Topic: Wasting Money In The Transfer Market

[Abrak]

when i say winners ,i mean winners.
a winner to me is a isnt just a technically talented footballer on a huge wage,its someone who grafts along with the talent.fights for that inch as the that video says.
there are some on big wages who dont put a shift in espeacially when things arent going there way...torres in the latter days anyone

Yes I know what you are saying about winners....it sounds like an advert for British beer. There are certainly players who leave their blood and their sweat on the pitch until the final whistle and there are others that go through the game and pick up their pay check at the end. Still over time and over many players you find the ones that you are prepared to pay 150k a week are simply better than the ones that you are prepared to pay 70k a week.

So as jDJ says the teams with the highest wage bills tend to end up winners and win the league. I suspect it has always been so to a large amount but certainly it is factually true today more so than ever. Back in 1991-1995 we were the power house and we were paying more in wages and more in transfer fees than ManU and Arsenal. But we did not spend well and as our performance drifted so did our ability to compete with them financially. They are now miles ahead in terms of revenues and it will be a long road to catch them up even if we are financially efficient.

[horne]

Yes I know what you are saying about winners....it sounds like an advert for British beer. There are certainly players who leave their blood and their sweat on the pitch until the final whistle and there are others that go through the game and pick up their pay check at the end. Still over time and over many players you find the ones that you are prepared to pay 150k a week are simply better than the ones that you are prepared to pay 70k a week.

So as jDJ says the teams with the highest wage bills tend to end up winners and win the league. I suspect it has always been so to a large amount but certainly it is factually true today more so than ever. Back in 1991-1995 we were the power house and we were paying more in wages and more in transfer fees than ManU and Arsenal. But we did not spend well and as our performance drifted so did our ability to compete with them financially. They are now miles ahead in terms of revenues and it will be a long road to catch them up even if we are financially efficient.

tell that to the porto and the ajax of yesteryear.
i know what yer saying and i agree to a certain extent,but it doesnt always follow the rule .As we all know,football is a funny ol game.
whilst we arent the richest,it doesnt mean we cant beat the rich.
real madrid will back me up on that one

[Shanks1965]

Accountants can tell you the square root of a tin of beans... but not many could tell you how to open one.

[Abrak]

Accountants can tell you the square root of a tin of beans... but not many could tell you how to open one.

A striker can help you score a goal.....but how many can mend a fishing net.

[Shanks1965]

A striker can help you score a goal.....but how many can mend a fishing net.

I thought Kings and fishermen had something in common?

[Vulmea]

give a man a fish and he'll feed himself for a day

give him a net...............and he'll play footie

[Abrak]

tell that to the porto and the ajax of yesteryear.
i know what yer saying and i agree to a certain extent,but it doesnt always follow the rule .As we all know,football is a funny ol game.
whilst we arent the richest,it doesnt mean we cant beat the rich.
real madrid will back me up on that one

Well Real madrid certainly the richest club in the foot ball league and they certainly arent the best but there is a fair argument that they are the second best. Barcelona who are certainly the best are living off 1) a massive influx of talent from their academy which it would be optimistic to assume was sustainable and 2) continuing large financial deficits which are not. If there flow of youngsters dry up or the bankers place a limit on their credit they will find life increasingly difficult. Once again it all comes down to money. As you say it doesnt mean Barcelona cant beat the rich - Real Madrid- but the question is for how long? Money doesnt age, it doesnt lose its legs while footballers always do - every single last one of them.

[Livermuel]

A striker can help you score a goal.....but how many can mend a fishing net.

Dirk Kuyt! Just a boss on multiple levels, who needs football skills eh?

[horne]

Well Real madrid certainly the richest club in the foot ball league and they certainly arent the best but there is a fair argument that they are the second best. Barcelona who are certainly the best are living off 1) a massive influx of talent from their academy which it would be optimistic to assume was sustainable and 2) continuing large financial deficits which are not. If there flow of youngsters dry up or the bankers place a limit on their credit they will find life increasingly difficult. Once again it all comes down to money. As you say it doesnt mean Barcelona cant beat the rich - Real Madrid- but the question is for how long? Money doesnt age, it doesnt lose its legs while footballers always do - every single last one of them.

we just need enough ....but all the money in the world ,doesnt buy you happiness...it never will!

[Abrak]

we just need enough ....but all the money in the world ,doesnt buy you happiness...it never will!

I supposed you are right but I have always associated Liverpool with winning - or having the potential to win.

If we slide into the world of Everton whereby we do ok but we dont have the financial muscle to beat the top teams, then it will not be the same for me. I will still support Liverpool but I will lose interest in the game. To see us fall from the top to midlevel mediocrity is quite hard to take. To know that we will not beat a team in the league because we no longer have the financiial resources is something I will accept but will not like.

I am not really interested in a Liverpool that punches above its weight and comes 5th in the league. Because I know we have thrown away our legacy that we build over 30 years.

[Sangria]

Dirk Kuyt! Just a boss on multiple levels, who needs football skills eh?

Kuyt and Lucas between them could probably feed the squad from their other professions. A fish and beef diet may be a bit low in fibre, so the squad could do with some crop farmers as well.

[horne]

I supposed you are right but I have always associated Liverpool with winning - or having the potential to win.

