Fraudiola

[Pog]

He holds that many records, you may have confused the record he holds in all 3 divisions of 'most consecutive wins in the league'

or more to the point most people simply don’t give a s*** about those type of records.

The vast majority of people don’t remember who scored how many goals in whichever season, they remember who won the trophies.

 

[Pog]

Klopp joined Liverpool in 2015 and has won 4 trophies during that time.
Pep joined City in 2016 and has won 6 trophies (not including the 2 community shield wins) during that time.

Both spent hundreds of millions of pounds - Klopp actually breaking world record fees for certain positions (GK & CB at the time).....and let me get this right, Pep is believe to be a fraud, yet Klopp isn't?

Sensational. Absolutely staggering.

I know I’ve given you plenty of stick in the past for being unable to understand basic facts, but surely you can understand that Klopp inherited a vastly worse football club than the already successful one Pep did and has achieved his success on a far more sustainable model?

 

[ForssAwakens]

Any evidence to back that up?

The cheapest position in football, the full back, Man City agave been charged a premium on a number of occasions.
Man City don’t need to sell players to be charged a premium

Liverpool have been overcharged in the past, but it tends to be when they have sold players

Man City payed 60 million for Mahrez. Liverpool payed 30 million for mane.

 

[atypical_boro]

The cheapest position in football, the full back, Man City agave been charged a premium on a number of occasions.
Man City don’t need to sell players to be charged a premium

Liverpool have been overcharged in the past, but it tends to be when they have sold players

Man City payed 60 million for Mahrez. Liverpool payed 30 million for mane.

City being able to pay £60m for Mahrez, when other clubs wouldn’t/couldn’t have paid that fee, is an advantage to City, not an advantage to the other clubs.

Sorry Gaz but this doesn’t make any sense. If Liverpool had coughed up £60m for Mahrez he’d have gone there.

 

[Pog]

The cheapest position in football, the full back, Man City agave been charged a premium on a number of occasions.
Man City don’t need to sell players to be charged a premium

Liverpool have been overcharged in the past, but it tends to be when they have sold players

Man City payed 60 million for Mahrez. Liverpool payed 30 million for mane.

That’s two players, it proves nothing.

There’s two years between the two transfers, the market changed a lot in that time.

Man City were also paying a premium for a more finished product, plenty of people questioned buying Manè for £30m at the time.

If Man City weren’t happy with fee they shouldn’t have paid it, they should have done what other clubs without unlimited funds do and developed a younger player in that role.

I dunno, a Phil Foden perhaps?

 

[B_G]

The cheapest position in football, the full back, Man City agave been charged a premium on a number of occasions.
Man City don’t need to sell players to be charged a premium

Liverpool have been overcharged in the past, but it tends to be when they have sold players

Man City payed 60 million for Mahrez. Liverpool payed 30 million for mane.

Isn't this just an example of where Liverpool have dealt better in the transfer market than City rather than evidence than Man City pay a premium?

If Man City had offered £30m for Mane, would it have been rejected?
If Liverpool had offered less than £60m for Mahrez, would it have been accepted?

Unless you can categorically answer one of those questions yes, then your point doesn't really prove anything.

 

[Marvanelli]

I know I’ve given you plenty of stick in the past for being unable to understand basic facts

So Klopp winning 4 trophies since 2015 and Pep winning 6 trophies since 2016 aren't facts?

Your problem is deeply personal with Pep for some reason and as quite a few posters have already pointed out on this thread, the obsession is quite frankly sad.

Pep guarantees trophies everywhere he goes, all whilst playing some of the most expansive and breathtaking football, that is why the richest clubs acquire his services.

 

[Marvanelli]

Very good football manager? Yes
The best manager in the world? Maybe not
A Fraud? No

Questioning Guardiola is a fair discussion but he's also done great things if you bother to scratch below the surface of Wikipedia. Calling him a fraud is stupid.

Agree. Anyone who calls Pep, with a CV and record like that, a fraud, shouldn't be watching football. Just embarrassing yourself calling him a fraud.

Stupid is as stupid does

 

[ForssAwakens]

City being able to pay £60m for Mahrez, when other clubs wouldn’t/couldn’t have paid that fee, is an advantage to City, not an advantage to the other clubs.

Sorry Gaz but this doesn’t make any sense. If Liverpool had coughed up £60m for Mahrez he’d have gone there.

If Liverpool where the only team interested I Mahrez, would they have been charged 60m. In my opinion they wouldn’t have

 

[ForssAwakens]

Isn't this just an example of where Liverpool have dealt better in the transfer market than City rather than evidence than Man City pay a premium?

If Man City had offered £30m for Mane, would it have been rejected?
If Liverpool had offered less than £60m for Mahrez, would it have been accepted?

Unless you can categorically answer one of those questions yes, then your point doesn't really prove anything.

Ye it’s all about opinions. 150 million on 3 full backs suggest Man City pay a premium and accept the have to

In my opinion Man City would have paid more for manE and Liverpool Would have paid less for Mahrez looking at the clubs transfer history

 

[ForssAwakens]

That’s two players, it proves nothing.

There’s two years between the two transfers, the market changed a lot in that time.

Man City were also paying a premium for a more finished product, plenty of people questioned buying Manè for £30m at the time.

If Man City weren’t happy with fee they shouldn’t have paid it, they should have done what other clubs without unlimited funds do and developed a younger player in that role.

I dunno, a Phil Foden perhaps?

I think you find even if Man City aren’t happy with the fee, they are still prepared to pay because they understand the situation there and their owner.

foden has been developed

 

[atypical_boro]

If Liverpool where the only team interested I Mahrez, would they have been charged 60m. In my opinion they wouldn’t have

If City were the only club interested, they may not have been too. But the reality is City can outbid others and that in itself is a significant advantage.

 

[Pog]

So Klopp winning 4 trophies since 2015 and Pep winning 6 trophies since 2016 aren't facts?

Your problem is deeply personal with Pep for some reason and as quite a few posters have already pointed out on this thread, the obsession is quite frankly sad.

Pep guarantees trophies everywhere he goes, all whilst playing some of the most expansive and breathtaking football, that is why the richest clubs acquire his services.

Do you accept that Klopp inherited a football club in a vastly worst state than the already successful one Pep did, and that Klopp has achieved his success on a far more sustainable model?

Yes or No would suffice.

 

[Pog]

Ye it’s all about opinions. 150 million on 3 full backs suggest Man City pay a premium and accept the have to

In my opinion Man City would have paid more for manE and Liverpool Would have paid less for Mahrez looking at the clubs transfer history

Because in the case of their full they’re buying ready made players the selling club doesn’t want to sell, so they have to pay a premium.

Liverpool didn’t pay a premium for Robertson because he wasn’t the finished product and they were buying him from a recently relegated side and developed him into the top class full back he is today.

 

[Marvanelli]

Do you accept that Klopp inherited a football club in a vastly worst state than the already successful one Pep did, and that Klopp has achieved his success on a far more sustainable model?

Yes or No would suffice.

Does that mean either of them are a fraud?

Yes or no will suffice.

 

[Pog]

Does that mean either of them are a fraud?

Yes or no will suffice.

You’ve dodged the question for a second time and your response is to ask me something which I’ve stated openly for the last four years

The fact you won’t answer the question tells me that you know deep down he’s not worthy of the pedestal he’s on, that is all merely a face saving exercise.

 

[Marvanelli]

You’ve dodged the question for a second time and your response is to ask me something which I’ve stated openly for the last four years

The fact you won’t answer the question tells me that you know deep down he’s not worthy of the pedestal he’s on, that is all merely a face saving exercise.

Dodged a question? You talking to me or yourself?

Your obsession with Pep isn't healthy. His record speaks for itself. He's broken numerous records at every single club he's managed.

And there's a reason the elite clubs fight for his signature.

