Football The 2013 / 2014 Season Thread

[Raven]

Apparently UKIP are considering signing Moyes as their election guru.

 

[Vladamir]

Other clubs pay within their means*

Blue-tinted glasses aside, how successful are these clubs though?

 

[Embattle]

Other clubs pay within their means*

Although technically the majority don't, just the scale gets worse

 

[caLLous]

Can we stop pretending that you and City are "mucking in with the rest"? There is no "scale", there's you and City and then there's everybody else.

And Vlad, not very on the whole. Thanks to your sugardaddy breaking the transfer market.

 

[caLLous]

Rodgers:"I don’t think Chelsea will play kids, they never have done. Young players don’t get the opportunity there."

MIND GAMES.

 

[Embattle]

Can we stop pretending that you and City are "mucking in with the rest"? There is no "scale", there's you and City and then there's everybody else.

And Vlad, not very on the whole. Thanks to your sugardaddy breaking the transfer market.

Sure.....when you and others stop pretending that the others don't at all

 

[caLLous]

If you can't see that there's a difference between what Chelsea and City do (flinging millions and millions relentlessly at a club until it's successful) and what pretty much every other team does then there's no point discussing it tbh.

 

[Vladamir]

What does pretty much every other team do?

I'm genuinely not trying to troll but who were the last club to be successful without huge investment in their club & players?

 

[caLLous]

Well, they invest (when they can), of course they do. The point was that you and CIty are in a different league (tehe) because of the way that you've been bought as a play-thing for some rich (corrupt, in your case) foreign billionaire. Our owner is a billionaire too but he doesn't just indiscriminately chuck money at us until we win stuff. If he spunked £200m no doubt we would shoot up the table too but it would be so... false.

I read somewhere that Sven Goran Eriksen was advising Abramovich when he wanted to buy a club in England and it was between Chelsea and Spurs. Eriksen told him to buy Chelsea and I'm really fucking glad that he did!

 

[Embattle]

If you can't see that there's a difference between what Chelsea and City do (flinging millions and millions relentlessly at a club until it's successful) and what pretty much every other team does then there's no point discussing it tbh.

If you can't see the difference of spending something or nothing and earning a profit or losing money then you are quite right about there being little left to discuss, although it is ironic a spurs fan talks about wasting money which admittedly Chelsea do well.

 

[soze]

What does pretty much every other team do?

I'm genuinely not trying to troll but who were the last club to be successful without huge investment in their club & players?

But there are scales. Chelsea went from potentially going bust to winning the Champions League thanks to £1b in investment. So yes Liverpool and the pending success are down to investment but at a much lower amount.

I agree though money is the only way it happens. If Arsenal were to introduce 6 teenagers and win the league next year it would be a matter of time before their heads are turned by teams like you and City willing to pay 4 times the wages. So what happened with Utd getting 15 years on dominance based around the backbone of the youth players and then a superstar signing every year will not happen now.

I also disagree with the play thing. Whatever his reason he is clearly committed to Chelsea and the league has changed forever.

 

[Vladamir]

On an unrelated note - dutch papers reporting Van Gaal as agreeing terms with United.

 

[caLLous]

Aye, they're reputable Dutch papers as well.

 

[Embattle]

Aye, they're reputable Dutch papers as well.

Were you hoping for him?

 

[caLLous]

No, nobody even mentioned the possibility of him joining Spurs after the World Cup...

 

[Talivar]

Tbh a lot of this sounds like jealousy, Liverpool and United both went for rich owners but got screwed, Spurs spend a fortune it seems all the time and just fail.
Chelsea and City went for rich owners and got lucky, they spend a fortune and it worked.
If Liverpool and United had gotten lucky with the Rich owner lottery would you all be here whining at them as well?
If Spurs had a clue about buying playings when spending vast amounts would you all be whining at them?
Also lets remember when you talk about Scales and Tiers there is not just two as you all seem to make out, it goes City/Chelsea then its teams like Spurs/United/Liverpool, and then you have the rest. Don't for one minute try to say Cardiff and Norwich ect are on the same level as everyone but Chelsea/City.
There has always been a group of teams that got all the best players due to having more money. Its just now they are not the richest boys in the playground anymore and cant dominate the transfers.

 

[caLLous]

Yeah, you can discount the teams that go up and down between the prem and the championship but the year-in year-out prem teams can all be put on the same scale except for City and Chelsea.

As for Spurs, we may have spent unwisely (lolol etc) but we unwisely spent money that we earned from the sale of other players. And anyway it remains to be seen whether the majority of those recent investments are sound or not. For one, half of them have been out with injuries for large parts of the season and we haven't had a "proper" manager since December so it's all very much up in the air.

 

[Billargh]

Last 10 years of the PL:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-2003-to-date.html

There we go, Chelsea and City's net being well over double the next two teams.

 

[Himse]

Except he wont be going to Madrid.

Why not? They'll put in a huge bid for him because they can, and he'll be straight over there.

He'll only whinge about wanting to join Madrid again in the summer if he doesn't get to go, the new contract was just to bump his buyout clause.

 

[Himse]

Other clubs pay within their means*

Clearly, since more than half of them carry debt!

 

[Talivar]

That table kinda proves my point, Chelsea/City clearly at top then United/Liverpool are double of Spurs and Spurs 2-4 or more times than some of the other teams

 

[caLLous]

That's kinda how a scale works. Except Chelsea and City are the clear anomalies and can't really be lumped in with the rest.

 

[Billargh]

That's kinda how a scale works. Except Chelsea and City are the clear anomalies and can't really be lumped in with the rest.

It's how it works unless you're a deluded Chelsea fan (I'd say City too but they've all disappeared/went to support other teams) anyway...

 

[Talivar]

Remove Chelsea and City and then you will have a scale and table with United and Liverpool at the top and their net is double off the team in 4th (Spurs). I dont see your points really. Do you want a fair league where everyone has an equal chance ? If so we would need a cap and set it so low it matches the poorest teams limit. All it sounds like atm and this is just how your making it sound is that you think Chelsea/City ruin things because they spend so much more than rest but United/Liverpool ect dont ruin things even tho they spend so much more than the rest minus Chelsea/city?

 

[caLLous]

Oh, Everton. Two own goals, one of them from one of my FF players.

 

[Billargh]

"Who needs Jay Rodriguez, we've got your back four!"

Oh, Everton. Two own goals, one of them from one of my FF players.

Don't worry, everyone has Coleman in

 

[caLLous]

Lol at the banter from Southampton, though. "Who needs Jay Rodriguez, we've got your back four" and shouting SHOOT whenever the Everton defenders are on the ball in front of their own goal.

 

[Billargh]

Remove Chelsea and City and then you will have a scale and table with United and Liverpool at the top and their net is double off the team in 4th (Spurs). I dont see your points really. Do you want a fair league where everyone has an equal chance ? If so we would need a cap and set it so low it matches the poorest teams limit. All it sounds like atm and this is just how your making it sound is that you think Chelsea/City ruin things because they spend so much more than rest but United/Liverpool ect dont ruin things even tho they spend so much more than the rest minus Chelsea/city?

I don't think people (me anyway) are suggesting the league is ruined because of the Chelsea/City spending, we're just saying you ARE the two who chuck about many, many millions as opposed to the other teams.

 

[Embattle]

Oh, Everton. Two own goals, one of them from one of my FF players.

Just continuing the strange season.

 

[caLLous]

I think they (along with other teams on the continent) have had a direct influence on rising transfer fees though.