What do they want the man to say lmao


"Wait don't forget the PEDs!"


What about all the asthmatics!!!




People within football don’t want anything about PED’s to leak, it wouldn’t make any sense for them to do so. Try and expose it at your club and it’ll both be denied and you’ve just managed to permanently blacklist yourself from the field you’ve spent your entire life working towards being in. Doping being exposed does nobody any favors, the sponsorship money in cycling *evaporated* after their doping got the spotlight shone on it. Doctors have admitted to making drugs that don’t show up on any testing, why wouldn’t footballers dope? The obscenely relaxed doping testing says a lot, it’s show theatre like the TSA.


Exactly, to be a whistleblower in football is a case of "everything to lose and almost nothing to gain."


And its not like its a crime or anything. Yeah it may take away a bit of the integrity (as if the money and the corruption hasn’t), but it not hugely impacting the result since everybody is using it and individual skill is still vastly more important. And most football fans has already accept it as an unspoken truth, there no point in exposing it when it not really a secret.


It often is illegal though. Obtaining these medications is often done through medical malpractice. American athletes caught doping in international events can also face up to 10 years in prison. I can imagine similar laws are in place in other countries. And it’s also not an even playing field where big players or clubs have more resources to possibly dope with better stuff. That makes it even harder for small teams to keep up. Finally, I agree skill is most important in football. However, skill quickly goes out the window if a player is knackered. Doping allows players to fatigue less, and so they can remain sharp as the game goes on.


Recently when Onana was mixed up in a doping incident, his excuse was that he mistakenly took his wife's medication that contained traces of a banned substance. The general consensus on Reddit was that most seemed to believe him. Is it possible that Onana was telling the truth? Of course. I've followed cycling for many years, and the amount of times you hear that excuse is too numerous to count. Another very common one is tainted food.


Don't forget tainted supplements as well! Honestly I really don't care as long as they are doing it under a physician's supervision. I've never understood the thing, I'm asthmatic, if I take my meds, am I doping? Is a grown man with low levels of test doping? Is taking a drug to help a torn muscle heal doping? How about using medicine to help come back from a brutal injury? To me, you ban shit that's black market, not something a doctor could prescribe under close supervision.


Ah the good ol supplements that were actually pro hormones available on the shelves. The early 2000s were a great time


Really, the only place I don't think PEDs should be allowed is in combat sports, where it could potentially kill your opponent. A footballer taking some stuff to be have better endurance? Why would I care. It would just lead to a better product, honestly.


Which is of course what the owners are selling you, yet the farce goes on and on.


What about the heart attacks? The doping link if it's there is pretty sinister.


I am completely unaware of that link, and know very little of PEDs in general. If they can be done safely then I don't see an issue. I suppose it would create even bigger gaps between the top teams and the lower teams as the bigger teams will invest heavily into the science of PE.


>The general consensus on Reddit was that most seemed to believe him Because accidentally taking his wife's medication, something that was pretty effectively backed up in every way, wasn't a remotely outrageous sounding fabrication. It was just a fuck up he still got punished for.


I agree with you re Onana the only thing that has me believing him somewhat is that the substance he got caught with is a masking agent, but one that isn't effective as a masking agent anymore. So the implication was that if it were being used to mask other (actual) doping, then that doping would have been detected regardless


Onana’s story seems honest. Sid Lowe was talking about it on the guardian podcast last week https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2021/dec/30/andre-onana-on-the-error-that-led-to-a-nine-month-ban-40mg-can-destroy-a-career


I did read that Guardian piece, and it all does paint a grim picture for Onana. If he truly is innocent, it is sad the situation he is in. I’m in no position to place judgement on him, so I’ll just let his situation be. That being said, it’s still incredible to me how not a single major football player has been implicated in a major doping case. Some may argue that it’s because doping is just not common in a sport where technique and skill are so important. But in the modern game, where big teams often play 2-3 games a week, I would argue fitness is just as important. Technique and decision making, will fade if a player is absolutely gassed. Doping certainly helps with in game endurance and post game recovery. It’s hard to imagine players or teams not looking towards doping to gain advantages over their opponents.


> it’s still incredible to me how not a single major football player has been implicated in a major doping case. It's the biggest scandal in the sport waiting to happen. No way these guys aren't taking Testosterone and EPO for recovery. If PED's are rife in sports like weightlifting and cycling where nobody is really watching, imagine if you put millions of bob on the table for the athletes. Eufemiano Fuentes said that in Spain it's absolutely rotten from the clubs right to the very top of the senior men's team with doping. And I always find it incredible that we have a big doping doctor by name from US (Conte), Italy (Ferrari), Germany (Schmidt and lets face it Meuller-Wohlfharht), France (Sainz) and Spain (Fuentes), but none from England.


Anyone who doesn’t see it is deluded. If big Dave at my local gym takes them for the mirror, then professional footballers earning average yearly salaries every week are going to do everything they can to perform and recover at the highest levels.


Because people are really uneducated about PEDs. Marion Jones was only caught for PEDs in the Olympics because someone ratted her out, she passed the tests, because the tests didn’t search for what she was taking because scientists didn’t even know it existed. Drugs nowadays have way shorter half life and I doubt the tests now could spot whatever designer drug top athletes are taking. The only because who get caught now are people who don’t have designer drugs.


Likewise Lance Armstrong was never really caught, he only did in '99 and had an excuse for it that was accepted. Still you'd think there would be more whistleblowers (not refs) in football considering so many more people go in and out of jobs in it.


oh wow you are the smartest person in the world, how can the rest of us not see something so apparent and clear


“They hate us cos they ain’t us”


If you actually read both of their comments in full, neither Tuchel or Van Dijk said anything that inflammatory but the press decided to take just one quote from each of their thoughts and proceeded to make what they said seem far worse than it actually is.




The usual with the press really


That’s what’s confused me. I read what Tuchel said and all he seemed to say is they’ve either got lucky or managed the situation better. Don’t know why it’s become an attack on city


It's funny. The BBC headline is 'Tuchel praises Man City'. But every headline on social media is 'Tuchel claims man City lucky to be ahead' or something like that. Unfortunately proper headlines never get shared here, it's always the twitter click bait.


Nah they would never do anything like that


And this sub will still eat it up and Tuchel and Van Dijk will both get memed whenever they lose to City next.


Anyone: *"Manchester City have done a remarkable job dealing with injuries and the omicron spike."* Press: *"Everyone says City are winning only because of COVID"* Tabloids: *"Twitter reports evidence that Omicron was leaked from Manchester City sponsored lab"* Clickbait sites: *"City head honchos invented COVID to equalise fan support numbers with rivals"*


They always do that to Klopp. About a month ago he and Tuchel said pretty much the same thing and the media decided to spin it as Tuchel “not giving up the fight” and Klopp “bemoaning”. Like come on.


Despite Covid, the reason why Liverpool is behind is because we dropped points to a shit Leicester, Brentford and brighton. We win those as we should do with ease ( due to Leicester injuries) then we are 7 points better off with Leeds to go at home. We didn't , so here we are


Same except other teams


Same except all teams




Carragher said something similar. Both City and Liverpool have led for the same amount of games, but Liverpool have been cavalier in their control of the game, and have paid the price.


While that's true let's not forget the ref decisions that gave city wins at least one against wolves and I feel that there is a second game but I can't remember. They could have dropped some points


Yeah in a week you dropped 7 points, while City have dropped 10 all season with most of their toughest opponents needing to go to the Etihad now. Bad patch is just natural but realistically to beat this City side, you have to be flawless. Would 95 points even be enough? They've raised the bar to nearly impossible levels.


They have and its sad. Hope the financial rules change. Football in the future looks really depressing.


Mate have some dignity


I know for us who love football the financial thing is a farce. But FFP is seriously a joke. It's fucking anti competition practises. Imagine if you want to invest in a company and you can only use funds generated from that company and not anywhere else? How is that not mental?


The acceptance of calling a football club first and foremost a company just underlines my point. Its a cultural institution which should be owned by the people that give it meaning.


Whether you like it or not, football clubs are organisations that requires money to run it. Whether that word is a company is just nitpicking. But to not allow money from other sources of somebody who owns the club to be injected to the club is illogical


In that case all top level football is depressing. In Scotland the title race is only between two teams. In Turkey & Portugal it's only ever beeb one of 3. Rosenborg managed 13 straight titles at the turn of the century in Norway. Spain only has the odd winner outside of Real/Barca. Before PSG in France lyon wrapped up 7 straight titles. Juventus only just relinquished a 9 title winning streak and have won one in 3 of all Italian titles. Bayern Munich. Hell, from the 70s until the 2010s English football was throttled by Liverpool then Man Utd. One team potentially winning a 4th title in 5 years is the norm across Europe and in most cases has always been accepted as the norm in the top level football. Just because it's a team in blue rather than a team in red winning doesn't make it any more or less damaging.


I dont disagree. But I also think how you get to that position is important. But Im all for fairer distribution of wealth across the whole football world.


City also lost to Spurs and Crystal palace, drew with Southampton and Liverpool. Otherwise they could still be 8 points ahead or if we forget about Liverpool-City result, 7 points.


Focusing more on the Brentford and Brighton draws, Liverpool were ahead on each, and couldn’t see the game out. They did the same with Chelsea. As opposed to losing a game they had no business winning like West Ham, for example.


This isn't a " should have won all the games" comment. We was two up v brighton and Brentford are newly promoted and I think we were winning at a few points in the game.


LoL we dropped points to Burnley, United, and Everton U23.


yeah, both Liverpool and Chelsea have effectively beat themselves. Us drawing to each other then put the nail in the coffin unless both of us beat City at home which I just cant see.


No offense to Chelsea but I feel like Liverpool should've won those two games as well. First game Chelsea was with 10 men for half a game, but LFC did exactly nothing (just like vs arsenal) and the second game, LFC was leading 2-0 with little difficulty, throwing away the game in a few minutes


Tottenham game very easily could've gone differently as well


I get your point, I do. But I also see this every year. On paper Liverpool should beat each of those teams. But it's basically unheard of for a PL team to beat every team they should in a whole season. Even the City team of 17/18 drew against Huddersfield. And yet every year fans of big teams act like it's so crazy that they'd beat a top 4 team one day and draw against a bottom side the next. It happens literally every season.


I feel like a lot of more recent PL fans, particularly recent Liverpool fans from my perspective, have had their perceptions skewed by City and Liverpool's ridiculous performance for the last few seasons. Teams winning nearly every single game they play is very unusual




I think the last sentence is the point he was trying to make, as opposed to their league position being a result of City having it "easy" with Covid




Don't worry, prolonged exposure to r/soccer can do that to a person




Feel the same after my university finals for this year, got nothing to do (cus of covid) but to chat shit and like, work out.


Read the fucking brackets, you rem


If we didn’t have Covid we’d be 25 points clear at the top with the FA Cup wrapped up, that you can believe






Lmao, 60+ injuries for the entire season, whole back line injured, two of our CMs playing injured with the DM just coming back from Covid, playing an injured CM at RB because of another injury. Those are valid excuses for any team. If Tuchel had half the injuries we’d still be hearing him moaning this season. We’d honestly smoke you this time around.


You beat a very similar injury-strung Liverpool side. Beat them fair and square this season first before chatting to the champions of Europe.




They're so desperate to create bad blood


I think they're trying to create a narrative about you guys so that us neutrals actually invest emotional energy into you (or the "product"). Watching Man City (as a "drama") is like watching the best chess computer crush another chess computer. There isnt much emotion other than observing beautiful football. Most people live for the drama, and you guys are like teflon. Which is "boring". The media want a Messi v Ronaldo, a Ferguson v Wenger, Viera v Keane, Barca v Real etc. You're just too good for that lmao.


The Man City-Liverpool flairs against each other more than enough cover the manufactured rivalry.




That's not why Klopp is called a whiner lol, it's because he whines quite a lot.


What the fuck is this revision? Whilst the media does tend to stir shit up. Klopp as with the rest of world class is a whiner of the highest order.


Klopp gets called a whiner because he's a petulant, sore loser. Same as Pep on a bad loss, dame as Mourinho on a bad loss. He's called whiner for ery justified reasons.


I can't recall one time Pep was a sore loser




Happy new year


Actually that was a 2-1 win against Burnley! He was cranky about ref calls / City's performance if I recall correctly


Mate there are times that Pep's a sore winner. All top managers are highly strung and stupid questions by journos push them over the edge.


I've been downvoted but no one gave me a clear example




Klopp is worse than Mourinho with his whining after a loss, come off it. If anything, he gets much more of a positive spin from the media than Mourinho ever had.


sometimes its the money we have, sometimes its covid, and sometimes its our baldness.