To even suggest he's a fraud, pretty much sums up the lack of intelligence you have on the matter of Football.

I even remember you compared him to Poch a few years back....you've soon stopped comparing him to Poch now....shock horror.

 

[Pog]

Dodged a question? You talking to me or yourself?

Your obsession with Pep isn't healthy. His record speaks for itself. He's broken numerous records at every single club he's managed.

And there's a reason the elite clubs fight for his signature.

To even suggest he's a fraud, pretty much sums up the lack of intelligence you have on the matter of Football.

I even remember you compared him to Poch a few years back....you've soon stopped comparing him to Poch now....shock horror.

Why would I call him a fraud, Fraudiola or a Bald Fraud if I didn’t think he was a fraud?

I’d take Poch over him every day of the week, he’s proven himself at smaller clubs and on more limited budgets.

Whilst Pep was spending hundreds of millions of pounds, Poch literally spent nothing one summer, and then went on to knock Pep’s team out over two legs on the biggest stage in club football.

Spurs spent £400m less than City and still competed to a good standard, that’s at least 6 top players worth of cash.


Do you accept that Klopp inherited a football club in a vastly worst state than the already successful one Pep did, and that Klopp has achieved his success on a far more sustainable model?

Yes or No?

 

[Marvanelli]

Why would I call him a fraud, Fraudiola or a Bald Fraud if I didn’t think he was a fraud?

I’d take Poch over him every day of the week, he’s proven himself at smaller clubs and on more limited budgets.

Whilst Pep was spending hundreds of millions of pounds, Poch literally spent nothing one summer, and then went on to knock Pep’s team out over two legs on the biggest stage in club football.

Spurs spent £400m less than City and still competed to a good standard, that’s at least 6 top players worth of cash.


Do you accept that Klopp inherited a football club in a vastly worst state than the already successful one Pep did, and that Klopp has achieved his success on a far more sustainable model?

Yes or No?

Without doubt Klopp has done wonders at Liverpool. Of course he inherited a team in a worse state than what Pep did at City.

I can't deny what an excellent job Klopp has done. He's taken Liverpool to a level they've never been at for decades.

That isn't the issue of topic though? And what does that prove? Klopp has been excellent at Liverpool. Pep has been excellent at City. Both deserve their plaudits for what they have done.

And let me get this right, you'd take a manager who has won absolutely nothing whatsoever in his managerial career (managing since 2009), over someone who has won the league in 3 different counties, the champions league on more than one occasion and who has over 25 managerial trophies in total during roughly the same time (not including all the records he's broken during that time)?

If that is what you're saying, then wow, just simply wow!

 

[Pog]

Without doubt Klopp has done wonders at Liverpool. Of course he inherited a team in a worse state than what Pep did at City.

I can't deny what an excellent job Klopp has done. He's taken Liverpool to a level they've never been at for decades.

That isn't the issue of topic though? And what does that prove? Klopp has been excellent at Liverpool. Pep has been excellent at City. Both deserve their plaudits for what they have done.

And let me get this right, you'd take a manager who has won absolutely nothing whatsoever in his managerial career (managing since 2009), over someone who has won the league in 3 different counties, the champions league on more than one occasion and who has over 25 managerial trophies in total during roughly the same time (not including all the records he's broken during that time)?

If that is what you're saying, then wow, just simply wow!

Yes because the only reason he’s won anything like he has is because he’s the biggest chequebook manager in world football.

Give Woodgate £700m and he’d win trophies too, obviously not to the same standard Pep has though.

Guardiola is like Zidane, a boutique football club manager with a limited skill set. You won’t see them at clubs Leicester, Spurs or even Arsenal where they’d be expected to develop a squad on a budget.

There’s a very limited set of clubs they will manage, those with the biggest budgets along with the best players.

Their role is to go into these clubs to manage and massage the biggest egos in world football.

As much as I don’t hold Zidane in particularly high regard, he can put 2 league titles and 3 UCL’s in his last 4 seasons on the table.

Two league titles for Guardiola, just not very impressive.