Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [17th - 22nd April 2015]

BaZ87 said:
Both in terms of wages and transfer fees Utd have massively outspent even Chelsea in the last few seasons.
Click to expand...

laughs not even close

Chelsea have SPENT about £500m on transfer fees over the last few summers


(just so you take the hint)

The bottom line may well be better after players going the other way - but that isn't what "Spent" means .............to most people at least (but fo course you are going to argue)


Rooney should have scored the early chance (or at the very least got it on target) - with Carrick especially in the side (and therefore having Rooney up top) , Utd would have got at least a point yesterday (even despite the dodgy goal they got)

- edit and lets be clear here, the ONLY reason they can actually afford to buy any players at all is because they don't have to pay the £1BN in debt to RA's company that is "owed".
 
Last edited:
JohnnyG said:
You mean he just wins right?
Nothing wrong with that, especially when you're underdogs like at Anfield last season and it could be said today considering how both teams have been playing recently.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I mean, is it attractive? No, but it's a game plan that works and whilst it's annoying and horrible to watch it gets the desired end result.
 
Pigeon_Killer said:
You can't remember Sissoko's challenge on Lucas against us last week? :confused:
Click to expand...

I can but I don't think that was as obviously intentional. Sissoko stuck his leg out and hoped for the best where as you could see Mirallas clearly looking and waiting to hit Boyd.
FrankJH said:
laughs not even close

The bottom line may well be better after players going the other way - but that isn't what "Spent" means .............to most people at least (but fo course you are going to argue)

- edit and lets be clear here, the ONLY reason they can actually afford to buy any players at all is because they don't have to pay the £1BN in debt to RA's company that is "owed".
Click to expand...

I know logic isn't a strength of yours but logically how is gross spend a more suitable measure of a financial advantage in football than net spend?

If you're selling lots of players and/or quality players, you have to replace them before you can build on your squad. If Utd sold Rooney, Di Maria, De Gea and Mata this summer for £150m and then spent £90m replacing them would you say that's a better scenario than not selling any of them and spending £85m adding 2 other players to your squad? Their gross spend was £5m more in the first scenario so they therefore spent more and must be in a better position, by your thinking.

And Chelsea FC don't owe Abramovic anything. The money is owed by a holding company to Abramovic. Not that I have any idea why you're banging on about that anyway - plenty of clubs have directors loans from their owners.
 
BaZ87 said:
And Chelsea FC don't owe Abramovic anything. The money is owed by a holding company to Abramovic. Not that I have any idea why you're banging on about that anyway - plenty of clubs have directors loans from their owners.
Click to expand...

I'm only guessing but it's probably because it's not club generated income per se. It depends what you want from a club though, if it's to be fiscally independent and sustainable then over the longer term you need to grow the revenue streams to support the outgoings and having a rich benefactor doesn't always provide that over the longer term, if it's shorter term and the benefactor is effectively prepared to write off money owed (and the wage bill/other operating expenses won't cripple the club should they pull out suddenly) then it's not really a problem*. It's perhaps worth considering that having a rich benefactor does often bring drawbacks such as stability of managers at the club.

It's tempting to pick on any metric which is going to make your club look better, effectively a game of top trumps - one tends to pick the thing that will give their club the advantage over the others, regardless of how small that may be or how it is balanced out by negatives in other clubs.

*except if you subscribe to a notion of fairness where the playing field is uneven due to cash inputs that haven't been "earned" - of course the flipside to that is some clubs are almost inherently more marketable than others so how should the other clubs compete fairly? With all due respect to say Ipswich, they're hardly a glamour club and would struggle to build their fanbase sufficiently to make them a marketing powerhouse who bring in lots of revenue through that route - it's a problem for lots of teams and even if they have a good year or two the playing field won't be level for them against teams with huge marketing potential in the same way that it won't be level against teams with a rich benefactor.
 
Martinez - 29th Jan 2015

"The hardest aspect is to present yourself to take the penalty. Leighton Baines is our penalty taker. He has got an incredible record."
Click to expand...


Martinez - 18th April 2015

"Romelu is the penalty taker. After that there are three or four players who can take the penalties," Martinez told Sky Sports.

"There is no such thing as a best penalty taker. I don't agree with penalty takers being designated apart from Romelu being on the pitch."
Click to expand...



:D :D What a ****ing joke, just keep your mouth shut Roberto. Maybe **** off while you're at it as well.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I'm only guessing but it's probably because it's not club generated income per se. It depends what you want from a club though, if it's to be fiscally independent and sustainable then over the longer term you need to grow the revenue streams to support the outgoings and having a rich benefactor doesn't always provide that over the longer term, if it's shorter term and the benefactor is effectively prepared to write off money owed (and the wage bill/other operating expenses won't cripple the club should they pull out suddenly) then it's not really a problem*. It's perhaps worth considering that having a rich benefactor does often bring drawbacks such as stability of managers at the club.

It's tempting to pick on any metric which is going to make your club look better, effectively a game of top trumps - one tends to pick the thing that will give their club the advantage over the others, regardless of how small that may be or how it is balanced out by negatives in other clubs.

*except if you subscribe to a notion of fairness where the playing field is uneven due to cash inputs that haven't been "earned" - of course the flipside to that is some clubs are almost inherently more marketable than others so how should the other clubs compete fairly? With all due respect to say Ipswich, they're hardly a glamour club and would struggle to build their fanbase sufficiently to make them a marketing powerhouse who bring in lots of revenue through that route - it's a problem for lots of teams and even if they have a good year or two the playing field won't be level for them against teams with huge marketing potential in the same way that it won't be level against teams with a rich benefactor.
Click to expand...

I think you're giving Frank far too much benefit of the doubt there. He's brought up Chelsea's supposed debt to Abramovic a couple of times lately without expanding on what he's getting at. I think he's probably seen a headline figure somewhere and thinks he can use it as a counter to any argument about Chelsea's finances.

I understand (but don't really agree) the argument people have with the likes of Chelsea and City's spending but in the case of Chelsea it no longer applies. They're now a sustainable club and no longer rely on Abramovic pumping money into the club. What happened in the past has been and gone and no longer has any bearing on Chelsea's finances. At some point in time nearly every major club has relied on or benefited from money being pumped into the club, whether that be from a single investor or multiple investors in the case of clubs floating on stock markets but just like with every aspect of money in football, it's gone onto a larger scale each time it's happened

The debate over what is and isn't fair is a much wider argument and one that I don't think everybody will ever agree on because as you say, lots of us will argue what suits our club most.
 
Last edited:
I actually used to like Martinez, but jesus what a loser. The quicker he gets sacked and leaves the PL the better for everyone, well except Liverpool fans.

Edit: Also regarding the whole Hazard thing, I think considering it's Sanchez's first season in the PL, I'd probably say he's been better - But Hazard is still only young. He's going to be frightening in a couple of years. I also think people are being a little harsh on Ozil (like always), he's looked great since coming back from his injury, not far off his Madrid form in many games now.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
A fully fit Aguero's the best player in the League imo and if I think about it probably the only truly world class attacking player we have in the league. Unfortunately he's rarely fully fit.

And it's very harsh to say Sanchez isn't nearly as consistent as Hazard. He's scored 1 goal more and got the same amount of assists as Hazard and done it in less games. That said he has played a few games as a central striker but mainly he's played in a wider position similar to Hazard.

I was reading Jamie Carragher's article on the POTY awards and he made the point that this has been a pretty poor year in terms of attacking talent. Hazard's likely to win the award but his performances aren't nearly as good as Suarez from last year, Ronaldo at his peak for Utd or Henry at his best for Arsenal.
Click to expand...

Sanchez isn't as consistent as Hazard, but here's the rub, if West Ham could have either one of them I would take Sanchez.

I believe Hazard is better all round player than Aguero but in reality its probably just as realistic to compare Aguero to Hart or Courtois. Totally different positions.

And... you have just posted something that made me agree with Jamie Carragher .... thanks for that :(
 
BaZ87 said:
I think you're giving Frank far too much benefit of the doubt there. He's brought up Chelsea's supposed debt to Abramovic a couple of times lately without expanding on what he's getting at. I think he's probably seen a headline figure somewhere and thinks he can use it as a counter to any argument about Chelsea's finances.
Click to expand...

Maybe, it was just a thought. You're right though, while Chelsea do have the benefit of a hugely wealthy backer who has provided the impetus to make them competitive and win trophies there has been a lot of work done to make them sustainable.
 
Hazard overrated? What the ****? Bonkers.

That Mirallas 'challenge' is a bad one as well, so high and over the ball, lad is lucky he didn't get a serious injury from that. Almost seems intentional to me as well, the way he double steps before putting his foot up there, he must've known he was going to go well over the ball. Filthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom