diggz:

You are on a tangent here. Let's not turn this page into a historical portal. Everyone knows what happened.

The simple question is, how much success would Jose have had if he managed Bari, Atlanta, Siena, Arezzo and Juve?

Honestly. Tell me.

So how can you profess that spending the millions is irrelevant? Jose has never joined a club, post Porto, that has neither the team nor the resources to win the league.

I mean Pep has won what? 17 trophies in his career? But some quarters still believe the jury is out on him.

Why is that?

Bimffo:


So, how are we doing it?

a responsible risk analyst will be on holiday presently. and when I mean holiday, I mean 'not actively in business'. the present risk commodities available are very unpredictable for analysis except probabaly u want to assess or test-run a system. and when u really r on a test-run, u expect crashes more often.


u get it? but if u don't mind, I will do a test-run

nateevs:




One major flaw in all of this is that you have assumed - and I don't know where it came from - that my attempt to bring perspective of spending to the argument, is admittance that Conte is better than Jose.

Let me tell you where my assumption came from.

This was dopejemi's question to Bimffo.

dopeJemi:

Hahahaha
If he is more successful than conte, doesn't that make him a better coach?

And this was your response.

nateevs:

Why don't you take a more sensible approach and add up how much each one spent on players, in each season of every club they managed?
When you finish, then you will have understanding
#Perspective

Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers.

The second flaw is that you assume that I need to be reminded that Jose is easily top 3 title-winning Manager material. I know this.

I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:

What you have not considered is this. Can you honestly, without doubt, claim that Jose will win the League in the same season, same event replicated, with the Leicester squad?

And therein lies the crux of your argument. That Jose is somehow incapable of success without a massive wallet to bankroll it. Obviously, the logical conclusion of this post is that, Jose's input to an expensively squad is negligible to the point of almost irrelevance, as the players he signs should be able to win regardless. And this does Jose a great disservice.

Porto were 50/1 to win the UCL in the summer of 2003. That's not quite Leicester's 5000/1, but those are still pretty long odds, and as you will undoubtedly know, bookies fix those kind of odds for a reason.
It's impossible to say Jose would have definitely achieved the same kind of success with Leicester, but it is not inconceivable. Apart from Jose's track record of success with underdogs, the tactical style that Leicester achieved victory with, is one that Jose made popular. The togetherness shown by the Leicester squad is a hallmark of Jose teams. The way Leicester ground out 1-0 wins is almost a Jose Trademark.

By Contrast, Claudio oversaw heavy spending at Chelsea and did not win a pin.Jose came and changed the Story. Spent at Juve and Inter and did not win anything.

So I don't see why not, given the same circumstances, Jose could not achieve a similar level of success with that same Leicester team.

Can you honestly say, without doubt, that Jose will win the league with the last title-winning ManU squad?

Similar to the post above, but this example is even more redundant, because United's title victory relied very heavily on signing an injury prone 29 year old hitman with relatively little resale value to deliver instant success. Sound familiar?

It's not fair to cast aspersion on Jose because he spends heavily. Conte has not done anything that Jose has not done before despite having the highest wage bill and spending over 100m last summer alone. Please respect the don.

nateevs:


You are on a tangent here. Let's not turn this page into a historical portal. Everyone knows what happened.

The simple question is, how much success would Jose have had if he managed Bari, Atlanta, Siena, Arezzo and Juve?

Honestly. Tell me.

So how can you profess that spending the millions is irrelevant? Jose has never joined a club, post Porto, that has neither the team nor the resources to win the league.

I mean Pep has won what? 17 trophies in his career? But some quarters still believe the jury is out on him.

Why is that?

The difference between Pep and Jose is that Pep has managed 2 of the best teams globally of the last 20 years. Jose by contrast has managed title contenders.

The difference in standing between Barca\Bayern and Chelsea\Inter\Madrid domestically but especially in Europe is like night and day. Thus the expectations are vastly different.

nateevs:




One major flaw in all of this is that you have assumed - and I don't know where it came from - that my attempt to bring perspective of spending to the argument, is admittance that Conte is better than Jose.

The second flaw is that you assume that I need to be reminded that Jose is easily top 3 title-winning Manager material. I know this.

What you have not considered is this. Can you honestly, without doubt, claim that Jose will win the League in the same season, same event replicated, with the Leicester squad?

Perhaps too extreme.

Can you honestly say, without doubt, that Jose will win the league with the last title-winning ManU squad?

Honestly, we have seen mou do his thing with a relative unknown Porto side while the tinkerman was an epic failure even with 115mil spent in cfc. He was also recognized as a failure till Leicester victory. Let's wait and see what he achieves in coming years before we can compare them or self-service off to him bros.

Nihilist:


Let me tell you where my assumption came from.

This was dopejemi's question to Bimffo.


And this was your response.



Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers.



I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:



And therein lies the crux of your argument. That Jose is somehow incapable of success without a massive wallet to bankroll it. Obviously, the logical conclusion of this post is that, Jose's input to an expensively squad is negligible to the point of almost irrelevance, as the players he signs should be able to win regardless. And this does Jose a great disservice.

Porto were 50/1 to win the UCL in the summer of 2003. That's not quite Leicester's 5000/1, but those are still pretty long odds, and as you will undoubtedly know, bookies fix those kind of odds for a reason.
It's impossible to say Jose would have definitely achieved the same kind of success with Leicester, but it is not inconceivable. Apart from Jose's track record of success with underdogs, the tactical style that Leicester achieved victory with, is one that Jose made popular. The togetherness shown by the Leicester squad is a hallmark of Jose teams. The way Leicester ground out 1-0 wins is almost a Jose Trademark.

By Contrast, Claudio oversaw heavy spending at Chelsea and did not win a pin.Jose came and changed the Story. Spent at Juve and Inter and did not win anything.

So I don't see why not, given the same circumstances, Jose could not achieve a similar level of success with that same Leicester team.



Similar to the post above, but this example is even more redundant, because United's title victory relied very heavily on signing an injury prone 29 year old hitman with relatively little resale value to deliver instant success. Sound familiar?

It's not fair to cast aspersion on Jose because he spends heavily. Conte has not done anything that Jose has not done before despite having the highest wage bill and spending over 100m last summer alone. Please respect the don.

You have obviously done justice to this.

Well said bro.

lekkie073:
a responsible risk analyst will be on holiday presently. and when I mean holiday, I mean 'not actively in business'. the present risk commodities available are very unpredictable for analysis except probabaly u want to assess or test-run a system. and when u really r on a test-run, u expect crashes more often.


u get it? but if u don't mind, I will do a test-run

Lol. . Boss.. Test-run?

Make we no Test run Yet, Make I no go crash.

Thanks baba.

Let me tell you where my assumption came from.

This was dopejemi's question to Bimffo.


And this was your response.



Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers.

I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:

That's the inference you draw from my posts not what I am necessarily trying to pass across. And yes I do believe he is a top title-winning manager (and that's on purpose. "Title-winning" because he is not so much a player/team/club manager but that's topic for another day).

What you don't get is how I am able to conclude that he is a top title-winning manager yet able to criticize his success in the same breath. This is is not an all-or-nothing argument. There are several iterations in between.

Jose is a sure banker to win you the League. But my point tries to focus on how many trophies he really would win if he didn't have as much to spend. It doesn't mean he still not top class. I hope you can consider this stance.

What is my evidence. Two spells at Chelsea where he is given considerable less to spend, all fall to pieces. Remember the Omelette shitzo.

This is how Jose works. He arrives with the guarantee of winning you the tile in the first season. The owners and fans are super excited, they give him all he wants. He gets his millions. He in turn buys almost burnt-out resources. The resources cannot sustain his methods for more than 2 seasons. So he needs to replenish. However there comes a breaking point where the owners cannot sustain the spending season in season out. They want him to cut, manage, promote youth. He can't, he doesn't. They fall out and never wins the league in his third season.

Then he moves on and repeats this all over again.

This is how he works. So my question is, will he actually win the League titles as consistently if he stayed with the same club and did not have as much spending as he does now?

Correct Valid question.

I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:

True.

And therein lies the crux of your argument. That Jose is somehow incapable of success without a massive wallet to bankroll it. Obviously, the logical conclusion of this post is that, Jose's input to an expensively squad is negligible to the point of almost irrelevance, as the players he signs should be able to win regardless. And this does Jose a great disservice.

No you are wrong. Not an aspersion of incapability of success but doubt of consistent success.

Porto were 50/1 to win the UCL in the summer of 2003. That's not quite Leicester's 5000/1, but those are still pretty long odds, and as you will undoubtedly know, bookies fix those kind of odds for a reason.

Di Matteo won with possibly worse odds. Chelsea were going out when he took over from AVB. DM might have won the league the season after had he stayed and spent £100m.

It's impossible to say Jose would have definitely achieved the same kind of success with Leicester, but it is not inconceivable. Apart from Jose's track record of success with underdogs, the tactical style that Leicester achieved victory with, is one that Jose made popular. The togetherness shown by the Leicester squad is a hallmark of Jose teams. The way Leicester ground out 1-0 wins is almost a Jose Trademark.

The difference is Jose grinds out wins with a £400m squad. That's not a hallmark. That's a shame. If Jose ground out wins with multi million pound squads, what's to say he would have done it with Leicester?

By Contrast, Claudio oversaw heavy spending at Chelsea and did not win a pin.Jose came and changed the Story. Spent at Juve and Inter and did not win anything.

There are quarters that believe Tinkerman would have done it the next season but I accept the point is debatable.

Similar to the post above, but this example is even more redundant, because United's title victory relied very heavily on signing an injury prone 29 year old hitman with relatively little resale value to deliver instant success. Sound familiar?
It's not fair to cast aspersion on Jose because he spends heavily. Conte has not done anything that Jose has not done before despite having the highest wage bill and spending over 100m last summer alone. Please respect the don.

That's not the point. Jose is one who relies on every department of the team being solid to win. You think Jose will settle for a side that won't spend on a new core but buy just one Striker?

Nihilist:


The difference between Pep and Jose is that Pep has managed 2 of the best teams globally of the last 20 years. Jose by contrast has managed title contenders.

The difference in standing between Barca\Bayern and Chelsea\Inter\Madrid domestically but especially in Europe is like night and day. Thus the expectations are vastly different.

The last paragraph caught my attention

Whats the difference between Barca/Bayern and Chelsea/Inter/Madrid? Madrid is the richest club and the biggest spender in all of Europe, Chelsea was the same in the time of Mourinho

If you can come up with the amount spent by Mourinho in Madrid + Chelsea that would surely dwarf whatever Pep Spent in Barca+Bayern (not even factoring the Inter Milan spending into it

Witsel / Kante Combo will look good

Jakkerenni wants to play for Chelsea cus of Conte, we can get him as a squad player

raumdeuter:


The last paragraph caught my attention

Whats the difference between Barca/Bayern and Chelsea/Inter/Madrid? Madrid is the richest club and the biggest spender in all of Europe, Chelsea was the same in the time of Mourinho

If you can come up with the amount spent by Mourinho in Madrid + Chelsea that would surely dwarf whatever Pep Spent in Barca+Bayern (not even factoring the Inter Milan spending into it

That was my next destination. I just haven't had the time to write. Man dey busy these days. How good were Barca who were previously managed by Rijkaard before Pep took over?

dopeJemi:
Doggy style, how else? Unless you got a vagina

lol you don dey mad i swear. I read that post and for two mins i couldn’t stop jerking with laughter

nateevs:





That's the inference you draw from my posts not what I am necessarily trying to pass across. And yes I do believe he is a top title-winning manager (and that's on purpose. "Title-winning" because he is not so much a player/team/club manager but that's topic for another day).

What you don't get is how I am able to conclude that he is a top title-winning manager yet able to criticize his success in the same breath. This is is not an all-or-nothing argument. There are several iterations in between.

Jose is a sure banker to win you the League. But my point tries to focus on how many trophies he really would win if he didn't have as much to spend. It doesn't mean he still not top class. I hope you can consider this stance.

I completely get your argument. Like I said earlier: "Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers." and my inference is justified by your bolded paragraph.

Nobody said that you cannot criticize Jose as title winner...but the suggestion that Jose would not win as much if he didn't have that much money to spend is so simplistic and verges on the nonsensical. Firstly, like I said to you before, spending is NO GUARANTEE of success. If it was, then whoever spent the most in the transfer market would win every single time.

Secondly, you are not placing Jose's spending in proper context. Jose has spent the last decade managing teams that are expected to compete for the title, in direct competition with other franchises boasting similarly talented playing staff, who are occasionally spending hundreds of millions of pounds r in the transfer market as well.

Example 1: Jose arrived at Chelsea to compete with Ferguson who had by time,already broken his club transfer record signing on 7 occasions(and british record I think twice). Ferguson had a stranglehold on the league by already having the best (or one of the)team in the league, and still spent 50m+ that season.

Example 2: Jose arrived at Chelsea for the second time in 2013/2014. That year Spurs spent over 100m. City spent 90m and United spent 66. The next season Arsenal spent 100m+, Liverpool spent 100m+, United spent close to 200m, City spent 77m...even Southampton spent 80m!

Example 3: Jose went to Madrid. Obviously at the time Barca had undoubtedly the best team in the world. Yet in his season there Barca spent 66m, the second year, they spent another 50m

So you can see that it's not as if Jose is just spending stupidly whilst his opponents are standing still. So I guess you may need to rephrase your question.

Are you asking if Jose will continue to win trophies when spending less in the transfer market whilst his rivals continue to spend more and more?

And more pertinently, is that a reasonable question?

I will be back...

raumdeuter:


The last paragraph caught my attention

Whats the difference between Barca/Bayern and Chelsea/Inter/Madrid? Madrid is the richest club and the biggest spender in all of Europe, Chelsea was the same in the time of Mourinho

If you can come up with the amount spent by Mourinho in Madrid + Chelsea that would surely dwarf whatever Pep Spent in Barca+Bayern (not even factoring the Inter Milan spending into it

I have a train to catch. I dey come

raumdeuter:


The last paragraph caught my attention

Whats the difference between Barca/Bayern and Chelsea/Inter/Madrid? Madrid is the richest club and the biggest spender in all of Europe, Chelsea was the same in the time of Mourinho

If you can come up with the amount spent by Mourinho in Madrid + Chelsea that would surely dwarf whatever Pep Spent in Barca+Bayern (not even factoring the Inter Milan spending into it

like seriously you are asking what the difference between Barca, Bayern and inter, Chelsea. The former were already established heavyweights before Pep joined them so of course it either the quality was there or the transfer policy is very efficient so of course you shouldn't be expecting Pep to spend as much as Mou IMO. What history or pedigree did inter and Chelsea have before Mou joined.

Nihilist:


I completely get your argument. Like I said earlier: "Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers." and my inference is justified by your bolded paragraph.

Nobody said that you cannot criticize Jose as title winner...but the suggestion that Jose would not win as much if he didn't have that much money to spend is so simplistic and verges on the nonsensical. Firstly, like I said to you before, spending is NO GUARANTEE of success. If it was, then whoever spent the most in the transfer market would win every single time.

Secondly, you are not placing Jose's spending in proper context. Jose has spent the last decade managing teams that are expected to compete for the title, in direct competition with other franchises boasting similarly talented playing staff, who are occasionally spending hundreds of millions of pounds r in the transfer market as well.

Example 1: Jose arrived at Chelsea to compete with Ferguson who had by time,already broken his club transfer record signing on 7 occasions(and british record I think twice). Ferguson had a stranglehold on the league by already having the best (or one of the)team in the league, and still spent 50m+ that season.

Example 2: Jose arrived at Chelsea for the second time in 2013/2014. That year Spurs spent over 100m. City spent 90m and United spent 66. The next season Arsenal spent 100m+, Liverpool spent 100m+, United spent close to 200m, City spent 77m...even Southampton spent 80m!

Example 3: Jose went to Madrid. Obviously at the time Barca had undoubtedly the best team in the world. Yet in his season there Barca spent 66m, the second year, they spent another 50m

So you can see that it's not as if Jose is just spending stupidly whilst his opponents are standing still. So I guess you may need to rephrase your question.

Are you asking if Jose will continue to win trophies when spending less in the transfer market whilst his rivals continue to spend more and more?

And more pertinently, is that a reasonable question?

I will be back...

Going by transfermarkt figures

04/05 Chelsea season spent 163M , Man Utd spent 62M, Arsenal spent 12M
Chelsea 05/06 season spent 94M, Man Utd spent 38M, Arsenal spent 46M
Chelsea 06/07 season spent 88M, Man Utd spent 27M, Arsenal spent 16M

In the first Mourinho regime 3yrs (Intentionally disregarding the 07/08 season because he got fired a few months into the season)

Chelsea spent 345M, Man Utd spent 127M, Arsenal spent 74M

What this means is that assuming Man Utd was Chelseas closest rival in this time, Mourinho spent close to 3 times more than their closest rival

In Spain

10/11 Madrid spent 93M, Barcelona spent 72M
11/12 Madrid spent 55M, Barcelona spent 60M
12/13 Madrid spent 33M, Barcelona spent 33M

Total under Mourinho Madrid spent 181M , Barcelona spent 165M

So Mourinho outspent Barcelona in Spain

So nihilist when making your argument factor in these figures. We can also ignore what he inherited.
A season before Mourinho Chelsea spent 167M, Man Utd spent 53M Arsenal spent 29M. We can ignore this since Mourinho wasnt the coahc when it was spent

pamcode:
like seriously you are asking what the difference between Barca, Bayern and inter, Chelsea. The former were already established heavyweights before Pep joined them so of course it either the quality was there or the transfer policy is very efficient so of course you shouldn't be expecting Pep to spend as much as Mou IMO. What history or pedigree did inter and Chelsea have before Mou joined.

Oh So we are going to assume he didnt coach Madrid? The biggest club and biggest spender in Europe?

Or we are going to assume Chelsea who made the CL semi just before Mourinho and outspent anyone in Europe during Mourinho regime didnt exist

coded01:


Who be dat?

New RonaMessi

What is my evidence. Two spells at Chelsea where he is given considerable less to spend, all fall to pieces. Remember the Omelette shitzo.

This is how Jose works. He arrives with the guarantee of winning you the tile in the first season. The owners and fans are super excited, they give him all he wants. He gets his millions. He in turn buys almost burnt-out resources. The resources cannot sustain his methods for more than 2 seasons. So he needs to replenish. However there comes a breaking point where the owners cannot sustain the spending season in season out. They want him to cut, manage, promote youth. He can't, he doesn't. They fall out and never wins the league in his third season.

Then he moves on and repeats this all over again.

With all due respect, everything you wrote there is either a lie or an exaggeration. Let's look at Jose's first stint at Chelsea for example.

Jose arrived at a club that hadn't won a league title in 50+ years, and had only made their first appearance in the UCL in the year 2000. He was mandated to wrest the title from a club that had won the title 8 times in the preceding 11 years, and had won the UCL before Chelsea even got to participate.

To make matters worse, this club was managed by a manager that was willing to spend heavily(and a board that was ready to back him to hilt) who had outspent almost every club in the league every year for almost a decade, breaking the club transfer record 7 times along the way.

Further complicating matters, there was another club there who had also won the title recently,who boasted of a highly technical team, and had the best striker in the league on their payroll. This team had just completed the last season without suffering a single loss in the league.

Jose spent heavily to catch up. Of course he had to. It was necessary. But did he buy 'almost burnout resources' like you claim? His main group of untouchables from 2006 lasted almost up to a decade. Terry is still here sef. Cech only left last year. Lampard the year before. Ashley the year before. The core of Jose's team continued to remain important players for us 6,7,8 years after he left!

Again the question of promotion of youth is another lie. This guy gave chances at Chelsea to the likes of Zouma, Courtois, RLC, etc. It's not his fault if the players are either not ready to, or incapable of taking their chance. He has a mandate to win and win NOW. If any young player comes in and doesn't take his chance, then it's too bad. Did Jose promote any less than his rivals in the top 4? How many Leicester youth were in that title winning side? NONE.

This is not to say that Jose does not bring negativity. Far from it. Jose brings a negative attitude when his authority is challenged. Hence the Class A eggs thing. He went to Italy and reportedly fought there too. Went to Spain and put his hand in his rival's eye and faught with Casillas and Ramos. Came back and fought with Eva, Hazard, Costa (and Emenalo ). Then gone to united and already jabo'd Giggs and put Rooney in his place.

But Burnout? No way. Last season, the man actually started preseason late so that the boys could have some more time off. Then Costa ran away to Brazil to consume Fufu and Stout, and Hazard ate too many burgers. The result was unfit and overweight players, with Fabregas actually stated that Jose had trusted the boys too much.

Di Matteo won with possibly worse odds. Chelsea were going out when he took over from AVB. DM might have won the league the season after had he stayed and spent £100m.

This is a strawman that is irrelevant and inconsequential to the debate. I could point out that Chelsea under RDM had more pedigree than Porto under Jose, but that would be pointless because it makes no difference anyway. Theres a reason why one of them is at manchester united now, and the other is in the championship.

The difference is Jose grinds out wins with a £400m squad. That's not a hallmark. That's a shame. If Jose ground out wins with multi million pound squads, what's to say he would have done it with Leicester?

Context! Same Jose that shamefully grinds out wins finished with the 2nd highest number of league goals in 2005, joint highest in 06 and 2nd highest in 2015. At Inter, he finished 2nd highest in his first season and scored the highest number of goals in his second season. At Madird he set records for most games won in a La Liga season (32), most away wins (16), most points obtained in any of the top European leagues (100), improving the most goals scored record they already had set earlier (121) and finishing the season with the highest goal difference (+89)

What is shameful about this?

That's not the point. Jose is one who relies on every department of the team being solid to win. You think Jose will settle for a side that won't spend on a new core but buy just one Striker?

The hypothetical question was whether Jose could win with this Leicester side. The supposition is that Jose has already 'settled for a side that won't spend on a new core but buy just one Striker' and we're trying to guess what would happen after.

And I don't see why Jose could not achieve a relative amount of success all things being equal. This is Jose we're talking about...not Phillip Troussier.

raumdeuter:


Going by transfermarkt figures

04/05 Chelsea season spent 163M , Man Utd spent 62M, Arsenal spent 12M
Chelsea 05/06 season spent 94M, Man Utd spent 38M, Arsenal spent 46M
Chelsea 06/07 season spent 88M, Man Utd spent 27M, Arsenal spent 16M

In the first Mourinho regime 3yrs (Intentionally disregarding the 07/08 season because he got fired a few months into the season)

Chelsea spent 345M, Man Utd spent 127M, Arsenal spent 74M

What this means is that assuming Man Utd was Chelseas closest rival in this time, Mourinho spent close to 3 times more than their closest rival

In Spain

10/11 Madrid spent 93M, Barcelona spent 72M
11/12 Madrid spent 55M, Barcelona spent 60M
12/13 Madrid spent 33M, Barcelona spent 33M

Total under Mourinho Madrid spent 181M , Barcelona spent 165M

So Mourinho outspent Barcelona in Spain

So nihilist when making your argument factor in these figures. We can also ignore what he inherited.
A season before Mourinho Chelsea spent 167M, Man Utd spent 53M Arsenal spent 29M. We can ignore this since Mourinho wasnt the coahc when it was spent

Dayo please don't be silly. What did you expect?