If we slide into the world of Everton whereby we do ok but we dont have the financial muscle to beat the top teams, then it will not be the same for me. I will still support Liverpool but I will lose interest in the game. To see us fall from the top to midlevel mediocrity is quite hard to take. To know that we will not beat a team in the league because we no longer have the financiial resources is something I will accept but will not like.

I am not really interested in a Liverpool that punches above its weight and comes 5th in the league. Because I know we have thrown away our legacy that we build over 30 years.

thats why i said just enough.
i dont want to be thinking that because we havnt got the  biggest pot of gold,we cant be successful and maintain it.
top management can overide lack of funds
of course there is a link between money and success but never forget that in the seventies and eighties,we werent the richest then neither   

[Vulmea]

thats why i said just enough.
i dont want to be thinking that because we havnt got the  biggest pot of gold,we cant be successful and maintain it.
top management can overide lack of funds
of course there is a link between money and success but never forget that in the seventies and eighties,we werent the richest then neither   

There wasn't the vast gulf between rich and poor that there is now, nor was the league structured to favour the bigger teams - with 18 man match day squads and 3 subs - nor was the game so global with teams being able to identiy, scout and bring in talent from anywhere on the globe. Its gone from an 11 a side game to a squad competition - for years it was who's the first 11 but the question doesn't make sense anymore - granted its taken years for that to settle in to the psyche and for some it never will but teams like us, arsenal , spurs can outplay and win any game on our day - the problem comes over the longer term - we need a minimum 18 top quality players and good luck with injuries - thats expensive and the bar is rising
all the time

united, chelsea, city take the injury and form issue out the equation by the depth of squad - one team could stumble, two possible , three unlikely - tohave any chance to  compete we'd need to get all of our transfers spot on and keep them fit and in form. Its possible just not probable

[markmywords]

There wasn't the vast gulf between rich and poor that there is now, nor was the league structured to favour the bigger teams - with 18 man match day squads and 3 subs - nor was the game so global with teams being able to identiy, scout and bring in talent from anywhere on the globe. Its gone from an 11 a side game to a squad competition - for years it was who's the first 11 but the question doesn't make sense anymore - granted its taken years for that to settle in to the psyche and for some it never will but teams like us, arsenal , spurs can outplay and win any game on our day - the problem comes over the longer term - we need a minimum 18 top quality players and good luck with injuries - thats expensive and the bar is rising
all the time

united, chelsea, city take the injury and form issue out the equation by the depth of squad - one team could stumble, two possible , three unlikely - tohave any chance to  compete we'd need to get all of our transfers spot on and keep them fit and in form. Its possible just not probable

Your argument loses steam when you mention Man U

They are not financially ni the same boat as chelsea or man city, yet have beat them to the title.  they have not been in Chelsea's league financially for yrs, yet have won the league 3 times out of 4

[Vulmea]

Your argument loses steam when you mention Man U

They are not financially ni the same boat as chelsea or man city, yet have beat them to the title.  they have not been in Chelsea's league financially for yrs, yet have won the league 3 times out of 4

In what respect not the same league?

United and Chelsea were until City the two richest clubs in the league by some distance - United's turnover was the highest and their wages were 30% + higher than anybody else's apart from Chelsea.

Their spend on transfers did not have to be high - if you have a good squad, maintaining that squad with a player here and there is far less expensive than building one from scratch - - this season with Neville, Scholes, VDS and Giggs all on the decline - this summer they will spend big - Ferguson has tried to replace these players over time on the cheap and for me got it wrong over the last few years - Kuscak and Foster, Bardsley and Brown, the twins, Hargreaves, Anderson.............he's now reverted to type and tried to spend big to guarantee quality
because times up - so De gea for a british transfer fee for  a keeper , Jones for a british record transfer fee for  a teenager,  Young for ott money  etc - and he can do all that because unfortunately they are in the same league as Chelsea they can effectively pay what they want for who they want and enter bidding wars - City may of course change that.

[Sangria]

Your argument loses steam when you mention Man U

They are not financially ni the same boat as chelsea or man city, yet have beat them to the title.  they have not been in Chelsea's league financially for yrs, yet have won the league 3 times out of 4

1. They have/had a significant core who were pre-Abramovich, most notably their manager, who has a free hand with football-related matters.
2. Abramovich's meddling, which means the manager has less status than the core of their team.

1 means they're still living off the remains of their period as English football's biggest spenders, and they're not far off that even today. 2 means Chelsea regularly cripple themselves with Abramovich's uninformed changes of mind.

[Nessy76]

Your argument loses steam when you mention Man U

They are not financially ni the same boat as chelsea or man city, yet have beat them to the title.  they have not been in Chelsea's league financially for yrs, yet have won the league 3 times out of 4

The current Man Utd first team squad cost them well over £200m in transfer fees.

[jambutty]

We were on the way toward an attempt at re-dominance until we lost Rafa.

See Spanish football demolishing all before it and realise we had the greatest proponent of it at our helm.

Locals need to win the Prem.  European success is not enough.

As long as Corporal Nosehair lives, that lot down the road will win all their home games.

Kenny is ready for the challenge.  Enjoy the ride, it will be fun to watch.  The Twunts have gone.