DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) In terms of advantage look at Grealish and Phillips. Could any other team buy these players for that money, have one never play, one now sit on the bench and still keep spending ridiculous amounts. Failures in the transfer market just don't impact them. I don't think any team had a chance at signing Halaand with the finances involved. That's a pretty big advantage and absolutely helped them finally win the champions league. Everything he's done there is tainted. I don't see how you can say yeah there was cheating but he still did a good job. I'll be honest, that's kind of Trump esque cult like behaviour Edited February 14 by DCJonah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 25 minutes ago, DCJonah said: I'll take your word for it but I've not heard anything but negatives about the man since it all came out He is still regularly spoken about, and voted for in polls, as one of the greatest TDF riders ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 14 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Would everyone who took the same drugs have dominated to the level Armstrong did? You could argue he still had to run the races just as pep has to manage the squad. Your disproving your own point with this analogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DCJonah said: In terms of advantage look at Grealish and Phillips. Could any other team buy these players for that money, have one never play, one now sit on the bench and still keep spending ridiculous amounts. Failures in the transfer market just don't impact them. I don't think any team had a chance at signing Halaand with the finances involved. That's a pretty big advantage and absolutely helped them finally win the champions league. Everything he's done there is tainted. I don't see how you can say yeah there was cheating but he still did a good job. I'll be honest, that's kind of Trump esque cult like behaviour Literally nobody has said he hasn't had an advantage or that it isn't tainted. Not one person. All anyone is saying is it still takes a good manager to achieve what he's achieved, even with the cheating. Your Lance Armstrong analogy is perfect, just not in the way you intended Edited February 14 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: He is still regularly spoken about, and voted for in polls, as one of the greatest TDF riders ever That surprises me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 City also did their best to obscure financials from the UEFA investigation "The consultants reported to Uefa that City had not provided them with bank statements so that the payments, including from the sponsoring companies, could clearly be seen, the Guardian understands. City did make available their online bank account, which went back 12 months to the spring of 2013, but that did not cover 2012 or most of the 2013 financial year, which together constituted the first accounting period of Uefa’s FFP regulations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Stevo985 said: Literally nobody has said he hasn't had an advantage or that it isn't tainted. Not one person. But they seem to not care. Would it change your opinion on the job he's done at City? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: In terms of advantage look at Grealish and Phillips. Could any other team buy these players for that money, have one never play, one now sit on the bench and still keep spending ridiculous amounts. Failures in the transfer market just don't impact them. I don't think any team had a chance at signing Halaand with the finances involved. That's a pretty big advantage and absolutely helped them finally win the champions league. Everything he's done there is tainted. I don't see how you can say yeah there was cheating but he still did a good job. I'll be honest, that's kind of Trump esque cult like behaviour But none of those players mentioned are within the charges. Undoubtedly (in my mind, and pretty much everyones) Man City have cheated to the extent of cooking the books and gaining an unfair advantage. However, legally (as far as the Premier League is concerned, though state ownership obviously an issue here for me) Man City did get given a huge spending advantage purely by having incredibly wealthy owners. How does that play out over the period 2009 to 2018? I'm not sure. I think it's fair to say that Man City would've still had an incredible team, would've still been challengers at the top end of the league and may well have had success. How much of their success is down to cheating? No idea. Sure, any success they have is tainted/has an asterisk against it, but it still requires those players to actually be good and for a manager to actually get the team performing well. I don't think you put Steve Bruce in charge of Man City and get the same results. I don't see how that's having a Trump-esque cult belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: But they seem to not care. Would it change your opinion on the job he's done at City? Who has said they don't care? I've already answered your question. Man City are guilty as far as I'm concerned. So it wouldn't change my opinion. My opinion is he's an extremely good manager, regardless of any cheating that's gone on. The cheating has allowed him to win more and achieve more than he would have done without it. It taints it and I hope the book gets thrown at Man City. That doesn't make him a shit manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: But none of those players mentioned are within the charges. Undoubtedly (in my mind, and pretty much everyones) Man City have cheated to the extent of cooking the books and gaining an unfair advantage. However, legally (as far as the Premier League is concerned, though state ownership obviously an issue here for me) Man City did get given a huge spending advantage purely by having incredibly wealthy owners. How does that play out over the period 2009 to 2018? I'm not sure. I think it's fair to say that Man City would've still had an incredible team, would've still been challengers at the top end of the league and may well have had success. How much of their success is down to cheating? No idea. Sure, any success they have is tainted/has an asterisk against it, but it still requires those players to actually be good and for a manager to actually get the team performing well. I don't think you put Steve Bruce in charge of Man City and get the same results. I don't see how that's having a Trump-esque cult belief. To me it's irrelevant if Bruce wouldn't do the same. Like it wouldn't matter to me if other cyclists wouldn't have won taking the same drugs as Armstrong. Cheating is cheating. The idea of dismissing it to still say he's done a good job or still using it to justify he's amazing is crazy to me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: Who has said they don't care? I've already answered your question. Man City are guilty as far as I'm concerned. So it wouldn't change my opinion. My opinion is he's an extremely good manager, regardless of any cheating that's gone on. The cheating has allowed him to win more and achieve more than he would have done without it. It taints it and I hope the book gets thrown at Man City. That doesn't make him a shit manager