Manyoo had won the league 8 times in 11 years when Jose arrived.

Barca were the best team in the world when Jose arrived.

And they were still spending.

So Jose should just sit down and let the league leaders further strengthen while he just looks on or what?

Please don't bring your Dayoisms here tonight...

Nihilist:
Dayo please don't be silly. What did you expect?

Manyoo had won the league 8 times in 11 years when Jose arrived.

Barca were the best team in the world when Jose arrived.

And they were still spending.

So Jose should just sit down and let the league leaders further strengthen while he just looks on or what?

Please don't bring your Dayoisms here tonight...

Just before Mourinho arrived Chelsea already topped Man utd by 4 points in the league

So Mourinho would need an immediate 100M spending advantage in the first season and a 220M spending advantage over 3 seasons to beat the Man Utd that Ranieri already topped in the league

220M advantage over 3 seasons means you are spending more than your closest rival by 70M per season is what you need to upstage a rival that you met in 3rd place?

Barca was spending and Madrid was outspending them

So if any team hopes to upstage say Barcelona now, they can only do that by outspending Barca by 220M over 3seasons

And dont ask if spending guarantees winning, if it doesnt let him try it without spending.

Pop quiz:
Who is the only Nigerian player to score 2 or more goals in a World Cup match? And the fastest Nigerian World Cup goal?

raumdeuter:


Just before Mourinho arrived Chelsea already topped Man utd by 4 points in the league

So Mourinho would need an immediate 100M spending advantage in the first season and a 220M spending advantage over 3 seasons to beat the Man Utd that Ranieri already topped in the league

220M advantage over 3 seasons means you are spending more than your closest rival by 70M per season is what you need to upstage a rival that you met in 3rd place?

Barca was spending and Madrid was outspending them

So if any team hopes to upstage say Barcelona now, they can only do that by outspending Barca by 220M over 3seasons

And dont ask if spending guarantees winning, if it doesnt let him try it without spending.

This post does not even make any sense. Like zero sense.

If finishing above United on the log was the ambition, then Ranieri would not have been sacked.

I don't have time to argue nonsense tonight. United had a decade's headstart in spending and collecting titles. That Barca team is thr greatest team of the modern era.

Jose was Rocky Balboa going up against Apollo Creed and Ivan Drago.

Desperate times required heavy spending

CFCman:
Pop quiz:
Who is the only Nigerian player to score 2 or more goals in a World Cup match? And the fastest Nigerian World Cup goal?

make I guess na
Agawonder ?

CFCman:
Pop quiz:
Who is the only Nigerian player to score 2 or more goals in a World Cup match? And the fastest Nigerian World Cup goal?

Amunike scored vs Bulgaria and Italy
Amokachi scored vs Bularia and Greece
Ahmed Musa scored 2 vs Argentina

CFCman:
Pop quiz:
Who is the only Nigerian player to score 2 or more goals in a World Cup match? And the fastest Nigerian World Cup goal?

New Leicester striker Ahmed Musa on both counts.

2nd fastest should be SiaSia vs Argentina in 1994.

Ibime:


New Leicester striker Ahmed Musa on both counts.

2nd fastest should be SiaSia vs Argentina in 1994.

You're correct!
Ahmed Musa scored in the 4th min vs Argentina at the last WC

Ororo omo oro!!!!!

The EPL dominated Wales is crumbling like fake bricks inside rain

C'mon Portugal, bring this money home to Daddy

raumdeuter:
The EPL dominated Wales is crumbling like fake bricks inside rain

Goal and assist by EPL alumni though...