Football The 2013 / 2014 Season Thread

[Raven]

Worked fine for shitty and chelski.

Money talks. Just watch how much United spend in the summer.

Pound to result ratio it hasn't worked for Shitty and Chelsea, the obscene amounts those two clubs have spent to buy success you would expect them to have shared all the silverware, which they haven't. What have shitty spent in the last 2 seasons? 200mil? what have got from that spend?

The trouble with Arsenal is they don't need to spend vast amounts on money, they need to spend at the very most 100mil (a fraction of others spend) and they would have won the premiership this season. Every season they get so close its fucking frustrating. If they don't do something about it now it will be another 10 years until they win anything.

 

[soze]

Pound to result ratio it hasn't worked for Shitty and Chelsea, the obscene amounts those two clubs have spent to buy success you would expect them to have shared all the silverware, which they haven't. What have shitty spent in the last 2 seasons? 200mil? what have got from that spend?

The trouble with Arsenal is they don't need to spend vast amounts on money, they need to spend at the very most 100mil (a fraction of others spend) and they would have won the premiership this season. Every season they get so close its fucking frustrating. If they don't do something about it now it will be another 10 years until they win anything.

But where does that £100m come from. It seems like a small amount in the era of billionaire owners but if the club need to find it then it is not so simple.

 

[Raven]

They have it, they said as much at the start of the season.

 

[caLLous]

Every season they get so close its fucking frustrating.

You seem to have misspelled "funny".

 

[soze]

They have it, they said as much at the start of the season.

It is the same as they have said for years. They can get it through loans ect and the manager has funds. It is what the directors say to placate fans there is no way Wenger had over £150m to spend in the summer.

 

[Scouse]

What have shitty spent in the last 2 seasons? 200mil? what have got from that spend?

Both City and Chelski are competitors for the league and league winners.

Compare that to Liverpool, who haven't got that resource and have been slipping down the table since the premier league was incepted - effectively making football about how much money you have.

We're only doing well because of the spectacular success of Suarez and two spawny buys in Sturridge and Coutinho, coupled with a league-only focus. But we're not doing "well" - because we're not in all the competitions and are effectively competeing for probably nothing again.

City or Chelski will most likely win the league. THAT is what money buys.

 

[DaGaffer]

Pound to result ratio it hasn't worked for Shitty and Chelsea, the obscene amounts those two clubs have spent to buy success you would expect them to have shared all the silverware, which they haven't. What have shitty spent in the last 2 seasons? 200mil? what have got from that spend?

A league title, a European cup, and a few other bits of silverware. The 200m delivered that. The reason why it hasn't delivered even more is down managers and owners, not the talent on the pitch. What's also become obvious this season is that now that the SAF Reality Distortion Field has been switched off, the "who spends the most money wins" logic will become more and more obvious. Scouse is right, expect next seasons' top 4 to all have £200m+ first elevens.

It is the same as they have said for years. They can get it through loans ect and the manager has funds. It is what the directors say to placate fans there is no way Wenger had over £150m to spend in the summer.

He certainly does according to the Arsenal's accounts. Now the Emirates is more or less paid off Arsenal are the second most cash-generative team in UK football. Arsenal could spend over £100m without so much as an overdraft.

 

[Raven]

A league title, a European cup, and a few other bits of silverware. The 200m delivered that. The reason why it hasn't delivered even more is down managers and owners, not the talent on the pitch. What's also become obvious this season is that now that the SAF Reality Distortion Field has been switched off, the "who spends the most money wins" logic will become more and more obvious. Scouse is right, expect next seasons' top 4 to all have £200m+ first elevens.

In the last two seasons,
UTD won the league last season, this season is still ongoing and neither Shitty or Chelsea are walking away with it
Bayern won the champions league, Shitty are out this season, Chelsea have no hope vs Real this season
Wigan won the FA cup last season, this season Shitty and Chelsea are out
Swansea won the league cup last season, Shitty this season

So, 200mil to win the league cup. Biiiiig woop

 

[Scouse]

So, 200mil to win the league cup. Biiiiig woop

They're both in the hunt for the premier league and will prolly finish 1st and 2nd.

This is post City winning the league for the first time in living memory and the tiny pokey little club that is Chelski winning it loads since being bought out by its sugar daddy.

Money wins trophies. Period.

 

[soze]

He certainly does according to the Arsenal's accounts. Now the Emirates is more or less paid off Arsenal are the second most cash-generative team in UK football. Arsenal could spend over £100m without so much as an overdraft.

Our 2013 statement showed a Cash balance of £153m so yes we could spend £100m ONCE but then we need the wages to pay the superstars. With the new TV deal and new Sponsorships we now have that option.

 

[Raven]

Money wins trophies. Period.

No it doesn't.

Look at the spending tables and look at the silverware. (Liverpool are also pretty high on the money spent list btw)

Liverpool are the 4th highest spending team in the last 10 years having spent 18million NET per season
UTD are 3rd having spent 18.6million. a mere half a million difference.

According to your logic UTD and Liverpool should be pretty equal on silverware.

While yes City and Chelsea are the highest spenders in the last 10 years (by a massive amount) the silverware doesn't stack up to that.

Villa 5th highest NET spenders in the prem in the last 10 years. Constantly knocking on champions league football are Villa. Oh wait...no they arent.

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

 

[Scouse]

Look at the spending tables and look at the silverware.

Top six spend of Chelski, City, Man U, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal.

And look! That's the top 6 teams. Who between them have won the most silverware.


Funny that, eh?

 

[Scouse]

Our 2013 statement showed a Cash balance of £153m so yes we could spend £100m ONCE

Per season.

Your income doesn't stop just because you spend your cash you know. You make that a season.

 

[Raven]

Top six spend of Chelski, City, Man U, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal.

And look! That's the top 6 teams. Who between them have won the most silverware.


Funny that, eh?

Source please, I posted mine.

 

[Scouse]

Source please, I posted mine.

After I'd posted

Why "from 2003" eh?

Random search: How about Total Premier League Spending since the beginning of the premier league (which is exactly the argument I made - "since the premier league was incepted" - just click on the back-arrow).

Tallys pretty well with the top six I quoted. United/Chelski/Arse/Shitty/Spuds/Lollerpool.


Are you seriously trying to argue that that isn't the "top six" and that other clubs have outspent them? Because they haven't. And between them they've won the vast majority of the trophies and have been playing in Europe (which is a trophy in itself) most often?

Or are you just pissed off by the fact that football is 90% money 10% heart?

 

[Raven]

That isn't NET spend though so its a pretty pointless list. Arsenal for example are a selling club as well as a buying club, they don't have a sugar daddy yet somehow manage to be one of the top spenders? Total NET spend one of the lowest. Likewise, UTDs greatest years were from home grown talent, not spending. A lot of their big buys actually flopped horribly. I know Liverpool fans hate the fact that their spending has been pretty much equal over the years and one of them has been clearly superior but it is not down to money.

Youth development
Scouting ability
Choice in management and staff
Owner not being a trigger happy moron
Spending power

All make a difference to success rate.

Oh, edit.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html
Liverpool have spent 650mil since the prem started (Gross)
UTD have spent 613mil since the prem started (Gross)

So...er yeah.

 

[Scouse]

So...er yeah.

Yep. You're still talking about the top six. To be in that top six you need to spend.

After that it's down to managers and how the club is run.

We've had 3 different owners in the Premier League era ever since Moores left because of his express statement that "he hasn't got the money to keep his beloved Liverpool competetive" - despite it being in the family for donkeys years. We had asset strippers in that were shunted out by a very dodgy process and now we've some relatively poor yanks - so our spending hasn't won us the league. But we've been close a few times and won the Champions League, FA cup and League Cup more than once.

Money = Competetiveness. More money = more competetive.

What's so hard to fathom about that? City and Chelski would still be NOWHERE without it. FACT.

 

[soze]

Per season.

Your income doesn't stop just because you spend your cash you know. You make that a season.

I doubt we make £153m profit a year. Otherwise our cash balance would be £300m seeing as we did not spend the £150m we had in cash in 2012.

 

[DaGaffer]

I doubt we make £153m profit a year. Otherwise our cash balance would be £300m seeing as we did not spend the £150m we had in cash in 2012.

You do now, because the stadium is paid off.

 

[Scouse]

I doubt we make £153m profit a year. Otherwise our cash balance would be £300m seeing as we did not spend the £150m we had in cash in 2012.

Nah, you prolly make about £30-35 million "profit", but between player sales, increased TV deals and sponsorship deals you could end up spending 70 million or so on players a season (offset by sales of the duds).

Arsenal are debt free. You probably make 100 million a year from seats and food/drinks at the Emirates alone, aside from sponsorships and TV deals. Keep your wage bill down and Ozil-type and a couple of significant others a season are perfectly achieveable...

 

[DaGaffer]

In the last two seasons,
UTD won the league last season, this season is still ongoing and neither Shitty or Chelsea are walking away with it
Bayern won the champions league, Shitty are out this season, Chelsea have no hope vs Real this season
Wigan won the FA cup last season, this season Shitty and Chelsea are out
Swansea won the league cup last season, Shitty this season

So, 200mil to win the league cup. Biiiiig woop

The last two seasons don't include the current season. I bet you roll your toilet roll from the bottom as well.

 

[Embattle]

What's so hard to fathom about that? City and Chelski would still be NOWHERE without it. FACT.

It is probably the same throughout the history of modern football, just now the sums are bigger than ever.

Arsenal generally isn't a spender no matter how much money they do or don't have and thus the fans have generally accepted that and feel the need to defend the club in various ways whenever the subject of spending comes up

 

[soze]

Nah, you prolly make about £30-35 million "profit", but between player sales, increased TV deals and sponsorship deals you could end up spending 70 million or so on players a season (offset by sales of the duds).

Arsenal are debt free. You probably make 100 million a year from seats and food/drinks at the Emirates alone, aside from sponsorships and TV deals. Keep your wage bill down and Ozil-type and a couple of significant others a season are perfectly achieveable...

Now yes but this is the first season we will do that I believe. As it is the first season we just have the long term debt left.

 

[Scouse]

Arsenal generally isn't a winner

Fixed.

But they compete every year

 

[Scouse]

Now yes but this is the first season we will do that I believe. As it is the first season we just have the long term debt left.

We're not talking about a history lesson m8. We're talking about Arsenals spending power NOW.

Who gives a fuck how much they used to spend? That's the past.

 

[soze]

It is probably the same throughout the history of modern football, just now the sums are bigger than ever.

Arsenal generally isn't a spender no matter how much money they do or don't have and thus the fans have generally accepted that and thus feel the need to defend the club in various ways whenever the subject of spending comes up

It will be different if we buy no one and finish nowhere but then post that we have made another £70m and now have £500m in the bank. But that has not been the case.

 

[soze]

We're not talking about a history lesson m8. We're talking about Arsenals spending power NOW.

Who gives a fuck how much they used to spend? That's the past.

The people who point out we could have won more in the last 8 years by spending £100m here and there are, This buying power starts in the summer with the Puma deal and the new Emirates deal so it is our power then not now

 

[Raven]

Its plainly obvious that money is not the only thing that equals success

We're not talking about a history lesson m8. We're talking about Arsenals spending power NOW.

Who gives a fuck how much they used to spend? That's the past.

So we can just look at the last 10 years then or?

 

[Scouse]

Its plainly obvious that money is not the only thing that equals success

Go back through the thread. You'll see I'm not saying that.

What I am saying, however, is that it's 90% of it.

 

[Raven]

The people who point out we could have won more in the last 8 years by spending £100m here and there are, This buying power starts in the summer with the Puma deal and the new Emirates deal so it is our power then not now

But it kind of proves my point though. If Arsenal spent 100mil last summer it would have hardly affected their NET spend over the last 10 years, seeing as they have actually made money on transfers. Money would not have been what won it for Arsenal. A combination of money a good foundation to the club and some excellent talent spotting.

They have (very) nearly won the league this season after making money over the last 10 years.