Pep's mom died to COVID. I can understand why he gets upset for being accused of benefitting from COVID


> Thomas Tuchel, the Chelsea manager, said this week that City had “not suffered from Covid like we did” and Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk suggested the Premier League champions had been helped “enormously” by better luck with fewer cases and injury problems. But Guardiola responded with derision to the claims and put them firmly in the same bracket as accusations that City’s success over the past decade is solely down to the money they have been able to spend. >“If they [Chelsea and Liverpool] believe it’s the reason why then maybe. Sometimes it’s the money that we have, sometimes it’s Covid. I don’t know. Maybe,” the City manager said, tongue in cheek. City had seven players and 14 staff, including Guardiola and his No 2 Juanma Lillo, isolating when they faced Swindon Town in the FA Cup last Friday.


"put them firmly" > maybe >I don’t know. >Maybe Super firm response by Pep there


I love Pep’s weird passive aggressive answers. And he’s got a good point - so many talking heads at the start of the season said that City would have trouble winning the title race without a striker. Rather than acknowledging the possibility that City have turned this apparent weakness into strength, while the two teams - Chelsea and Man Utd - that brought in big-name strikers have been kind of underwhelming, City’s lead in the title race is now being chalked off to its players being magically immune to Covid.


Pep has the right of reply and was wise enough not to get into false positive territory. . The 3 gentleman in question were stupid to make ill informed comments about other teams Covid situations. Strikes me they're looking for excuses.


I know I'm just asking for comeback but it was Swindon and they're stacked due to money so it mostly doesn't matter as they're second team would fight for the title. They seem to have managed covid well to be fair


Our second team is about 6 senior players.


> Virgil van Dijk suggested the Premier League champions had been helped “enormously” by better luck with fewer cases COVID doesn't fall from the sky, it's not luck. Everyone takes personal responsibility throughout this pandemic on how they manage social engagements, self-assessment, testing, and such. You can have cases here and there, but when you have some teams that completely have to shut down their entire facilities due to massive outbreaks, that is not something seeing in other sports leagues in other sports.


You can do everything right and still get covid, omicron is that contagious. Also, if you don't think other leagues in other sports are having outbreaks and shutting team facilities down then you're just not paying attention.


You are absolutely right, no idea why you have been down voted. City have had multiple Covid outbreaks anyway so I don’t understand why people think they have been lucky 🤷🏼‍♀️




By City players you mean Walker? Because I can't remember anyone else doing something like that.


City walked the league without Covid too a few seasons ago though lol


I mean yeah... when they spend as much as they do that's to be expected


When other teams have spent similar amounts clearly it’s not to be expected


Wait never mind you are another yank city plastic, your opinion is invalid


I lived in Manchester my whole life and now live in North Yorkshire you clueless twat


Yeah ofc, it’s a shame that Liverpool didn’t spend 160 million on two players and Chelsea didn’t spend 200+ mill in a single transfer window. Maybe they’d walk the league home for a change.


Lol are u a troll?? Liverpools spending and net spend both are nowhere comparable to city, and you can't say having a bench that could compete for top 4 doesn't also help them retain the consistency it does. Pep is one of the all time coaches for sure but you can't ignore his time at city has been backed by a sheikh that has allowed them to spend a ridiculous amount more than Liverpool (plus our owners suck big time)


Netspending is not a trophy or something to be proud of spouting.


You guys spent about £200m buying the Southampton squad, Charlie Adam and Andy Carroll even before the transfer fees went mental. Yes, Liverpool have spent less than City, but don't try and claim they don't come from a position of privilege compared to the rest of the Premier League. EDIT: To save your fingers typing out the comeback. Yes, I know we spent shit-loads and are still shit.


Just play better lmao


He’s pep guardiola lol. He ain’t some random


I mean, Tuchel is right. They haven’t suffered like we have. Its also not the reason they are so far in front. The reason is, we haven’t been good enough.


Bingo. It baffles me how people have gotten so touched at the mention of City not struggling to the extent of other teams in terms of injuries and COVID because it's not like anyone is saying they wouldn't be where they are right now- they're far and away the most consistent team in England right now, end of story. I really feel like the media is trying to create a narrative here because I don't think Klopp and Tuchel views this situation as intensely as they want us to believe.


I love this version of Pep, and he's right, tbh. Their argument shifts based on what they moan about that week. Last season City were lucky to get Covid and have an extra 2 weeks of rest, according to Klopp (it was actually only 2 days). This season they've apparently been lucky to not get Covid (and actually over half their squad have had it).


Lets not pretend that having your covid outbreak during gaps in your league schedule and a game against Swindon is the same as any of the other team's covid outbreaks during clumped up league games over the winter period


Steffen, Stones, Walker, Rodri, Foden, Zinchenko all missed league games with Covid. Grealish, Sterling, Fernandinho all had it too in the last week, and will be affected in the upcoming games. City have *more* positive cases (in addition to the 7 from last week) as yet unannounced according to Pep in today's press conference, no doubt we will find out who tomorrow when they are missing. City just don't moan about it like Chelsea have. They didn't try and cancel games with 10 senior outfield players fit at Villa. You could count on one hand the City players who have been available for every league game this season. Chelsea have 22 senior outfield players to City's 17, with a multi hundred million pound bench every game (more so than even City) and arguably the best academy of world football. The moaning your club and fanbase did last month, when you averaged 4.75 players missing per game across 8 matches in December, was frankly embarrassing.


You can't defend a financial institution


So Walker and Rodri are the only regular starters that got it? That doesn’t sound that impactful. Fake news about Grealish and Sterling it seems but enjoy the internet points


Dude lol. This comment.




Can’t believe City were able to win a game with Steffen “missing”.


Can't believe Chelsea scored goals with Werner out.




Think harder


You've picked a bunch of fake stats out of your ass. Congratulations.


Which is a fake stat? Covid? - All those players had Covid. More expensive bench? - City's second team 433: Steffen (£7m), Stones (47.5m), Mbete (academy), Ake (£40m), Zinchenko (£1.7m), Fernandinho (£25m), Gundogan (£20m), McAtee (academy), Sterling (£44m), Palmer (academy), Jesus (27m) = £212.2m. - Chelsea 3421: Kepa (£71m), Azpi (£6.5m), Chalobah (academy), Sarr (free), Pulisic (£58m), Kovacic (£40m), Loftus-Cheek (academy)/Barkley (£15m), Alonso (£24m)/Saul (loan), Ziyech (£33,3m), Werner (£49.4m), Hudson-Odoi (academy) = £297.2m. Chelsea's December and players missing? - Watford (2-1 W). 4 players missing. - West Ham (3-2 L). 4 players missing. - Zenit (3-3). 5 players missing. - Leeds (3-2 W). 4 players missing (Leeds had 5). - Everton (1-1). 6 players missing (Everton had 6). - Wolves (0-0). 7 players missing (Wolves had 6). - Villa (3-1 W). 4 players missing. - Brighton (1-1). 4 players missing. 8 games, with an average of 4.75 players missing.


Got em


By your own admission Chelsea were missing 5 players on average per match… you realize there’s 11 players on the pitch so Chelsea were potentially missing half of their starting team each match. Man all that research and stats just to dig yourself into a hole at the last sentence


They have 25 senior players, and arguably the best academy in world football. They can cope with 5 missing. Chelsea v Liverpool was probably game of the season, and Chelsea missed 5 players in it. Liverpool missed 8. It was high quality, high intensity, and enough to beat probably 17 teams in our league. The idea that Chelsea missing 6 players means they can't beat that Everton team they put out just doesn't work as an excuse for me, sorry. Same goes for the Wolves game, who missed loads too.


> 8 games, with an average of 4.75 players missing. You do realise that 4.75 is almost half a team and more important we have played players that were not ready to be back on the pitch. Also I dont think many people believe City is where they are because they avoided COVID better than others. They are the reigning champ and won last year really easily. What's your starting 11 for City ?


Maybe you should have recalled your loan players? Looks like you got about 20 currently.


City paid influencer detected (https://www.prweek.com/article/1663345/man-city-calls-influencers-build-hype-champions-league-home-games)


Can you disprove them?


Are you a moron? Do you, the pathetic little plastic Red Brummy and Kind Association have a salt factory together that you lot can continuously dispense so much of it whenever in a City thread? Unsurprisingly, all 3 of you are Liverpool fans. Who knows, maybe you're the same person? Unbelievably embarrassing sad twats.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stevemccaskill/2019/10/25/unauthorized-man-city-influencer-advert-highlights-social-media-risk/amp/ I hope you were joking


You've picked random players for both benches, so that's pointless. Grealish has only started around half of your league games this season, so add an extra 100m to your bench. Pulisic has been on our bench for 5 of 22 games this season etc. etc. So that voids your first point. Your second point, it's all well and good to list officially missing players, but the reality is that we just played players through injury. It was pretty well documented. We also had players on the bench who Tuchel had specifically stated before the game were not fit to play and would not play any part in the game, it happened many times to Lukaku, Jorginho and Kante. We even finished one game having played our like 4th/5th/6th/7th and 8th choice midfielders (including 3 different players out of position there) all whilst struggling and with Jorginho on the bench because he literally wasn't available even though he was there. So, for each of those stats you need to add another minimum of two players unavailable, even though they were listed and you also need to take into account that all of our injuries/covid were focussed in specific areas. It's one thing to lose players throughout the team, it's another all together to lose 4 attackers at the same time or 3 CMs, both wingbacks etc.


