Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
~ WELCOME TO KOP THIS.....SIGN UP TO HOLLYWOODS WORLD CUP PREDICTION LEAGUE AND WIN A BOTTLE OF RUM AND £1000 CASH!!!............FOLLOW THIS LINK: https://predictor.talksport.com/public/#/home .........YNWA. ~
Welcome to KOP THIS. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
TMreply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Is Buying The League The Only Way ?
Topic Started: Jun 19 2012, 03:07 PM (418 Views)
bazaDred

Die-hard Reds
just a thought about lfc and are inability to buy success ,we would all love it be a possibility but is it a reality ?? the last few years have shown that without massive investment over at least two years its virtually impossible to win the prem .united chelsea and city have all spent massively over a number of years adding to good teams to make them great were as lfc are adding average players to a average team year after year apart from the odd star hear and there .i think a lot of football fans have lost there love for football since the days of chelsea being transformed from a half decent prem side to english and european champions in recent years and now we have city who are light years ahead of most clubs when it comes to squad investment .while we all want lfc to do well without the huge investment the reality is its not ever going to happen unless we get another super human boss like shankly or paisley .i will continue to support lfc home and away for as far as my wallet and wife will let me but the game isnt the game as we all use to watch and love its a greed is good game and corrupt in my eyes but that another story .
off profile PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

Buying the league is what every team has done for almost a decade. The appointment of BR is an indication that we are going to go at it slightly differently. We don't have the money to compete with the big financial guns of City, Chelsea and Utd, so we are going to go back to making it a team game.

Rodgers' Swansea team is full of players who've never hit the heights and players who, if taken out of the team might struggle to have as much of an impact elsewhere. He made them better than the sum of their parts, and that's what I'm hoping he does with us. We have far better players than Swansea, and yet they outplayed us in the last game of the season.

I'm confident Rodgers can lead us to an improvement on last season and to a top 4 place, with two or three shrewd signings.
PBquote top
 
hughiealonso
Member Avatar

Elite Reds
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

What planet do you live on? Genuinely!

'man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win'

Incorrect. They have finished 9th,16th,8th,15th,14th,9th,10th,5th,3rd,1st since 2002. When did the money come into the club? What have arsenal won since Chelsea moved the goalposts with their massive spending. How did Blackburn win the league? Money dominates the game.
�We can wait for it but I don�t want to say we can wait 20 years. If we sit here in four years I think we�ll have won one title � I�m pretty sure.�

No pressure Jurgen!
off profile PBquote top
 
bazaDred

Die-hard Reds
hughiealonso,Jun 19 2012
03:19 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

What planet do you live on? Genuinely!

'man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win'

Incorrect. They have finished 9th,16th,8th,15th,14th,9th,10th,5th,3rd,1st since 2002. When did the money come into the club? What have arsenal won since Chelsea moved the goalposts with their massive spending. How did Blackburn win the league? Money dominates the game.

spon on lad btw JB i never said lfc havent spent a lot of money but when you look at our net spent over the last 5 years its nowhere near the ammounts city and chelsea's spending .
off profile PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
why have arsenal finished above us for the last few years? why did chelsea finish outside of top 4? what have manu spent? were their debt always larger than ours?

The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
bazaDred

Die-hard Reds
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:31 PM
why have arsenal finished above us for the last few years? why did chelsea finish outside of top 4? what have manu spent? were their debt always larger than ours?

arsenal attract better players cos there in the top four but there spending isnt much differant to ours .

chelsea had a poor season by there standards but still won a double cos they have a strog squad.

man u spent 17 mill on a keeper 17 mill on young 18 mill on jones and a few more mill on young players so its not like there spending ###### all is it JB
off profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
04:31 PM
why have arsenal finished above us for the last few years? why did chelsea finish outside of top 4? what have manu spent? were their debt always larger than ours?

Arsenal - same manager for 16 years. Continuity.
Chelsea - 6 managers in 4 and a half years. Chaos.
Man Utd - £400 million spent in last ten years.
PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
Soctty,Jun 19 2012
03:45 PM
Arsenal - same manager for 16 years. Continuity.
Chelsea - 6 managers in 4 and a half years. Chaos.
Man Utd - £400 million spent in last ten years.

lol come on soccty, you can do better than that. presumably you included the £80mil sale of ronaldo?

how do you quantify the loss of the world's best player?
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
04:47 PM
Soctty,Jun 19 2012
03:45 PM
Arsenal - same manager for 16 years. Continuity.
Chelsea - 6 managers in 4 and a half years. Chaos.
Man Utd - £400 million spent in last ten years.

lol come on soccty, you can do better than that. presumably you included the £80mil sale of ronaldo?

how do you quantify the loss of the world's best player?

He isn't the world's best player.

He's the twelfth best according to the Barca president. :P

So, Chelsea? Arsenal?
PBquote top
 
Rome 77
Member Avatar

Super Reds
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:31 PM
why have arsenal finished above us for the last few years? why did chelsea finish outside of top 4? what have manu spent? were their debt always larger than ours?

because arsenal kept their manager.
because Chelsea got rid of their manager.
man u have built their squad up over a 25 year period
by keeping their manager.
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life"...
Bill Shankly
off profile PBquote top
 
bazaDred

Die-hard Reds
platform9,Jun 19 2012
04:12 PM
because arsenal kept their manager.
because Chelsea got rid of their manager.
man u have built their squad up over a 25 year period
by keeping their manager.

arnt chelsea euro champs and fa cup winners rome ?? by the same token rafa was seen as the chosen one by you :wacko:
off profile PBquote top
 
steve10

Elite Reds
Money plays a very important part in winning the league. Utd have been doing it for years and recently Chelsea and City. You also need a shrewd manager Like Wenger in the past who was able to pick up quality players on the cheap.

We spent a lot of money last season which should have got us a top4 spot but unfortunately we bought the wrong players.

I cannot see us challenging for titles for the next few seasons because i cannot see huge investments from FSG. On the other hand Rodgers might proove to be a magician in the players he buys and we might hopefully atleast be top4 material.

off profile PBquote top
 
red machine
Member Avatar

Die-hard Reds
I agree steve 10...however there is also the realy big danger that brendan is given not much more to spend than he did at swansea..goes for similar priced players and thus ends up literaly making lfc into a swansea type of club which won't be hard to do now with the current squad and fsg will be behind it although the route will be traceable back to kenny blowing the money.
For years lfc have been playing poker at the top table and skillfully wheeling and dealing with the best...now what has happened is lfc have walked away from the table and are not a player anymore...except they still make noises about being one.Unfortunatly the other top teams dismiss their claims for what they are...empty words!
In eccence only serious investment will get lfc or any team among the elite and once there skillful management will keep it there.Hoping to build a team from scratch to challenge is a distant pipe dream... clubs spending less than say 40m on transfers will all have the same aspirations and that means three quaters of the premiere league.fsg..they have to be questioned as to why exactly they are at lfc if they have no intention of investing in it...they are realy just playing lfc like the stock market hoping the club will go up in value but if it crashes then as long as their initial investment is safe then they have nothing to lose at all.
off profile PBquote top
 
parks

Die-hard Reds
i dont believe its the only way. the other way is longer but potentially a better way.

if we dont have the money to buy the already made world class players then we need to do the next best thing,get the correct personal in to spot, sign,coach then manage potential.

look at some of barcelonas first team players .
valdes
puyol
xavi
iniesta
messi
thiago
busquets
pedro

all cost nothing or virtually nothing .
what we need to do is restructure our whole philosophy from under 8s to the first team, all playing with the same style and systems so every year the youngsters step up they do not need to change anything to fit in. a sound structure needs to be put in place that a manager has to strictly follow and not allowed to change.
ie the old liverpool way ,the barcelona way,ajax way etc etc continuity is the key .

off profile PBquote top
 
bloodred

Advanced Members
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.
off profile PBquote top
 
red machine
Member Avatar

Die-hard Reds
Paisley's way was to add just one perhaps two good quality players each pre season to the team which was already good.
If lfc are adrift as it seems then they realy are no different from the teams around them were they finished.
Continuity is fine...but is bringing in brendan coninuity of mediocrity...some may say it is.
however,time will tell.
off profile PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
bloodred,Jun 19 2012
07:30 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.

man city were 1 goal away from being runners up, manu spent nothing in comparison, so the league could not have been bought? comparatively, chelsea were the big spenders, yet they are no where near the title now, so money couldnt have bought the league?

jose won the league for chelsea, where 4 other chelsea maangers failed.

fergie rebuilds every few years and spends around £30mil a year? quality over quantity usually. their debt was larger than ours.

the other teams e.g. newcastle and arsenal have finished higher with less spend - not title challenging but proves it takes more than money to be successful.
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
red machine
Member Avatar

Die-hard Reds
fergie is the nearest theres been to paisley. honestly think paisley would have had alot of time for fergie had he been alive still.It was paisley whom fergie admired most and learnt from him too whilst at aberdeen.
off profile PBquote top
 
SpekeRed
Member Avatar

Super Reds
red machine,Jun 19 2012
10:52 PM
fergie is the nearest theres been to paisley. honestly think paisley would have had alot of time for fergie had he been alive still.It was paisley whom fergie admired most and learnt from him too whilst at aberdeen.

STOP the fergie lovefest RM! It's worse than your stalking of poor Mycroft!
Beside the hillsborough flame
I heard a kopite mourning
Why so many taken on that day
Justice has never been done
But there memory will carry on
There`ll be glory round the fields of anfield road.

Justice for the 96 RIP YNWA!!!
off profile PBquote top
 
red machine
Member Avatar

Die-hard Reds
mycroft isnt so poor speke ..he can look after himself and stands tall!!!
you just cannot look beyond bias and your own views can you....i happen to admire fergies achievements regardless of who he manages...its football so its relevant imo.

off profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
10:45 PM
bloodred,Jun 19 2012
07:30 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.

man city were 1 goal away from being runners up, manu spent nothing in comparison, so the league could not have been bought? comparatively, chelsea were the big spenders, yet they are no where near the title now, so money couldnt have bought the league?

jose won the league for chelsea, where 4 other chelsea maangers failed.

fergie rebuilds every few years and spends around £30mil a year? quality over quantity usually. their debt was larger than ours.

the other teams e.g. newcastle and arsenal have finished higher with less spend - not title challenging but proves it takes more than money to be successful.

Taking isolated examples doesn't prove anything. Money isn't a 100% guarantee of success. Lack of money is a guarantee of failure though.

Money spent is crucial. Other factors are quality of management, quality of scouting, quality of fitness staff and physios, and untity throughout the club.
PBquote top
 
cactusjon
Member Avatar
Moderator
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
10:45 PM
bloodred,Jun 19 2012
07:30 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.

man city were 1 goal away from being runners up, manu spent nothing in comparison, so the league could not have been bought? comparatively, chelsea were the big spenders, yet they are no where near the title now, so money couldnt have bought the league?

jose won the league for chelsea, where 4 other chelsea maangers failed.

fergie rebuilds every few years and spends around £30mil a year? quality over quantity usually. their debt was larger than ours.

the other teams e.g. newcastle and arsenal have finished higher with less spend - not title challenging but proves it takes more than money to be successful.

So if two teams spend loads of money, one of them wins the title and the other doesn't so you think the team that DOESN'T win the title proves your contention that money doesn't buy the title?

