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
  • 2
Is Buying The League The Only Way ?
Topic Started: Jun 19 2012, 03:07 PM (420 Views)
hughiealonso
Member Avatar

Elite Reds
John_Boy,Jun 19 2012
09:45 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.

'fergie rebuilds every few years'

No he doesn't. He consistently adds to the squad with big money buys.Rio was bought 10 years ago for over thirty million. Rooney is there 8 years. Fergie has consistently added to his squad when he sees the need. He has rarely had to do a full rebuilding. He has the privelaged position of being with the side with the starting point. Hence, he can attract the right players and does not have to wholesale changes.
�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
 
the antler
Member Avatar

Super Reds
There are no guarantee's in football, otherwise what would be the point in following the game and supporting a team?

Money is clearly one of the most important elements in winning the league. But also of huge importance is having a great team spirit, being able to develop players from a young age into great players, being able to spot and buy the right player to strengthen the right areas. Then you have to get the balance right with what players you use, when to change those players for and during certain games, which I suppose is all about tactics and therefore having a good, and the right manager.

Many elements to it all, but certainly these days money is key. If you have the money then it makes all those other aspects fall into place that much more easily.
on profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 20 2012
10:15 AM
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?

Now you're just talking bollocks and clouding the issue, diluting the point.
PBquote top
 
cactusjon
Member Avatar
Moderator
John_Boy,Jun 20 2012
10:15 AM
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?

As I said JB, you're getting confused. You've obviously missed the premise of the original post.
Posted Image
off profile PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
Soctty,Jun 20 2012
10:51 AM
John_Boy,Jun 20 2012
10:15 AM
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?

Now you're just talking bollocks and clouding the issue, diluting the point.

league title is not bought.
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 20 2012
12:10 PM
Soctty,Jun 20 2012
10:51 AM
John_Boy,Jun 20 2012
10:15 AM
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?

Now you're just talking bollocks and clouding the issue, diluting the point.

league title is not bought.

Aye JB - money doesn't matter. :wacko:


League title is not won by a team who doesn't spend multi millions on their team.
PBquote top
 
bloodred

Advanced Members
Kind of going against you're own point a bit there. You say Arsenal & Newcastle spend next to nothing, but then point out they also did not win the league (or even come close). You admit City spent loads then confirm that they did win the league and also that Chelsea won the league 3 times under Jose & Ancelotti.

ManUtd might not spend £100m a year, but that reguarly spend £30,40,50m+ each summer, continuiously topping up a top 2 side. 10 years ago they were spending £30m on centerbacks and midfielders and teenage strikers.

Of course you have to buy the right players and you have to have a decent manager (AVB failed to take Chelsea forwards & Torres certainly has not been a £50m signing since joining Chelsea), simply put - Put shit in, get shit out.

But these points are not enough to dismiss the effects of having a seemingly infinate sum of money, and how much it helps when it comes to winning the league.

At the end of the day, would City have won the league or even risen from 10th to challenging for the league had they not spent - £35m(Aguero), £27m(Dzeko), £25m(Tevez), £25m(Nasri), £24m(Balotelli), £24m(Silva), £24m(Toure), £22m(Lescott), £16m(Milner) plus the millions spent on countless players? Money got them to where they are and I fully expect they'll retain the title next season (and spend another £100m on about 4 or 5 players)
off profile PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
bloodred,Jun 20 2012
11:11 PM
Kind of going against you're own point a bit there. You say Arsenal & Newcastle spend next to nothing, but then point out they also did not win the league (or even come close). You admit City spent loads then confirm that they did win the league and also that Chelsea won the league 3 times under Jose & Ancelotti.

ManUtd might not spend £100m a year, but that reguarly spend £30,40,50m+ each summer, continuiously topping up a top 2 side. 10 years ago they were spending £30m on centerbacks and midfielders and teenage strikers.

Of course you have to buy the right players and you have to have a decent manager (AVB failed to take Chelsea forwards & Torres certainly has not been a £50m signing since joining Chelsea), simply put - Put shit in, get shit out.

But these points are not enough to dismiss the effects of having a seemingly infinate sum of money, and how much it helps when it comes to winning the league.

At the end of the day, would City have won the league or even risen from 10th to challenging for the league had they not spent - £35m(Aguero), £27m(Dzeko), £25m(Tevez), £25m(Nasri), £24m(Balotelli), £24m(Silva), £24m(Toure), £22m(Lescott), £16m(Milner) plus the millions spent on countless players? Money got them to where they are and I fully expect they'll retain the title next season (and spend another £100m on about 4 or 5 players)

my main point is that it takes more than money to be successful. city did win the league, but as i say 1 goal away from being an expensively assembled 2nd best team. they didnt win the league last year despite the spend. ofcourse money helps....my earlier point was it has to be spent wisely.

chelsea were big spenders but are nowhere near challenging.....the vast sums of money surely cant be dismissed? likewise we have outspent most yet finished 8th.

i dont agree the league title is bought. there are many expensive non-contributers at city. chelsea too didnt win the league without mourinho and ancellotti (1 season), despite the huge sums spent.

manu dont spend that much. they spend £30mil-ish every season but on qualty. never come across net spend anywhere else but here when rafa used it to justify his failure. we had money, but went for a quantity over quality approach.

fergie lost big players, he too has to deal with madrid et. al. coming in for big his big players....

he still manages to build a title winning team. he goes for players he thinks can help him win the league. he doesnt spend his money buying half a team every year like us.
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
hughiealonso
Member Avatar

Elite Reds
My god you are so blind JB. Fergie can afford to buy the best and add two or three players a year. He has the strongest starting platform and is building on success. That is why Chelsea had to spend big for 3/4 years before winning anything and why it took city 2.5 years to win anything. It's not flaming rocket science!
�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
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
lmao, HA

The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
Misty77
Member Avatar
Administrator
hughiealonso,Jun 21 2012
09:16 AM
It's not flaming rocket science!

Rocket Science?

JB could write us a small novel on Particle acceleration.....


.....Still buggered when it comes to footy though! :D
Posted Image
off profile PBquote top
 
hughiealonso
Member Avatar

Elite Reds
John_Boy,Jun 21 2012
09:00 AM
lmao, HA

Laughing your ass off at what?
�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
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
lol
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
hughiealonso
Member Avatar

Elite Reds
I really hate acronyms. Reminds me of Bill Baileys 'ANTY' campaign. 'Acronyms, No Thank You!'
�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
 
Soctty
Unregistered

Rafa invented net spend apparently. Tell that to accountants and businessmen all over the world.

You're comical JB. Apart from when you try to be. ;)
PBquote top
 
John_Boy

Legendary Reds
which other club uses net spend? which other fans use net spend?
The ring master says the circus show must go on! 🎪
on profile PBquote top
 
Soctty
Unregistered

John_Boy,Jun 21 2012
10:40 AM
which other club uses net spend? which other fans use net spend?

All fans and clubs consider net spend. Only complete idiots dismiss it. Once again, thanks for providing us with an ideal example.
PBquote top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · LFC General · Next Topic »
TMreply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2