Well I've not. Where does Pulisic play in Chelsea's strongest team? Ahead of Mount? Havertz? Lukaku? Definitely not at wingback over James and Chilwell. He's dog shit, but you're American, so. Grealish played all City's big games before he got in trouble for partying recently. He's in City's best team. If you start at Chelsea away, Liverpool away, and PSG away, there's a clue there... Here's another clue, if players play, they're not injured. Another excuse Chelsea fans and coaches have made this season. Players play with knocks all the time. As a Chelsea fan, you should be used to this with Mourinho. And I'm not having that about 8th choice midfielders. I had a Chelsea fan tell me you were "forced" to play James in midfield against Zenit. Whilst Saul was at LWB with Alonso on the bench, RLC was on the bench, Ziyech came on in midfield, Mount could've played deeper with Havertz on, etc, etc.


> You've picked random players for both benches, so that's pointless. Grealish has only started around half of your league games this season, so add an extra 100m to your bench. Pulisic has been on our bench for 5 of 22 games this season etc. etc. So that voids your first point. Grealish started 14 out of City's 21 league games this season, playing 1.067 league minutes. That's more than Chelsea's £100m striker Lukaku (13 games, 827 minutes), more than Chelsea's £70m bench midfielder Kai Havertz (15 games, only 936 minutes), more than Chelsea's £57.60m bench midfielder Pulisic (11 games, 685 minutes) and more than Chelsea's £72m BACKUP KEEPER Kepa (1 league game, 90 minutes) https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/startseite/verein/631 https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/startseite/verein/281 Compare each team's benches in the last games after which Thomas Tuchel moaned about City having easier with Covid and injuries. >Your second point, it's all well and good to list officially missing players, but the reality is that we just played players through injury. It was pretty well documented. You have a bigger first team squad and more expensive bench than City. If you're having more injuries than City are having (other than Covid), you should blame your physios, doctors and coaches, not Pep.


Grealish has started pretty much every major game so far. You have a much bigger squad than Citys so no surprise your bench cost more.


Fair enough, we should ask Omicron to spread during busier periods so that the competition remains fair for the other teams


No one is arguing that we have any control over this, just stating the reality of the way things have panned out.


Get your players vaccinated? Tell them to stop going out? Figure your own shit out and stop bitching about City?


What an absolutely stupid thing to say


Mate go play fifa. Elite dumbass.




Think at this point the majority of players are vaccinated, Liverpool’s team is. Course it doesn’t mean you can’t get Covid unfortunately


You do know you can still catch Covid even being vaccinated?


Yes, but it does help slow the spread. There’s an alternative option to keep them from getting sick listed there too, or can you not read? The point is, complaining about one team having better “luck” with Covid is dumb. LFC and Chelsea have simply played below the level needed to compete with City. Take responsibility of that.


I stopped reading after your dumbass comment about getting vaccinated to not catch covid lmao.


Because you’re a dumbass who can’t comprehend that the vaccine helps slow the spread. Thanks for sharing that with us!


Pep moans as much as any of them


If you consider answering questions and sharing opinions as "whining" then I guess. It's all fan drama--everyone here would do the same if they were managers asked these questions.


No shot


[He’s whined more than twice already!](https://media3.giphy.com/media/kdiLf3LHFIubA6vDC1/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9523fb30737926c93c8170466cadce7cb6c3c714ab1&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)


Very true. I swear fans are very jealous, which to be fair anyone should be looking at how successful they are. People said it’s the money, Manchester United and Chelsea spend similar amounts and never managed to compete on the long-term with them. We say this each time but Liverpool are the only one with a valid argument, but tbh they’re kinda all sore losers. Who comments on another team not having covid as the reason why they’re winning? Clearly City are crushing it because they’re just a little shy of perfect, and you’re very far from that.


We are all sore losers at times.


He's not in your club anymore, you don't need to have his balls on your chin anymore mate


I don’t even know how to answer cause no one knows what club logo that is.




