It's foolish to have a pop at Pep

Juxtapose this with his pred- ecessor Jupp Heynckes, who reached two finals, winning one and losing one on penalties, and it's not as impressive. And because Bayern's domestic dominance - Guardiola won two league titles and the German Cup in two seasons - is taken for granted, folks begin to wonder whether he's all he's cracked up to be.

There are three points to make. The first is that projecting magical powers on managers is foolish and unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence that wage bill and transfer spend are the main discriminants in a team's success. This doesn't mean that all managers are interchangeable but that considering anyone a guarantee of silverware, especially in knockout competitions, is silly. Trophies ought to be just one of the metrics on which to judge someone's work.

Second, Bayern took on Barcelona without three regulars: Arjen Robben, Franck Ribery and David Alaba. And while we can talk all we like about big squads and the number of World Cup winners Guardiola was able to call upon (seven), the fact is that different players have different skill sets. And without those three guys, they are considerably weaker.

Finally, there are three outstanding teams in Europe this season and only one will win the Champions League. (Or none if Juventus win it.) It shouldn't be a zero-sum game, but unfortunately, it is. Carlo Ancelotti won his third Champions League title last year because Sergio Ramos' header was an inch lower than it might have been. He lost a Champ-ions League title in Istanbul because of eight minutes of folly. In 2003, he won his first, because Milan's penalty- takers were better than Juve's.

Guardiola lost to Barcelona, not BATE Borisov. And it happened because one of the greatest players in history had one of the greatest games ever witnessed. Had the draw placed Bayern in the other semi-final, we likely would not be having this conversation. Not until the final, anyway.

What you can ask of a manager with Guardiola's resources is to get you in a position to win. From there, it's often down to players, oppos-ition, probability, referees and, sometimes, sheer dumb luck.

Next week marks the 10th anniversary of the Glazer family's takeover of Manchester United. They have been wise to keep a low profile, avoiding the media and looking the other way when folks bring up the enormous amounts - estimated at £700 million - that they have taken out of the club in fees and repayments.

If they did talk - and they do, indirectly, via various minions - they would say it is a small price to pay for their stewardship which has maintained the club as one of the world's wealthiest and most successful, despite not enjoying some of the structural advantages which Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern can exploit. (In the case of the first two, it's a dominant domestic position, a richer history and the freedom to not turn a profit; with the Bavarians, it's a less competitive league and being located in one of the wealthiest areas of the world's third- largest economy.)

In terms of silverware, the Glazer decade yielded five Premier League titles and a Champions League crown. The 10 years before that produced six Premier League titles, three FA Cups and a Champions League. They would likely say it is not a significant drop-off when you consider the end of the decade co-incided with the departure of Sir Alex Ferguson.

The bulk of United fans seem to have settled into a grudging acceptance. Some left to start up FC United of Manchester, others put their weight behind the Manchester United Supporters Trust, albeit without getting their hopes up once the impetus of the green-and-gold protest waned.

Financial Fair Play has also hugely favoured United, who remain the ultimate cash cow, even in down years. And yet you can't help but feel this has been a missed opportunity. The Glazer fees and repayments act as a virtual FFP restriction. They may claim that, without them, the club wouldn't be this commercially successful, but you can't prove a negative (and they were doing pretty well before their arrival anyway).

What is more, you wonder to what degree they rode Sir Alex's coat-tails - and whether their decision-making will stack up going forward. Last year was their worst season in more than two decades. This season saw them outspend everybody in Europe and still they will almost certainly underperform relative to their wage bill.

Ownership is measured in those terms too. Not just in the size of commercial agreements.

Speaking of Financial Fair Play, Uefa's Club Financial Control Body announced settlement agreements on Friday night with 10 clubs who were found in breach of FFP. Among the hardest hit were Inter (£14.5m in withheld prize money plus various restrictions), Monaco, Roma and Sporting Lisbon. These were sides who were not in European competition last year and thus were not subjected to the first monitoring period.

They will be reassessed, along with everyone else, in the next month or so for the second monitoring period which covers 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and allows maximum break-even losses of £32m.

Uefa insist the system is working, that cumulative losses in football have fallen from £1.8 billion to £800m. The concern, however, is that FFP has created a class system, with a polarisation between the very big boys and everybody else.

The sense is that it is something they are trying to address. They have reduced the percentage of the "market pool" for 2015-18 (the portion of European competition prize money that is awarded based on the size of the domestic TV contract and which favours clubs from wealthier leagues) and they have seeded domestic champions in the Champions League group stage. The next step will likely be tweaking FFP in such a way as to allow more investment beyond the organic growth - stadium, infrastructure and youth football - championed by Michel Platini.