The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
For some reason I think I have heard no.8 before "Your favourite Barcelona player is no longer Messi. It’s Busquets. Claim Michael Carrick is Manchester United’s most important player and that Andrea Pirlo should have won the Ballon d’Or" :D
 
Martin Jol said:
Van Persie is like Zlatan [Ibrahimovic]. Wherever Zlatan goes, they will be champions, and Van Persie has that quality as well. If the rest are useless, he will not win you the title. But United are very good
Click to expand...

:D

Jol still Spurs at heart then :p
 
colowins.jpg
 
Purdy said:
Stoke's game of smoke and mirrors

Third highest spenders hahahaha

Also good discussion on reddit about it, any by that I mean the eloquent first post haha
Click to expand...

Some great posts in that thread, this sums Pulis up perfectly though

However the man really isn't likeable. An inability to accept defeat and blame on levels that make Wenger look like the professor of truth, constant whining and his fans don't make it any better. In 2008 I told myself that Phil Brown was the pinnacle of ****. I thought no one could rile me up half as much as the orange faced, blue-tooth headset hack job of a manager. I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Not surprised the levels of spend is hushed, like good ol 'Arry he is english so can get away with pretty much anything as our xenophobic media won't say one iota.
 
Newbie007 said:
Some great posts in that thread, this sums Pulis up perfectly though



Not surprised the levels of spend is hushed, like good ol 'Arry he is english so can get away with pretty much anything as our xenophobic media won't say one iota.
Click to expand...

Actually, its BS and ignores them being new the league, having little value in the players they came up with, and having players for multiple years.

For a lot of clubs, first 5 years in the prem you buy players, but your old players are championship/below quality and leave slowly for very very little while new players cost quite a bit. Then after 5 years, you start to get a little turn over of selling better players and there is more chance for income from sales.

Arsenal got Cesc on a free and sold him for £30+mil, he would never have signed for Stoke because they weren't in the prem when he signed, and wouldn't sign for them now over Arsenal. So the types of players who sign for bottom clubs aren't really the kind you likely get for cheap and sell for loads, while the top clubs find that relatively easy.

Stoke have spent 85mil in the past 5 seasons, Arsenal have spent 145mil, and they spent another 100mil in the 5 seasons before that, and on and on and on.

its an absolutely daft comparison, net spend means smeg all, Stoke aren't massive spenders, they haven't spent well, and they haven't spent on players who can be sold on for hell of a lot yet.

I hate Stoke, I hate the attitude of the manager, the style of football, I can't stand these "but they stay in the league" arguments, football is entertainment, people shouldn't go and watch teams that don't TRY to do better and play more entertaining football, Stoke can shrivel up and die for all I care, but net spend is a measure of nothing remotely useful at all.

Higher up clubs who have been established for years with a sound financial footing find it many many times easier to sell players high and buy cheaper, doesn't mean they always do, theres more options there though. Cesc's, Ronaldo's, Robben's, RVP's, don't sign for clubs like Stoke, and Arsenal, Utd, have their current position and finances due to years of massive spending in the past. Southampton are now doing pretty decent from player sales, but invested in youth training donkeys years ago and still do, Stoke are only just starting to spend on training centre's and the like.

You can't expect or compare every club on a level footing, because its just daft.

Sunderland in the past 5 years have spent almost £50mil more and a lot more on wages(I think) while doing a LOT worse. Everton have spent 63mil net, but again have been around longer, spend a lot more on wages, have been around for so much longer they can produce Rooney's and sell them for loads in the past. Villa have spent £161mil in the past 5 years, Wigan 47mil, comparitively Stoke haven't done worse than ANY of these teams, but better, are more solid in midtable than any of them, have spent less than most.

I mean, Villa have spetn £161mil, yet have spent a little less net than Stoke, because Liverpool threw 20mil at them for Downing, and Young went for decent money, 26mil for Milner, I would say total those three sales brought in a minimum of 30mil more than they were worth. Should we blame Stoke because Liverpool overspent on Villa players instead of giving them 20mil for Walters? Arsenal's net spend is in large part down to their business but we've been overpaid for quite a few players recently. Personally I think its harsh to say Stoke have spent more than others because other clubs doing even worse business make the net spend of yet other clubs look less bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom