that managing even 10 league starts all year. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, since they had only come 10th the season before.

Conte sold Diego Costa and needed to find another primary striker, that alone is a far bigger reform than Pep just adding players to aid the ones he already has, which are already world class.

Chelsea finishing one season outside of top 4 doesn't mean that they only won the league because of that, Chelsea has been winning the league and playing Champions league football before, but what would you know about such a thing you never won the league playing in Europe or not playing in Europe so you don't know anything about it so from your side it all looks incomprehensible.

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

That's once again implying that both teams had the same amount of money, which once again isn't true and thus I can keep saying that you're wrong.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

By vision you mean - Pep just spent tons of money in his first season and didn't win anything, he continued to spend money and now he is winning the league, which means, money made his win not his own personal talent.

"Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola is within £99million of spending more on transfer fees in two years than Sir Alex Ferguson did during his 26-and-a-half years in charge of Manchester United."

Conte on the other hand came into a squad that finished 10th and won the league in his first season, without spending huge sums of money.

This is why I can just say the same, money is the biggest factor of why Man City is winning the league.

Adding 500 million pounds to an already title winning squad that was always in top 4, is only going to make them dominate the league, period.

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T12:56:32+00:00

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre

Where you can see clearly that Man City outspent every other team in the league but Pep is using the same key players from 2013 anyway, Chelsea bought players but sold by almost he same amount of money, fact is Chelsea invested by now around 50 million pounds but Man City invested around 200 million pounds.

Pep didn't create anything from scratch he only added new players and he keeps rotating them because he has a big depth and everyone is more fit to play, thats the main difference.

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 12 men all season, with only Fabregas outside that managing even 10 league starts all year. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, since they had only come 10th the season before.

Conte sold Diego Costa and needed to find another primary striker, that alone is a far bigger reform than Pep just adding players to aid the ones he already has, which are already world class.

Chelsea finishing one season outside of top 4 doesn't mean that they only won the league because of that, Chelsea has been winning the league and playing Champions league football before, but what would you know about such a thing you never won the league playing in Europe or not playing in Europe so you don't know anything about it so from your side it all looks incomprehensible.

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

That's once again implying that both teams had the same amount of money, which once again isn't true and thus I can keep saying that you're wrong.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

By vision you mean - Pep just spent tons of money in his first season and didn't win anything, he continued to spend money and now he is winning the league, which means, money made his win not his own personal talent.

"Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola is within £99million of spending more on transfer fees in two years than Sir Alex Ferguson did during his 26-and-a-half years in charge of Manchester United."

Conte on the other hand came into a squad that finished 10th and won the league in his first season, without spending huge sums of money.

This is why I can just say the same, money is the biggest factor of why Man City is winning the league.

2018-03-03T13:00:34+00:00

Well, it's certainly true as per the information on FR's Transfer Centre

Where you can see clearly that Man City outspent every other team in the league but Pep is using the same key players from 2013 anyway, Chelsea bought players but sold by almost he same amount of money, fact is Chelsea invested by now around 50 million pounds but Man City invested around 200 million pounds.

Pep didn't create anything from scratch he only added new players and he keeps rotating them because he has a big depth and everyone is more fit to play, thats the main difference.

LOL. Conte used essentially the same 12 men all season, with only Fabregas outside that managing even 10 league starts all year. That is, of course, because Chelsea didn't have any European football like the rest of the Top 6, since they had only come 10th the season before.

Conte sold Diego Costa and needed to find another primary striker, that alone is a far bigger reform than Pep just adding players to aid the ones he already has, which are already world class.

Chelsea finishing one season outside of top 4 doesn't mean that they only won the league because of that, Chelsea has been winning the league and playing Champions league football before, but what would you know about such a thing you never won the league playing in Europe or not playing in Europe so you don't know anything about it so from your side it all looks incomprehensible.

Um, that's a bit of a stretch, but even if it's true, then what does that tell you? That he did a bit better with the money than simply buying David Luiz back.

That's once again implying that both teams had the same amount of money, which once again isn't true and thus I can keep saying that you're wrong.

Which must be why they came a distant 4th the season before he got here, and in his first year could only scrape 3rd. This year, thanks to his vision in the transfer market (along with Gundogan and Sane from the year before), he has set up a defense which otherwise would have consisted of just Stones and Otamendi (since everyone else worth mentioning left the club), and instead has transformed them into the most dynamic defense in the league.

By vision you mean - Pep just spent tons of money in his first season and didn't win anything, he continued to spend money and now he is winning the league, which means, money made his win not his own personal talent.

"Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola is within £99million of spending more on transfer fees in two years than Sir Alex Ferguson did during his 26-and-a-half years in charge of Manchester United."

Conte on the other hand came into a squad that finished 10th and won the league in his first season, without spending huge sums of money.

This is why I can just say the same, money is the biggest factor of why Man City is winning the league.

Emobot7 6 years ago

538 11432

By the way guys, is it me, or we are just talking about the amount without seeing how it was spent? I mean, Pep nearly spent 100M on Mendy and Bernardo Silva and the former been injured more than half of the time and the second wasn't even that important for City this season. Personnally, I think we shouldn't focus on only the amount of money paid, but on the player that were bought and also play an important role in that squad.

What I'm trying to say is, take for example a team who spent 100M on backup player and on young lad who doesn't really manage to get into the first team, well, lets say that team manage to beat some of its personal record. You can't say its because of the 100M they spent because most of the player they signed didn't play a part in their campaign.

So in other word, yes, Pep paid a lot for new recruit but some of them aren't even that important for City. Actually, what is truly impressive with City is how they have been better in every area this season despite only really changing their defensive lineup.

By the way, I'm curious to ask, how would you guys feel if it was Chelsea who had spent all that money on new players and was doing much better? Lets say the deal for Alex Sandro would have happened for example. I'm pretty sure you guys would still think Conte is pretty awesome nevertheless even though he would have spent as much as other big team.

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

So in other word, yes, Pep paid a lot for new recruit but some of them aren't even that important for City.

It only looks like that on paper but in reality it's a big depth on almost every position where anyone can step in if needed.

By the way, I'm curious to ask, how would you guys feel if it was Chelsea who had spent all that money on new players and was doing much better?

Chelsea already did what Man City is doing now, it's basically the same thing. Invest in a lot in new players and take over the league. The difference is that somehow for Man City it doesn't matter because of Pep according to his fanboys. But truth is even before Pep Man City had managers that broke some PL records and won the league and so on, just like Chelsea had more than 1 managers that did well.

raimondo90 6 years ago Edited

Valencia, Argentina 89 2492

Where you can see clearly that Man City outspent every other team in the league but Pep is using the same key players from 2013 anyway, Chelsea bought players but sold by almost he same amount of money, fact is Chelsea invested by now around 50 million pounds but Man City invested around 200 million pounds.

Pep didn't create anything from scratch he only added new players and he keeps rotating them because he has a big depth and everyone is more fit to play, thats the main difference.

There's only 4 players in the squad from 2013/14. Kompany, Fernandihno, Silva and Agüero. And Kompany hasn't been key until recently mainly because of his frequent injuries.

I say incorporating 7 players or about 60% of the squad is almost starting from scratch, especially when the tactics are way different from Pellegrini.

We return to the same issue, in your point of view Chelsea only invested 50mil but that's not true. They spent over 150mil. The fact they made money of selling players does not change that fact. The investment is there regardless if there was income elsewhere. If not we would have to include every single income a team has to see true investment.

Onto your point on Peps vision, you think any manager could have done it? His first season was adapting a squad to his idea. He failed, but he wasn't happy with the players since he wanted very specific players to fulfill roles. He identified the weaknesses and moved to fix that. I say almost every choice he's made in the market has paid off tremendously. Except maybe Bravo and Mendy (but mostly cus his injury).

Arguing how much Pep spent vs how much SAF spent is ridiculous. Especially when you aren't taking into account the inflation and the fact that the last two years the market has gone insane in prices.

Adding money doesn't guarantee success and I'll keep repeating it. It's how wisely you use said money.

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T15:21:18+00:00

Where you can see clearly that Man City outspent every other team in the league but Pep is using the same key players from 2013 anyway, Chelsea bought players but sold by almost he same amount of money, fact is Chelsea invested by now around 50 million pounds but Man City invested around 200 million pounds.

Pep didn't create anything from scratch he only added new players and he keeps rotating them because he has a big depth and everyone is more fit to play, thats the main difference.

There's only 4 players in the squad from 2013/14. Kompany, Fernandihno, Silva and Agüero. And Kompany hasn't been key until recently mainly because of his frequent injuries.

I say incorporating 7 players or about 60% of the squad is almost starting from scratch, especially when the tactics are way different from Pellegrini.

We return to the same issue, in your point of view Chelsea only invested 50mil but that's not true. They spent over 150mil. The fact they made money of selling players does not change that fact. The investment is there regardless if there was income elsewhere. If not we would have to include every single income a team has to see true investment.

Onto your point on Peps vision, you think any manager could have done it? His first season was adapting a squad to his idea. He failed, but he wasn't happy with the players since he wanted very specific players to fulfill roles. He identified the weaknesses and moved to fix that. I say almost every choice he's made in the market has paid off tremendously. Except maybe Bravo and Mendy (but mostly cus his injury).

Arguing how much Pep spent vs how much SAF spent is ridiculous. Especially when you aren't taking into account the inflation and the fact that the last two years the market has gone insane in prices.

Adding money doesn't guarantee success and I'll keep repeating it. It's how wisely you use said money.

Emobot7 6 years ago

538 11432

@Golazo Fair enough. Still, I think people read too much into the whole "Pep is super good" or the "Pep is only good thanks to money". Personally, I alway thought he was simply a decent big team manager. He can do well with some very good player and win title and trophy but sadly, not always. Also, there is no way to say how good he would be with weaker side and there is no doubt in my mind that he doesn't alway act with the most class. I like Pep better than Mou but I like Conte and Klopp even better than the two of them. Passion over pragmatism. ;)

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Onto your point on Peps vision, you think any manager could have done it?

Yes. Many not any but a lot that I could name.

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

@Emo Conte said it best in the last press: "They have the possibility to spend a lot of money. when you link the two situations: a good manager, money to spend and the same ambition, this is the final result."

Emobot7 6 years ago

538 11432

@Golazo I still don't understand why Chelsea board didn't let Conte spend more than he did. Especially considering he had sold a lot. Btw, I still think Conte should have kept Matic and not move for Bakayoko, that wasn't his best move. :(

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Basically we have seen managers taking over team that had good players and winning, great example is Barcelona at the time of the Golden Spanish generation, some managers won there and never again anywhere else: Rijkaard, Vilanova, Enrique only did well in Barcelona...
Man City had Mancini and Pellegrini that won the league but didn't do much after Man City at all regardless of their experience.

Just now I opened a topic about the most paid managers, Lippi won the World Cup with Italy but couldn't qualify China to the World Cup even if he is paid the most in the whole world, turns out having good players matters who would have thought...LOL

raimondo90 6 years ago

Valencia, Argentina 89 2492

@Golazo yet Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Spurs all have money to spend and good managers. Yet none of them are anywhere near Citys level.

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

yet Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Spurs all have money to spend and good managers. Yet none of them are anywhere near Citys level.

Because they spent more money than the rest and they already had a team that was a contender for the title. I already explained that and as you can see the teams that spent the most are the top 2 teams for the most part of this season.

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

I still don't understand why Chelsea board didn't let Conte spend more than he did.

It just happens that the board got a bit paranoid because Mourinho let go of some of the players that Chelsea could have kept and also because there are plans for a new stadium.

Emobot7 6 years ago Edited

538 11432

@Golazo Yeah but United are really not on par with City. Also, United might be second but they are struggling to keep this position at time so I wouldn't say its proof of money being a requirement for being at the top. Liverpool spend way less than United yet they are extrmely close to them in the table.

Showing previous versions of this text.

2018-03-03T16:03:56+00:00

@Golazo Yeah but United are really not on par with City. Also, they might be second but they are struggling to keep this position at time so I wouldn't say its proof of money being a requirement for being at the top. Liverpool spend way less than United yet they are extrmely close to them in the table.

Golazo111 6 years ago

Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

@Emo money is the biggest factor in football, answer me this, if Man City wouldn't have spent all the money would they be where they are today? I think we both know the answer.

raimondo90 6 years ago

Valencia, Argentina 89 2492

@Golazo, doesn't that apply to every single top team?

Emobot7 6 years ago

538 11432

@Golazo Well, obviously, money should make difference but you can do like Pep and invest that money effectively or like Mou and still have a hard time despite signing quality player. I mean, obviously, Pep is doing much better in part thanks to his new recruit but to be fair, other team in the PL have as much quality and even as much depth (I'm looking at you United), yet they are nowhere close City and that despite having manager who should have the advantage of experience. I'm just saying, money doesn't win you every game, it help you but to win the PL it also take a great game plan and a good team spirit. I feel like Pep striked a good balance between between good investement, strategy and camaraderie, no meaning he is a genius like some people say but he still deserve a bit more credit imo than "he spend more so of course he win". Sure, other manager could do what he is doing, but not hundred of them. Still think he is a least a good manager despite his spending.

Marcus2011 6 years ago

Chelsea FC, England 277 6501

@emo

Difference between Jose’s United and Peps City spending.

Jose has a job of resurrecting struggling team and bought players that will fit his philosophy. Pep took over team that was already strong and winning titles but bought players that will fit his philosophy. One had to fix the Ferrari so it can drive again the other made a major tune up and power boosted engine on his Ferrari.