The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 2,960
- Location
- Canberra
Sack Hodgson, bring in Stuart Pearce!
Remember, DM thinks he watches football. lol. I sometime wonder what planet you are on DM. I'm not sure how you think net transfer spend is irrelevant. It's proper nuts. You can't even talk to a player if you son't stump up the proper transfer fee.
Champ Manager has a lot to answer for.
Signing players is easy - just look at who's got the best 'stats', offer money, sign player and improve your team.
Some people seem to think that getting quality is easy - just stump up the cash and buy an 'Ozil' every year....
How many top players have been signed and the failed for what ever reason....Veron, Forlan, Shevchenko, Robinho, Mutu. That's just players who should have been 'guaranteed' quality, some of whom went on to more success elsewhere after being a big failure in the premier league.
That's before you even start to look at the players who cost 10's of millions of pounds because they were seen as having potential, only to then flop massively.
Spending money is no guarantee of quality.
Players like Ozil simply aren't available every year, and the ones who are tend to be scouted by the majority of top European teams. The competition for these sort of players is huge - no manager will be able to attract them all without fail. Which is why, in the real world, managers have to take a punt on players like Gervinho, who lets face it did ok before Arsenal and seems to be doing ok now he's left. (Cue excuses like he came from a weak French league and Wenger should have known he couldn't step up....)
Signing players is easy - just look at who's got the best 'stats', offer money, sign player and improve your team.
Some people seem to think that getting quality is easy - just stump up the cash and buy an 'Ozil' every year....
How many top players have been signed and the failed for what ever reason....Veron, Forlan, Shevchenko, Robinho, Mutu. That's just players who should have been 'guaranteed' quality, some of whom went on to more success elsewhere after being a big failure in the premier league.
That's before you even start to look at the players who cost 10's of millions of pounds because they were seen as having potential, only to then flop massively.
Spending money is no guarantee of quality.
Players like Ozil simply aren't available every year, and the ones who are tend to be scouted by the majority of top European teams. The competition for these sort of players is huge - no manager will be able to attract them all without fail. Which is why, in the real world, managers have to take a punt on players like Gervinho, who lets face it did ok before Arsenal and seems to be doing ok now he's left. (Cue excuses like he came from a weak French league and Wenger should have known he couldn't step up....)
Well said...and yet DM forgets about Giroud who Wenger signed from the french league and he looks like he's going to be a steal at 12 mil. Win some lose some...
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,016
- Location
- Surrey
Forlan?!?
Wrong, the premise of my post was that Wenger was contradicting what he had previously said. I should know, I wrote it! I did, however, also suggest that Arsenal had been hampered in the transfer market and perhaps didn't have as much 'excess' funds available for transfer. Nowhere did I state what I considered to be the reason for that, or indeed that it wasn't (or was for that matter) Wenger's fault. The whole reason I even jumped on that quote, was because of the absolute, undeniable, unarguable conflict of "we have money" vs "we don't have money" - there is literally no subjectiveness in that, it doesn't matter what transfers were or were not made, it is just a statement paradox. It's something I've been sat waiting to pounce on for years, after all those warchest stories, "we've got loads of money to spend" (not just from Wenger, also PHW etc hence the 'party line' jibe).
As for the wider discussion, net spend IS relevant in the context of saying "club X spent loads of money", because the more you sell the more you can spend for the same given financial position. If a club buys in £50m of talent and then sells £300m of talent, that is a completely different kettle of fish in terms of transfer activity that buying £50m and selling nothing. If all that mattered was purchases, then buying loads of players and then selling them straight away would leave you in the same place, you may have bought players for £200m but if you then sold them for £200m then to me the fact they spent £200m is fairly meaningless as their squad hasn't changed.
You seem to be hung up on what the money is spent on whether it is a rubbish player or a good player or whatever - that is the part that isn't relevant to my side of the debate, if I spend £100m on Gervinho or £1m on Messi then I've spent more money on the first scenario regardless of whether I made a wise purchase or not. They are two different lines of enquiry - one is have you got money / did you spend money, the other is did you spend the money wisely, and I'm not commenting on that here.
Anyhow - I suspect this line of discussion is of little interest to the majority so I'll leave it there unless someone else chimes in
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
rolf Nearly choke on my pork loin roll
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 9,258
- Location
- United Kingdom
Haha brilliant.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,736
- Location
- Welling, London
- Status