• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

The Pep myth


Ohnonotagain said:
Ok, let's check the difference in scale.

In 1987-88 season Liverpool bought five players. The outlay was £4.44m pounds, total club income was £938k.

Last season Man City transfer outlay was £150.5m, total club income £162.2m.
Click to expand...
They sold Rush for £3.2 m and Paul Walsh for £0.5m so that can’t be wright. You’re mixing up revenue with net spend on players.

City have (allegedly) fiddling the rules to allow the state of Abu Dhabi to fund much of what they do, completely skewing competition
 
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
Cool. Now do it to include spending.
Click to expand...
I honestly haven't got a clue what you are trying to put across here.

I initially posted that historically, successful teams buy the best players.

You replied that the scale of this is bigger now, I've shown you it isn't.

I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Hardyman's Yugo said:
They sold Rush for £3.2 m and Paul Walsh for £0.5m so that can’t be wright. You’re mixing up revenue with net spend on players.

City have (allegedly) fiddling the rules to allow the state of Abu Dhabi to fund much of what they do, completely skewing competition
Click to expand...
That was the season after.
 
Ohnonotagain said:
I honestly haven't got a clue what you are trying to put across here.

I initially posted that historically, successful teams buy the best players.

You replied that the scale of this is bigger now, I've shown you it isn't.

I don't know how else to explain this to you.

That was the season after.
Click to expand...
You’ve posted fundamentally biased and misleading stats
 
Toronado said:
Are you kidding ? Even bringing in inflation that doesnt change the fact that Pep has spent over £1billion on transfers at city where as Fergie spent about £400million in his entire 23 year at United

An absolute joke of an attempted comparison and debate, probably up there with the worst in the history of the internet
Click to expand...
:lol:

The point being, Man City have spent over £1bn. But so have Man United. Chelsea have just spent the thick end of £500m in 12 months. Liverpool have spent well over £900m. And even taking net spend into account, which is generally the argument used about Klopp, Man United's is something like £300m more than City's in the same period.

So yes, they have spent a lot of money, but so has everyone. There isn't the financial disparity there was in the 90s anymore, teams can and do compete with City. They don't even have the highest, or even second highest wagebill - Man United and Chelsea are both widely estimated to be higher.

Man United outspent everyone in the 90s by miles, except a brief period when Blackburn spent big and took the league from them, and when Leeds mortgaged everything and failed. Arsenal did amazing to compete with them for so long.

It's funny how Pep inheriting Messi, Xavi and Iniesta counts against him but Fergie is praised for developing the class of 92, which is still talked about 30+ years later.

City probably have cooked the books under the current rules and deserve whatever punishment comes their way. But those rules didn't exist then. You can say Man United's was self-generated wealth, but it was generated from becoming the number 1 team at the exact time the Premier League was founded. Let's say the Premier League is formed in 1982 instead of 92 and English clubs weren't banned from Europe in the 80s, we're looking at a completely different landscape.

I'm not dissing Fergie or arguing one is better than the other, but people apply different rules. And let's be honest, Fergie underachieved in Europe - the biggest club in the world should have far more than 2 CLs in 27 years. And whilst we're criticising City for breaking the rules, let's not pretend Man United didn't get absolutely everything in their favour either. They were despised for getting every single decision and intimidating referees. Referees openly admit they gave them favourable decisions - they didn't concede a penalty at home for years. 'Fergie Time' is part of every day football parlance.
 
Hardyman's Yugo said:
It wasn’t, I’ve just read it. They funded the purchase of Barnes, Beardsley and Houghton through the sale of Rush, Walsh, Wark plus a few others.

But I’ll say it again, that’s entirely different to revenue spend.
Click to expand...
Apologies Rush was sold 86/87 season

Walsh, Wark, Seagraves and Demange were sold 87/88

I get your point with revenue spend though.
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
I was being polite.

But I don’t have the inclination to debate financial accounting with someone who is pulling numbers out of his arse.
Click to expand...
As opposed to somebody who cannot find any numbers at all......sorry, cannot be bothered to.

Yeah, right.
 
Last edited:
Ohnonotagain said:
Apologies Rush was sold 86/87 season

Walsh, Wark, Seagraves and Demange were sold 87/88

I get your point with revenue spend though.

As opposed to somebody who cannot find any numbers at all......sorry, cannot be bothered to.

Yeah, right.
Click to expand...
I think I would have more success getting my dog to speak French then actually get you to understand it. So I’ll go and do that

As i said, have a good day 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top