I think you're getting a little confused JB.
Posted Image
off profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

cactusjon,Jun 20 2012
09:40 AM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
10:45 PM
bloodred,Jun 19 2012
07:30 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.

man city were 1 goal away from being runners up, manu spent nothing in comparison, so the league could not have been bought? comparatively, chelsea were the big spenders, yet they are no where near the title now, so money couldnt have bought the league?

jose won the league for chelsea, where 4 other chelsea maangers failed.

fergie rebuilds every few years and spends around £30mil a year? quality over quantity usually. their debt was larger than ours.

the other teams e.g. newcastle and arsenal have finished higher with less spend - not title challenging but proves it takes more than money to be successful.

So if two teams spend loads of money, one of them wins the title and the other doesn't so you think the team that DOESN'T win the title proves your contention that money doesn't buy the title?

I think you're getting a little confused JB.

:lol:

JB thinks all big spending teams can win the league in the same season.
PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
cactusjon,Jun 20 2012
08:40 AM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
10:45 PM
bloodred,Jun 19 2012
07:30 PM
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
03:13 PM
its a myth.

man city bought a lot of geranium who played little or no part in their league title win.

manu hardly spend.

arsenal spent nothing and finished 3rd.

newcastle/spurs spent peanuts and finished above us.

we spent more than most yet finished 8th.

chelsea 'were' the big spenders but finished outside of top 4.

its not so much the amount, but how it is spent and effective management overall.

Of course it’s not a myth.
From the day Blackburn broke the bank on players like Shearer & Sutton, the league in large has been brought as much as it has been won. We’ve just noticed it more in the past 10 years or so because the bar has been raised from millionaires to billionaires.
Man Utd hardly spend? This isn’t true at all, they broke the bank on players like Bruce, Palister, remember when they were spending £30m on players like Veron and Ferdinand, that was a decade ago. The regularly spend £20,30m on players, they just sign 1 or 2 a season rather than bulk buy.
City spent more than anyone else has ever spent to go from a mid-table team to winning the league in the space of about 3 years.
As for Arsenal spending littler and finishing 3rd and Newcastle spending peanuts, Surely that goes against your case? Baza was talking about winning the league, not just finishing in the top 7.
Chelsea blew the market out of the water with their £350m in 3 years to go on to win 3 league titles. The only reason they done so badly this year (except winning the Champions League) ifs because of an interfering owner, who signs hs own players then sacks the manager when it doesn’t work out.
I think it’s fair to say we all expect the league to be challenged by City, United & Chelsea next season with Arsenal coming 4th and the likes of ourselves & Everton & Spurs in around the 5th, 6th 7th places.
Of course what you sign matters as much as how you spend, spend £50m on shit, you get shit, spend it on quality and you get quality.
Seems you’re getting the questions - "Is Buying The League The Only Way?" and "Is randomly spending large sums of money on over inflated fees for under performing players, the only way to win the league?" mixed up.

Unfortunately we have spent too much money on too many players that were far below the fee paid; but that by no mean confirms that ‘buying the league’ is a myth, else City wouldn’t have needed the £500m+ they have spent, just as Chelsea would have needed the £350m+ they spent to win the league 3 times.

man city were 1 goal away from being runners up, manu spent nothing in comparison, so the league could not have been bought? comparatively, chelsea were the big spenders, yet they are no where near the title now, so money couldnt have bought the league?

jose won the league for chelsea, where 4 other chelsea maangers failed.

fergie rebuilds every few years and spends around £30mil a year? quality over quantity usually. their debt was larger than ours.

the other teams e.g. newcastle and arsenal have finished higher with less spend - not title challenging but proves it takes more than money to be successful.

So if two teams spend loads of money, one of them wins the title and the other doesn't so you think the team that DOESN'T win the title proves your contention that money doesn't buy the title?

I think you're getting a little confused JB.

well, the arguement here is teams buy the league, man city were 1 goal away from being runners up. is it a case of whoever spends the most wins the title? so what happens to teams who were highest spenders yesterday and spent nothing today? they cant compete unless the buy another team and consequently the league?
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LFC General · Next Topic »
TMreply
  • Pages:
  • 1