Fair enough. I'm not saying he's a shit manager by the way. He's just massively overrated and over hyped. So if he's City success is tainted, his bayern spell means nothing. We're talking about one excellent spell at a club where he had the greatest player of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Pep has also introduced the smart trouser and trainer combo, which alone should be an arrestable offense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, DCJonah said: To me it's irrelevant if Bruce wouldn't do the same. Like it wouldn't matter to me if other cyclists wouldn't have won taking the same drugs as Armstrong. Cheating is cheating. The idea of dismissing it to still say he's done a good job or still using it to justify he's amazing is crazy to me. I don't think it's being dismissed anywhere - but maybe I'm wrong, or not phrasing my responses well enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: Fair enough. I'm not saying he's a shit manager by the way. He's just massively overrated and over hyped. So if he's City success is tainted, his bayern spell means nothing. We're talking about one excellent spell at a club where he had the greatest player of all time. You're talking about one excellent spell. You seem to be saying that because cheating occurred, his performance as a manager is irrelevant and can't be discussed. It doesn't matter if he's still a good manager being made even better by cheating, to you it can't be discussed. Cheating means nothing good could have possibly occurred. That's fine. But other people being able to acknowledge he still has talent despite is not weird. It's normal. Just like people can discuss Armstrong's ability as a rider or Max Verstappen's ability as a driver or Carl Lewis' ability as a sprinter despite cheating occurring in all of their respective careers. What's weird to me is just writing anything that Pep has done at man City off because they cheated. It's such a weird position. It's so black and white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, DCJonah said: To me it's irrelevant if Bruce wouldn't do the same. Like it wouldn't matter to me if other cyclists wouldn't have won taking the same drugs as Armstrong. Cheating is cheating. The idea of dismissing it to still say he's done a good job or still using it to justify he's amazing is crazy to me. W lot of people defending him as he is Teflon to some when in fact stink follows him around Failed drugs test as a player Hiring the doctor he blamed on his failed drugs test for Barcelona Sacking Bayern long term doctor for not agreeing with him over medical procedures Barca ref scandal City financial doping Football be a better place when he leaves or is finally kicked out of the sport which he should have been on 2002 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: You're talking about one excellent spell. You seem to be saying that because cheating occurred, his performance as a manager is irrelevant and can't be discussed. It doesn't matter if he's still a good manager being made even better by cheating, to you it can't be discussed. Cheating means nothing good could have possibly occurred. That's fine. But other people being able to acknowledge he still has talent despite is not weird. It's normal. Just like people can discuss Armstrong's ability as a rider or Max Verstappen's ability as a driver or Carl Lewis' ability as a sprinter despite cheating occurring in all of their respective careers. What's weird to me is just writing anything that Pep has done at man City off because they cheated. It's such a weird position. It's so black and white Although I think they're different as the drugs taken (not sure what the Verstappen thing is tbh) have literally enhanced their performance - whereas Guardiola doesn't have a drug available (as far as I'm aware?) that increases his ability to coach or be tactically astute. The issue is with the club and what they've done rather than the individuals running the side/on the pitch. De Bruyne is still - for me - the best player in the league. He is this, despite Man City having cheated financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, bobzy said: Although I think they're different as the drugs taken (not sure what the Verstappen thing is tbh) have literally enhanced their performance - whereas Guardiola doesn't have a drug available (as far as I'm aware?) that increases his ability to coach or be tactically astute. Red Bull broke spending rules in F1. So Verstappen has benefitted from that. But nobody seems to just decide his ability as a driver is completely irrelevant because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 10 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: You're talking about one excellent spell. You seem to be saying that because cheating occurred, his performance as a manager is irrelevant and can't be discussed. It doesn't matter if he's still a good manager being made even better by cheating, to you it can't be discussed. Cheating means nothing good could have possibly occurred. That's fine. But other people being able to acknowledge he still has talent despite is not weird. It's normal. Just like people can discuss Armstrong's ability as a rider or Max Verstappen's ability as a driver or Carl Lewis' ability as a sprinter despite cheating occurring in all of their respective careers. What's weird to me is just writing anything that Pep has done at man City off because they cheated. It's such a weird position. It's so black and white Because It's all built on cheating. I don't see how you can push that to one side. Be like talking about what a great investor Bernie Madoff was but just dismissing the fraud side of things. The success happens because of the cheating. Its a huge part of it. And will be even bigger when it all finally comes to a judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Red Bull broke spending rules in F1. So Verstappen has benefitted from that. But nobody seems to just decide his ability as a driver is completely irrelevant because of this. If RedBull had been cheating for a decade, committing financial fraud to cover it up and this allowed them to dominate then I'm sure more people would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Because It's all built on cheating. I don't see how you can push that to one side. Be like talking about what a great investor Bernie Madoff was but just dismissing the fraud side of things. The success happens because of the cheating. Its a huge part of it. And will be even bigger when it all finally comes to a judgement. Nobody is pushing it to one side. They're specifically incorporating it into their assessment. You're just refusing to do an assessment. It's impossible to discuss Pep's ability as a manager if you just dismiss anything he's done at Man City because of cheating. THAT is pushing it to one side 3 minutes ago, DCJonah said: If RedBull had been cheating for a decade, committing financial fraud to cover it up and this allowed them to dominate then I'm sure more people would. I don't know how long it's been going on, but they did attempt to cover it up, and it has allowed them to dominate. Despite that, most people still acknowledge that Max is an excellent driver Edited February 14 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts