Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Manchester City - Guardiola confirmed

1246711

Comments

  • edited November 2017

    I'll never understand people who get upset about teams 'buying' the league. Every team has bought the league if they've won it. Blackburn did it, United did it, Arsenal did it, and then Chelsea and City came along to at least make the title race a little bit more interesting again. Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo and Jaap Stam didn't exactly grow up in the academy, Thierry Henry and Sylvain Wiltord weren't rough diamond free transfers and Blackburn broke transfer records in their sole Premier League title win. Money has always been a central part of winning the Premier League, be it via steel magnates in the 90s, or oil barons in the 00s. Man Utd were having money plowed into them as far back as 1910 and spent massively in the 60s when maximum wage caps were abolished. They spent £8m on transfers in 1989 which was an insane amount then and that re-established them fully. The only major difference is that City and Chelsea did theirs all at once, which rubs people up the wrong way. As a fan of a non-Premier League team though I enjoy seeing more of a title race and seeing better players in the league. We get to watch Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne play instead of Darius Vassell, Richard Dunne and Sun Jihai. All I see us getting out of it is good football to watch on the telly in between our lot turning out against Rotherham and Shrewsbury. I'll happily watch shit-tier football if Charlton are involved but I'll never complain that the Premier League has got better teams to watch in recent years

    Absolutely spot on. Anyone who says they wouldn't want the same for their club is probably lying. If Sheikh Mansour had bought us would we fed up winning trophies and going to toe to toe with Barca and Real and instead pining for the old days of league one defeats to Gillingham and Millwall? Doubtful.

    Remember the hysteria on here when Zabeel were supposed to be taking over us? I do.
  • its more what comes with it said on various other threads, Chelsea i go to enough to have an opinion ( cousin spare st and 5 mins from work ) so good chance to catch up with him have a beer and watch some football, its the amount of tourists and how sanitized it is, never been to chelsea away but back 10/15 years ago it would be a tough place to go where as now no songs, nothing and its like that at a lot of the top clubs, fuck me arsenal is embarrassing, the only one with slightly decent atmosphere is Anfield.
  • I fully understand the "I support a small club and am proud to do so" viewpoint. So do I and like many on here have done so for over 50 years including those days in the old 3rd tier with crowds of 5,000-6,000.

    However, I don't get this thing about buying success vs playing exciting free flowing football - one doesn't necessarily follow the other. When we signed a certain former European Footballer Of The Year I don't think one person said that this was "buying success" - and had we been capable of keeping him I have no doubt that things in the longer run would have been better.

    Chelsea were the first to "buy" the PL but their football wasn't anywhere near as exciting as the City version. As a result of Guardiola's clear out, City's net spend this season is just over £40m. Man United have spent £260m on just 5 players (Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mkitahryan and Lindelof) in the last two seasons but I would struggle to argue that their brand of football is as exciting as City's. Everton have spent £200m in the last two seasons and they are in the relegation zone!

    Guardiola has changed their style and how he develops their players. Look at the confident defender that is Stones compared to last season. Watch how when Sterling comes on and makes a difference. These are English players who have become better ones under Guardiola and that has to be good for our international side.

    Guardiola's legacy will ultimately be whether he can, as I've said this before, create a blueprint a la Barcelona. And this has to include bringing on the English youngsters such as Joel Latibeaudiere and Phil Folden in the same way that Spurs are doing with some of their youngsters. That is something Chelsea didn't do when they "bought" success as demonstrated by John Terry being the only home grown Englishman to start a Premier League game last season and why they didn't have a single English player starting on Saturday.

    City have just announced their results - Revenue of £473.4m and a profit of £1.1m for 2016-17. I believe that this is the third consecutive year that they have made a profit.

    So they have a team that plays exciting football with some of the best footballers in the world, are top of the PL and unbeaten, have won all their games in the CL, have some very good English players coming through plus one of the very best coaches and the Club makes a profit too.

    It would be dreadful if we had to deal with all that - what the hell would we have to moan about!
  • Just need some trophies.
  • I fully understand the "I support a small club and am proud to do so" viewpoint. So do I and like many on here have done so for over 50 years including those days in the old 3rd tier with crowds of 5,000-6,000.

    However, I don't get this thing about buying success vs playing exciting free flowing football - one doesn't necessarily follow the other. When we signed a certain former European Footballer Of The Year I don't think one person said that this was "buying success" - and had we been capable of keeping him I have no doubt that things in the longer run would have been better.

    Chelsea were the first to "buy" the PL but their football wasn't anywhere near as exciting as the City version. As a result of Guardiola's clear out, City's net spend this season is just over £40m. Man United have spent £260m on just 5 players (Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mkitahryan and Lindelof) in the last two seasons but I would struggle to argue that their brand of football is as exciting as City's. Everton have spent £200m in the last two seasons and they are in the relegation zone!

    Guardiola has changed their style and how he develops their players. Look at the confident defender that is Stones compared to last season. Watch how when Sterling comes on and makes a difference. These are English players who have become better ones under Guardiola and that has to be good for our international side.

    Guardiola's legacy will ultimately be whether he can, as I've said this before, create a blueprint a la Barcelona. And this has to include bringing on the English youngsters such as Joel Latibeaudiere and Phil Folden in the same way that Spurs are doing with some of their youngsters. That is something Chelsea didn't do when they "bought" success as demonstrated by John Terry being the only home grown Englishman to start a Premier League game last season and why they didn't have a single English player starting on Saturday.

    City have just announced their results - Revenue of £473.4m and a profit of £1.1m for 2016-17. I believe that this is the third consecutive year that they have made a profit.

    So they have a team that plays exciting football with some of the best footballers in the world, are top of the PL and unbeaten, have won all their games in the CL, have some very good English players coming through plus one of the very best coaches and the Club makes a profit too.

    It would be dreadful if we had to deal with all that - what the hell would we have to moan about!
    14 chips.
  • Riviera said:

    Just need some trophies.

    They will have another two at least by the end of the season.
  • Riviera said:

    Just need some trophies.

    They will have another two at least by the end of the season.
    What do you mean another? You are talking about City under Guardiola and this thread is about City under Guardiola. Under Guardiola they have zero trophies.
    They will have at least one at the end of the season.
  • Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.
  • Sponsored links:


  • iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

  • iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Agreed... One long ball from the Goalkeeper to Striker will result in a goal... that team dont need to make a single successful pass for the rest of the match provided they can remain tight in Defence
  • iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    1. They can't win any trophies 'til the end of the season but 19 wins and a draw from 20 games suggests that they might just do that

    2. Huddersfield beat their main rivals, United, a few weeks ago

    3. Their defence isn't anywhere near as vulnerable as last season - a better goalkeeper, improved full backs, a Stones who looks more confident and a fit again Kompany has improved the situation. Conceding 12 goals in 20 games does not suggest that they are particularly vulnerable either. The one they let in yesterday Otamendi could do very little about.

    4. Scoring an average of almost 3 goals a game will obviously always give them a massive edge as will a non reliance on one or two players to get those goals.

    5. None of the teams that played in the CL had "impressive" results this weekend - Liverpool and Chelsea drew with each other, United scraped a win, courtesy of a massive deflection, at home to Brighton and Spurs could only manage a home draw against WBA who are 4th bottom.

    6. There is a somewhat obvious route to wealth who doubt City's credentials to win the League - lay them on Betfair at 1.16. There's currently over £40,000 at that price and you'll only be risking £6,400 to land all of that.
  • give them the league now i cant see anyone else getting close, its the manner by what there winning yesterday aside they have been destroying sides.
  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    Yet more stats - record 14 wins on the bounce in the same PL season.

    Given that this will be another stat that you will, no doubt, dismiss, what odds are you prepared to offer me that they won't win the PL this season?
  • They’d still get beat by PSG, Barca, Juve, Bayern. But they’re walking the EPL. Utd were woeful.
  • I love watching Man City and hope they win the title, absolutely despise Guardiola though
  • edited December 2017
    dizzee said:

    They’d still get beat by PSG, Barca, Juve, Bayern. But they’re walking the EPL. Utd were woeful.

    Not at all sure I agree with that.
  • Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.
    sd.jpg
    225 x 224 - 6K
  • Sponsored links:


  • For some perspective. City spent £100m on 2 full backs. Ridiculous. How can anyone compete with that?!

    Pep and the unlimited millions at his disposal at every club he has ever been at can fcuk off.

    Would love to see Burnley make top 4, even at the expense of Spurs.

    Football really is dead.
  • edited December 2017
    I used to work with an Arsenal fan that was up in arms when Chelsea started buying the title. It was lost on him that they had paid £11m for Henri, back in the days when £11m was considered a lot of money for a footballer.

    All the clubs in the top six spend a disgusting amount of money but they are all seething at any club that has the audacity to spend much more than them.

    Some teams in League Two probably think that some of the wages we pay are outrageous.

    It has, probably, always been thus and will, probably, always be.
  • I think I heard, I may be wrong though, that West Ham have the 4th highest wage bill in Europe!
  • And this is an excerpt from a Spurs fan's view of their financial future:

    With Spurs’ total revenue expected to rise to a conservative estimate of £384m in 2018 when the new stadium opens, we could expect out wages to similarly rise to as much as £230m, using this average of 60% wages:revenue that I used before. £230m would more than double our 2015/16 wages of £100m! To put it simply, this would revolutionize Spurs’ ability to recruit players of a higher caliber.

    Knowing Daniel Levy, he will continue to operate a financially prudent business even with these huge increases in revenue, especially over the first several seasons in the new stadium. I would be surprised if our wage bill did reach £230m, but even if that money were not immediately invested in players’ wages, it could be used to fund transfers. No longer would we be required to finance a new incoming transfer with an out-going transfer, having access to an additional £170-260m in revenue per season.

    However, the greatest advantage we will gain is not necessarily on our top 6 rivals, but rather on the other clubs in the Premier League, as well as teams from every other league in the world. A team with £350m in annual revenue, as we will earn at a minimum in 2018, would see us climb into the top 10 wealthiest clubs in the world, surpassing giants like Juventus and Borussia Dortmund, trailing behind only Barcelona, Real Madrid and PSG in clubs outside of England. £450m in revenue would put us in the equation for the top 5 wealthiest.

    While we may have to endure a few more seasons of financial prudence as we build the stadium and aggressively pay off its loans, if you have managed to stick with me this long, you won’t need me to explain that Spurs’ future is indeed bright, and the future of English football is going to be a bit more lilywhite.


    So, if Spurs win the title following their move and increased revenue, will they do so by spending next to nothing? I suspect not. Although Leicester did prove that it is possible to do so. Spending money doesn't guarantee anything. Just ask Spurs' fans about how they used the Bale money and you will probably find that only one player, Eriksen, has proven to be a big success at the Club - that season they spent £108m on Eriksen, Lamella, Fryers, Paulinho, Chadli, Capoue, Soldado and Chiriches. So they did have money but bought some players not good enough for a top six PL Club - or in the case of Paulinho, having paid £17m for him they sold him for half virtually half that at £9m and now he is at Barcelona who paid £36m for him this summer.
  • or in the case of Paulinho, having paid £17m for him they sold him for half virtually half that at £9m and now he is at Barcelona who paid £36m for him this summer...

    Great businessman that Levy fella!
  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    Yet more stats - record 14 wins on the bounce in the same PL season.

    Given that this will be another stat that you will, no doubt, dismiss, what odds are you prepared to offer me that they won't win the PL this season?
    Oh wow, what trophy did they win for doing that?

    I've never dismissed stats I just said people seem to be obsessed with them, people like you actually.

    No idea how to compile odds but intrigued to know how much you have on City to win the league?



  • Just checked the stats for Saturdays game, we had 55% possession, wow wow wow, how many points did we get for that? Absolutely fuck all because the opposition scored more goals than us!!!!

    That's the only stat that counts at the end of the match.
  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    Yet more stats - record 14 wins on the bounce in the same PL season.

    Given that this will be another stat that you will, no doubt, dismiss, what odds are you prepared to offer me that they won't win the PL this season?
    Oh wow, what trophy did they win for doing that?

    I've never dismissed stats I just said people seem to be obsessed with them, people like you actually.

    No idea how to compile odds but intrigued to know how much you have on City to win the league?



    "Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games."

    "More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable."

    I think those comments do suggest that you do dismiss stats - and that you have seen City as not being as good as the stats suggest. City actually have the equal best defence in the division as well as scoring the most goals. There I go again with those stats.

    And in answer to you question I have "enough" on them to have layed them back at 1.09 (or 1/11 in old money) so can't lose whatever happens. It is their form that has lead to their stats which, in turn, has meant that they are massively odds on. If City lose four of their final 22 games they will still win the League simply because United would have to win every single one of their remaining matches.

    But if City do lose a couple of games and drift I might just go in again. Because stats help but aren't the be all and all end all are they?
  • Why did you lay back the bet so you're covered either way if you're so sure about them? Maybe you're doubting the stats?

    I was commenting on the game at Huddersfield when they looked a bit shaky when Huddersfield attacked them.

    You can quote stat after stat but it doesn't win you games re my possession stats on our game last Saturday.

    Next week City go into a league game having won their previous 14 league games, does that mean they will win next week?

    You say if City were to lose 4 games then United would have to win all their games to be champions, you're assuming that City will win their other 18 games then?

    What do you base that on? Oh yes stats again, they've won their last 14 so they win 18 out of their next 22.

    Yes, City look very good but as you know in football one defeat can change things very quickly.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!