Shitting on a guy cus he supports his local team? Well done


Nah but I’ll 100% shit on United for not winning nothing for 4 years now and being the shit Manchester now.


So you reply based off flaire


It’s literally what they did. How did they know Pep was at my club?


Chelsea’s net spend isn’t similar amount whatsoever to what Pep spent.


That "net spend" has nothing to do with Pep and more to do with your club's loan army business which they use to sell players on the side for profits. That doesn't make your spending any more innocent, your have a £72m back up keeper which many Chelsea fans consider "not good enough". You spent a lot of money on Lukaku, Havertz, Kante, so many players, and your first team squad depth is bigger than City's to be complaining about fitness... City had an aging squad and so many deadwood which they couldn't even sell for 5m when Pep had to rebuild.


Few things. Kante wasn’t expensive at all. He’s a bargain. Second, the loan army doesn’t generate that much in sales.. that’s a fuckin MYTH.


>Few things. Kante wasn’t expensive at all. He’s a bargain. £32.22m isn't really a bargain but you spent more than that on players like Batshuayi, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Kepa Arrizabalaga (£72m back up keeper) and others. > Second, the loan army doesn’t generate that much in sales.. that’s a fuckin MYTH Selling Tammy Abraham for £36.00m, Kurt Zouma for £31.50m, Fikoya Tomori for £25.92m sound like great deals to me. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631 City couldn't even fetch a total of £10-15 million for Mangala + Zabaleta + Navas + Nasri + Hart + Clichy + Sagna + Bony when most of these players all left for free or chips and pennies when Pep had to rebuild his entire backline because those players didn't want to stay and went after longer contracts elsewhere. You even made money on Morata's loan before finally selling him. And you made good money on Hazard sale while City made just 55m on Sane. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281 So City spent a lot of money to rebuild their entire backline (still missing a leftback) and on some wingers, but you spent a lot of money too. I have to give credit to Marina Granovskaia for making some great sales.


Sané had 1 year left on his contract, and was coming back from being an ACL injury that kept him out for a year. €50M was a fine fee.


Hazard had 1 year left on his contract too, minus the injury. Real could've signed him for free if they waited one year but paid 89m pounds instead.


32M for Kante is one of the best bargains of all time. Also Zouma really isn’t a “loan army” player.. he had more appearances for Chelsea than elsewhere. Same with Tammy Abraham and Tolori tbh.. that’s not a “loan army” players.. they’re academy players.


So you made pretty good money from your academy players (about 100m from 3 players alone) when City had to lose talents like Sancho, Eric Garcia and Brahim Diaz for nothing and couldn't fetch much for others like Iheanacho, Angelino, Aleix García and many others either. >32M for Kante is one of the best bargains of all time. Not bad for a player of that caliber, but as much as some of you think City ha Easily financed by selling an academy player. That means in addition to your first team seniors, you also have PL quality academy players, so you shouldn't complain about missing 4-5 players for Covid. City's academy players aren't as PL-ready.


32M for Kante is “not bad”? Understand of the century.


Mate Chelsea are one of the highest spenders over the past few years it definitely is comparable


Nah Chelsea is a club owned by fans that makes smart financial decisions and rose to the top through their hard work, certainly not spending big and exploiting their army of loan players for slimy profits! /s It is abit rich and hypocritical for Chelsea fans to be aiming their guns at City or PSG or any other huge spending clubs considering they were like the OG billionaire club


I understand that people want to shit on us, but when we sell hazard for 120m and then spend that money people just pretend we've just pulled that money out of Abramovich's pocket.


