Surely it would place a massive asterisk on all the trophies won during his time at Man City? In future discussions on the greatest manager would this be a talking point which stains our perception on him? Or will he still be lauded as the greatest by some despite the wider context?
I head a City supporter talking about Liverpool on the radio the other day. He was talking about how he didn’t respect Liverpool before but really hates them now because they have spearheaded the push for FFP to be properly enforced and for City’s charges to be properly moved forward.
He then said that it’s all untrue because the charges are time barred and completely false anyway.
So, my question is this.
We have a team that were in the old League division 2 in 1998/99. After managing to get back to the PL they found themsleves back in the old League 1 in 2001/02.
it is not unthinkable that a team that went through that can pull through and go on to win a PL title - see Leicester. But how, in all honesty have City managed to dominate if they have stayed within the rules?
City fans then have to concede that Liverpool and Man Utd have higher levels of income and resources and haven’t managed to dominate in the same way over the past 10 years or so. I mean seriously, if it isn’t over spending (which looking at the squad it absolutely has to be) then what is it? Youth academy? Money ball tactics?
The likely explanation has to be financial doping. If it isn’t that then what exactly do you claim it is? Pep is a great manager and some (more than most teams) of the players are truly amazing. But how did you acquire them? What attracted them to a club with no recent history of success?
City fans tell us that we’re just salty because of the success. So tell us…how did you come about that success relatively over night?