Fraudiola

Remember when POG said he rates Poch as a better manager than Pep?

That was a fun time to be on here.

Pep will arguably go down as the greatest manager ever. Not only based on his trophies and wins....but the way he's changed football and his philosophy.

The way in which he has his City team playing football is remarkable.
 
He's a great manager, with a great squad of players. However the club have a great deal of questions to answer about the potential breaches of financial rules, and until they do so then absolutely everything they have achieved is tainted.
 
Remember when POG said he rates Poch as a better manager than Pep?

That was a fun time to be on here.

Pep will arguably go down as the greatest manager ever. Not only based on his trophies and wins....but the way he's changed football and his philosophy.

The way in which he has his City team playing football is remarkable.
All of this is true, but his legacy could end up being tarnished if his club has been cheating.
 
I genuinely think he is one of the very few managers in history who have completely revolutionised the tactical side of the game. Top level football is a completely different game now as opposed to before he was appointed at Barcelona. There is a reason absolutely every club who win the biggest trophies play a version of the tactics he brought into the mainstream.
 
Don't think it will.

It could well tarnish City...but his legacy will remain. What he's done at Barcelona, Bayern and now City is incredible and we probably won't see the like again.
Well it may not be a universally held view, but there will always be someone in a room who brings up that his time at City has been tainted, if indeed they get stripped of titles or given huge fines/points deductions. It won't mean he suddenly is no longer a brilliant manager, but will be something that is constantly appended to his legacy (even if not his fault, it could be deemed to have skewed the reality).
 
I think the question is 'at what point did they become financially powerful'. When clubs are given a big cash injection from an oil state, it is a bit different to Liverpool just gradually getting better through the decades until they were unstoppable in the 80s. At least it is in my eyes anyway, I appreciate it is subjective.
During the 70's, Liverpool where still throwing money at the team to improve and other teams couldn't compete with them. You also had a situation where a player's head would be turned when Liverpool came courting and clubs like Middlesbrough knew they had to let them go.
 
During the 70's, Liverpool where still throwing money at the team to improve and other teams couldn't compete with them. You also had a situation where a player's head would be turned when Liverpool came courting and clubs like Middlesbrough knew they had to let them go.
OK. But the money didn't come from an oil state in one takeover. They got good in the 60s through Shankly, got rich, and then continued to build on it.
 
There will always be people who say Pep has had everything given to him everywhere he goes hut at the end of the day he still delivers every year. I wouldn't back against City this season. They'll still come good.

There's been plenty of managers at Chelsea and United over the last 10 who have had hundreds of millions thrown at them.and still can't get the team to play anywhere near the level City play every season. I would bet you could put Pep at Chelsea and they would win the league within two seasons.
 
I would bet you could put Pep at Chelsea and they would win the league within two seasons.
This would be interesting to see, and you may be right. But what is kind of missing from his CV is taking a struggling club (big or otherwise) and making them good. He doesn't have a Porto, or an Aberdeen, or a Derby/Forest, or a (Shankly era) Liverpool example on his CV, he has only ever managed top, top clubs.

When he took over at Barca B, they'd won the CL the year before, then he found himself quickly in charge of the first team.

He took over at BM when they'd just won it, and won the league back to back a few times.

He has achieved more with City, arguably, but they were already on their way to 'dominance' it was felt, and he was the cherry on top. Winning the treble is certainly impressive, if it remains bonafide.
 
During the 70's, Liverpool where still throwing money at the team to improve and other teams couldn't compete with them. You also had a situation where a player's head would be turned when Liverpool came courting and clubs like Middlesbrough knew they had to let them go.
Yes, they did it from the 60's onwards, as Man Utd did. That's how they started to win titles regularly.
 
OK. But the money didn't come from an oil state in one takeover. They got good in the 60s through Shankly, got rich, and then continued to build on it.
This article, taken from the Manchester Evening News, seems to blow your theory out of the water.


The release of a new BT Sport documentary, which is a fulsome appreciation of how Liverpool rose to the heights in the 1970s and 80s — and has risen again in the last five years — details the point at which Liverpool’s fortunes changed for good. Strangely, it did not revolve entirely around the genius of Bill Shankly (though he played a big part) but was also down to a switch in their financial fortunes.

In the documentary “The Boot Room Boys” it was left to Anfield veteran and stadium announcer George Sephton to nail the truth about how Liverpool’s rise truly began. In the 1950s, Liverpool were the poor relations on Merseyside, a “second division mediocrity” as narrator Peter Hooton says in the film.

They had been relegated in 1954 and were “in terminal decline” says Hooton — a situation City fans if a certain vintage know only too well. Everton had replaced Liverpool in the top flight in 1954 and, in Sephton's words “had bigger crowds then, and they thought of themselves as the big boys simply because Liverpool were down in a lower league.”

Liverpool’s board, he added, were “quite happy being a big fish in a small pond.” The arrival of Shankly brought fresh ambition to the club, but it was not matched at boardroom level and the feisty Scot almost walked out in exasperation at the lack of forward vision being shown.

The club had been hovering below the promotion places in the second division since their relegation five years earlier, and Shankly’s pleas for the club to loosen the purse strings and buy Leeds and England star Jack Charlton and Huddersfield ace Denis Law — snapped up by City for the first £50,000 fee — fell on deaf ears.

Shankly, like Pep Guardiola more recently, recognised that you can have all the coaching innovations, man-management skills and tactical revelations in the world but, unless you have top-quality players to implement them all, you are doomed to failure, he also recognised that getting those players requires big spending.

Liverpool’s, and Shankly’s, fortunes changed when John Moores — who founded the Littlewood’s pools and mail order giant, which made him one of Britain’s wealthiest men — joined Everton as chairman and gave up his shares in Liverpool in 1960.

He gave his shares in Liverpool to Eric Sawyer, financial director of Littlewood’s, and he recognised the eternal truth in football that you need to spend to be successful. With Shankly in his ear, Sawyer set Liverpool along a path to greatness.

Up until that point, Liverpool’s famous “history” had been underwhelming. They had won five league titles and no FA Cups in their 68-year history, one more trophy than City, with one league title and three FA Cups — in an era when the cup was more prestigious than the league.

Liverpool were a second division club but started spending money like a first division giant, They splashed out £37,500 on centre forward Ian St John from Motherwell, and quickly followed that with £30,000 on centre half Ron Yeats from Dundee United.

Bearing in mind the record fee paid by a British club at that time was £50,000 (ironically spent by City on Law) it was a phenomenal amount for a second division club.

Working out football inflation is a hazardous business, but to pay fees which amounted to 75 per cent and 60 per cent of the highest fees ever paid by a British club was remarkable, for a team that had just finished third in the second division.

Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back. Not much “organic growth” going on there.

In the documentary of Sawyer’s influence on the rise of his club, Sephton said: “I think it was probably as important to the club as Bill Shankly turning up to be manager, in hindsight. Because he had ambition in his new position to make Liverpool a big team again. He was the man with the key to the wallet.”

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

Allied with Shankly’s excellence, it was a winning formula as they won promotion in 1961, took the league title in 1964, won their first FA Cup in 1965 — 51 years after “no history” City had won it — and went on, after a brief interlude when Manchester ruled the English football roost in the late 60s, to become the dominant force in the country.

The spending spree started by Sawyer might seem trivial and economic when compared to City’s vast expenditure, but all of these things are relative, with football now being a far greater business enterprise with TV revenue, global commercial deals and players on enormous wages.

The fact remains that Liverpool, like Manchester United under James Gibson in the 1930s, Arsenal in their “Bank of England” club spree in the same decade, Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, and City under Sheikh Mansour, were transformed from mediocre to world-beaters. Evidence that every big, successful club needs a sugar daddy at some stage of their history — it’s just a matter of timing.
 
This would be interesting to see, and you may be right. But what is kind of missing from his CV is taking a struggling club (big or otherwise) and making them good. He doesn't have a Porto, or an Aberdeen, or a Derby/Forest, or a (Shankly era) Liverpool example on his CV, he has only ever managed top, top clubs.

When he took over at Barca B, they'd won the CL the year before, then he found himself quickly in charge of the first team.

He took over at BM when they'd just won it, and won the league back to back a few times.

He has achieved more with City, arguably, but they were already on their way to 'dominance' it was felt, and he was the cherry on top. Winning the treble is certainly impressive, if it remains bonafide.
He's been lucky enough to get a start at the top level but he's achieving the best honours in club football. That's like saying what's missing from Canelo's CV is an amateur world title. Pep isn't going to take a step backwards now.

It takes a total different skill set to manage at the top level, even more so these days, and Pep is clearly excellent at it. I'm not sure an Alex Ferguson or a Brian Clough could do it to be honest. Those managers managed predominantly British squads in a completely different era. The mentality of players is totally different these days and squads are made up of players with huge egos from all over the world. If Ferguson went and kicked a boot at someone's head these days there wouldn't be any players at training on the Monday, they'd all be on strike.

I don't know whether Pep could keep a struggling team up or push a mid-table team into the Champions League but I don't think I need to know that. He is already proving he is the best in the game at managing elite teams.
The same way I don't need to know whether Canelo has the boxing skills to win an Olympics, he is proving he the best super-middleweight in the world in the pro sport.
 
He's been lucky enough to get a start at the top level but he's achieving the best honours in club football. That's like saying what's missing from Canelo's CV is an amateur world title. Pep isn't going to take a step backwards now.

It takes a total different skill set to manage at the top level, even more so these days, and Pep is clearly excellent at it. I'm not sure an Alex Ferguson or a Brian Clough could do it to be honest. Those managers managed predominantly British squads in a completely different era. The mentality of players is totally different these days and squads are made up of players with huge egos from all over the world. If Ferguson went and kicked a boot at someone's head these days there wouldn't be any players at training on the Monday, they'd all be on strike.

I don't know whether Pep could keep a struggling team up or push a mid-table team into the Champions League but I don't think I need to know that. He is already proving he is the best in the game at managing elite teams.
The same way I don't need to know whether Canelo has the boxing skills to win an Olympics, he is proving he the best super-middleweight in the world in the pro sport.
Fair comments but I think a lot of people do think the mark of a good manager is being able to improve teams as well as keep them performing well at the top. Pep improved Barca, but the foundations were very much left by Rijkaard, they were CL winners.

He didn't really improve Bayern Munich much.

He did improve City but it remains to be seen whether he did it without the club abusing FFP to facilitate him doing so.
 
Fair comments but I think a lot of people do think the mark of a good manager is being able to improve teams as well as keep them performing well at the top. Pep improved Barca, but the foundations were very much left by Rijkaard, they were CL winners.

He didn't really improve Bayern Munich much.

He did improve City but it remains to be seen whether he did it without the club abusing FFP to facilitate him doing so.
I think you could say that about any manager going into a top club, the infrastructure is there, and there are always several top players. The question is, can that manager get a tune out of them. You only have to look at what Carrick did before Christmas with Chris Wilder's squad.
 
Its a totally different type of management. There's managers who are great at the top level who would struggle to manage in the lower tiers and there are definitely good managers further down in the pyramid who wouldn't be able to manage at the top level.

The man management, board management and media handling become just as important as the the football side as you get to that very top level.
As you can see with Mogga, managers are a product of their own formative career in football - Mowbray is great with a club going through dire straits, where everyone has to muck in, then struggles when things are a bit more settled. Guardiola has come through one of the best systems for driving excellence at Barcelona but I doubt he could go to a club like.... Derby County, for example, where the task goes far beyond the coaching on the pitch, and includes solving a lot of other day to day problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B_G
This article, taken from the Manchester Evening News, seems to blow your theory out of the water.


The release of a new BT Sport documentary, which is a fulsome appreciation of how Liverpool rose to the heights in the 1970s and 80s — and has risen again in the last five years — details the point at which Liverpool’s fortunes changed for good. Strangely, it did not revolve entirely around the genius of Bill Shankly (though he played a big part) but was also down to a switch in their financial fortunes.

In the documentary “The Boot Room Boys” it was left to Anfield veteran and stadium announcer George Sephton to nail the truth about how Liverpool’s rise truly began. In the 1950s, Liverpool were the poor relations on Merseyside, a “second division mediocrity” as narrator Peter Hooton says in the film.

They had been relegated in 1954 and were “in terminal decline” says Hooton — a situation City fans if a certain vintage know only too well. Everton had replaced Liverpool in the top flight in 1954 and, in Sephton's words “had bigger crowds then, and they thought of themselves as the big boys simply because Liverpool were down in a lower league.”

Liverpool’s board, he added, were “quite happy being a big fish in a small pond.” The arrival of Shankly brought fresh ambition to the club, but it was not matched at boardroom level and the feisty Scot almost walked out in exasperation at the lack of forward vision being shown.

The club had been hovering below the promotion places in the second division since their relegation five years earlier, and Shankly’s pleas for the club to loosen the purse strings and buy Leeds and England star Jack Charlton and Huddersfield ace Denis Law — snapped up by City for the first £50,000 fee — fell on deaf ears.

Shankly, like Pep Guardiola more recently, recognised that you can have all the coaching innovations, man-management skills and tactical revelations in the world but, unless you have top-quality players to implement them all, you are doomed to failure, he also recognised that getting those players requires big spending.

Liverpool’s, and Shankly’s, fortunes changed when John Moores — who founded the Littlewood’s pools and mail order giant, which made him one of Britain’s wealthiest men — joined Everton as chairman and gave up his shares in Liverpool in 1960.

He gave his shares in Liverpool to Eric Sawyer, financial director of Littlewood’s, and he recognised the eternal truth in football that you need to spend to be successful. With Shankly in his ear, Sawyer set Liverpool along a path to greatness.

Up until that point, Liverpool’s famous “history” had been underwhelming. They had won five league titles and no FA Cups in their 68-year history, one more trophy than City, with one league title and three FA Cups — in an era when the cup was more prestigious than the league.

Liverpool were a second division club but started spending money like a first division giant, They splashed out £37,500 on centre forward Ian St John from Motherwell, and quickly followed that with £30,000 on centre half Ron Yeats from Dundee United.

Bearing in mind the record fee paid by a British club at that time was £50,000 (ironically spent by City on Law) it was a phenomenal amount for a second division club.

Working out football inflation is a hazardous business, but to pay fees which amounted to 75 per cent and 60 per cent of the highest fees ever paid by a British club was remarkable, for a team that had just finished third in the second division.

Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back. Not much “organic growth” going on there.

In the documentary of Sawyer’s influence on the rise of his club, Sephton said: “I think it was probably as important to the club as Bill Shankly turning up to be manager, in hindsight. Because he had ambition in his new position to make Liverpool a big team again. He was the man with the key to the wallet.”

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

Allied with Shankly’s excellence, it was a winning formula as they won promotion in 1961, took the league title in 1964, won their first FA Cup in 1965 — 51 years after “no history” City had won it — and went on, after a brief interlude when Manchester ruled the English football roost in the late 60s, to become the dominant force in the country.

The spending spree started by Sawyer might seem trivial and economic when compared to City’s vast expenditure, but all of these things are relative, with football now being a far greater business enterprise with TV revenue, global commercial deals and players on enormous wages.

The fact remains that Liverpool, like Manchester United under James Gibson in the 1930s, Arsenal in their “Bank of England” club spree in the same decade, Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, and City under Sheikh Mansour, were transformed from mediocre to world-beaters. Evidence that every big, successful club needs a sugar daddy at some stage of their history — it’s just a matter of timing.
Have you watched it? Its a great film, I only watched it about a month ago. Kudos to you for finding this article in an attempt to prove me wrong.;)

Clearly Liverpool spent money, and not just money they generated by being good, but put simply, the main difference is that it wasn't part of a sportswashing operation and they weren't breaking any rules (of the day).

I suppose it depends how much disdain you subjectively attach to this. For me, its a lot. Ultimately, City's achievements MAY have been down to cheating.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top