People need to really really really stop using netspend as a teams measure of financial ability and cost. Selling a player is a single year hit on your revenue. buying a player involves adding their wages and amortisation vs your yearly revenues. The only true measure of an actual squad cost is Transfer Amortisation + Wages for that financial year and my god do Chelsea spend shit loads in this area: |Team|2021|2020|2019|2018|2017|2016|2015|Average| :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|:--| |Liverpool|0|432|422|341|266|273|227|280| |Manchester City|501|497|442|394|366|292|264|394| |Spurs|279|256|227|206|170|131|138|201| |Arsenal|0|334|322|309|276|254|246|249| |Manchester United|443|407|458|434|388|320|303|393| |Chelsea|495|410|454|368|308|293|285|373| Last years City squad cost them £501m while Chelseas cost them £495m. They are both high in this area most likely due to wage bonuses being triggered for CL + PL wins and CL final appearances etc. But the numbers done lie. Both squads cost the same However Chelsea far overpay from their actual revenue |Team|2021|2020|2019|2018|2017|2016|2015|Average| :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|:--| |Liverpool||88.16%|79.17%|74.95%|72.88%|90.40%|76.17%|80.29%| |Manchester City|87.89%|103.11%|82.62%|78.33%|80.79%|74.49%|75.00%|83.18%| |Spurs|77.50%|65.31%|49.24%|54.35%|55.56%|62.38%|70.41%|62.11%| |Arsenal||97.38%|81.52%|79.43%|65.25%|72.36%|74.77%|78.45%| |Manchester United|89.68%|79.96%|73.05%|73.56%|66.78%|62.14%|76.71%|74.55%| |Chelsea|113.79%|100.74%|101.57%|82.14%|85.32%|89.06%|90.76%|94.77%| Chelseas squad has cost them 100% more than their revenues allow for 3 straight financial years. So when you say WE SOLD HAZARD. I say yeh you did and you got a nice revenue boost that season yet your squad still infact cost more than all that revenue combined on that single year. Then Roman paid the difference for all your other costs. So yes roman dips into his pocket YEARLY.


It's the Liverpool Coutinho money still being used years later again


It's funny how much people down vote you for stating an irrefutable fact just because they don't like it


Ha are you kidding? It isn't about the Hazard money--Abramovich has given the club £1 billion in free money since his takeover. I guess you shouldn't be expected to know what happened a decade before you started following Chelsea though, right?


Yeah 1 billion is not only for the men's team though was it? We have the best academy setup in the league, best women's team in the league. And that 1 bil was 2 decades ago. We didn't just spend those all on transfers.


It isn’t.


Maybe for the last 5 years. But it is the highest expenditure in a PL club since 2000. You didn’t need to spend to the levels of Manchester City because you’ve been doing it since 2001. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/biggest-transfer-spend-premier-league-25813736


You went back 22 years? Are there even any players still playing for either team since then? What does that have to do with anything at all? Lol 22 years!! The fact that city are still second despite a lot of their spending being recent says it all. I’m not trying to act like chelsea is a spending club. I’m just saying that since Pep took over.. city have spent a lot more.


Well it was when you became successful as you were unknown before this. But it’s also because without being dishonest, when you buy a club, you need to put a lot more money at the start than at the end as you’re building an empire. It’s a lot more logical that Chelsea doesn’t need to spend as much net spending as City because you’ve been doing it for 20 years and no one ever said shit because you weren’t that successful. City does the exact same and has other clubs fighting for bones behind them, yet it’s cause of covid? Lol ayt.


What? lol your comment makes absolutely no sense bud.


No it’s not. You have to overspend a lot more for a newly bought club in the earlier years. That’s exactly what Chelsea did and were overpaying for everyone in the early 2000. I find it to be dishonest to only compare City from say a few years, as they’ve being building their club and getting to the standard they’re at now. Why not mention the starting years of your club as well, as you’ve went from nothing to the Chelsea of today. It’s very stupid to start measuring at “since Pep took over” as when Pep arrived things were not as well established and on the level of Chelsea and United. Net spend is also not that relevant as both of your clubs could afford to spend an extra 200M if you wanted to, just that you have a loan army which gets you back some money and balances your budgets. Whereas City are not on that model, *yet*.


Aside from all the other dumb shit you said.. City finished ahead of Chelsea the year before Pep took over bud… by a lot.


Did they do so on average? I swear some Chelsea fans act like you’re an in poverty club. You literally have a Russian oligarch financing your club ffs.


On average? It was pretty similar. Then Pep has spent more than any manager ever has on one team, by a very considerable margin.


Unsurprising you're a yank so actual sense is nonsense to you. Between Abramovich buying Chelsea and Pep taking over City, Chelsea had won the PL 4 times and CL once. Not to mention, the FA Cup 4 times in that period too. That's why you need to take it into account.


None of the cast of mercenaries who have joined your club since Abramovich took over would've joined without his money or the bought success it brought. Just like City. Kudos for being solvent now (honestly), but you never, ever would've gotten here without the free £1 billion your shady owner gave you.


Pep annoys me, solely because he never gives me the opportunity to ask whether he needs a WAAAH-mbulance. Patience, u/TheMightyGatekeeper. Your time will come.


It’s money


It's the money. Full stop.


You put a full stop 🤔


Dot dot Dot dot dot dot dot




No, it's always the money.