The Football Thread - Season 2011/2012 - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
So with the National team having a record low expectancy level would a comprehensive victory over France have the media heaping it all back on and having us as world beaters again?
 
cambsno said:
De Jong is exactly the player we need looking how defensively frail we are.
Click to expand...

You've certainly missed a player who can put a tackle in haven't you :lol:

[YOUTUBE]JM4GzgXSXis[/YOUTUBE]
 
So Swansea beat liverpool and Rogers becomes Liverpool manager
Norwich beat Villa and Lambert becomes Villa boss........

No Doubt Arsene Wenger is in talks with West Brom :D
 
TriggerHappy said:
You like the thugs in football don't you!

[YOUTUBE]SgangZy4Ob0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]g9AfwVuttS4[/YOUTUBE]

I could pull up plenty more examples of both players. I'm astonished anyone could want either in their team!
Click to expand...

Any different to Roy Keane or Patrick Viera - arguably 2 of the best mids in the last 30 years?
 
cambsno said:
Any different to Roy Keane or Patrick Viera - arguably 2 of the best mids in the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

In the case of De Jong, no it's no different to what they did but the game has changed and such aggressive play is no where near as acceptable as it was in their time. That doesn't make what Keane and Viera did right, it was just permitted in a lot of instances because the rules were different and far more people behaved like that.

In the case of Barton, yes it's very different. He's an angry little man who loses his rag on a regular basis and does things to deliberately harm other players when they're off the ball. It's not a mis-timed, over-competitive challenge; sometimes it's nothing short of assault. In my opinion he should be banned from the sport for life given his extensive history of violent conduct.
 
Wooohooo! Arsenal have won a trophy again at last :D :D

Ok, so it's only the Pie League Trophy -awarded to the PL team with the best pies - but it's a start :lol:
 
Good link up between young and welbeck but it was the only decent thing they did all game. Defoe looked the most dangerous of our players. Milner looked out of his league. Gerard looked solid for once this season.

It was all very average but hard to beat. Not much spark at all. I'll take a load of 1-0 wins though.
 
joescrivens said:
Good link up between young and welbeck but it was the only decent thing they did all game. Defoe looked the most dangerous of our players. Milner looked out of his league. Gerard looked solid for once this season.

It was all very average but hard to beat. Not much spark at all. I'll take a load of 1-0 wins though.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The game went really flat with the introduction of Rooney. I don't think his presence actually benefits the England team at all and he's probably my last choice striker from the current selection.

The Ox looked hungriest to do well and played well running at the defenders.

Milner or Walcott is an interesting one. Milner plays a much more active role in winning back the ball whilst Walcott only presses without actually committing to tackles. Going forward Walcott is far more threatening though.

Young was great again and Defoe added real spark which is what I said of him when we were discussing selections.

Not sure what to make of johnson and henderson still.

Can't complain about a win though, even if it wasn't done in the most exciting fashion. I do worry about playing that way against teams with more attacking prowess, I think it could be our own undoing if we try and absorb all their pressure and countering.
 
TriggerHappy said:
In the case of De Jong, no it's no different to what they did but the game has changed and such aggressive play is no where near as acceptable as it was in their time. That doesn't make what Keane and Viera did right, it was just permitted in a lot of instances because the rules were different and far more people behaved like that.

In the case of Barton, yes it's very different. He's an angry little man who loses his rag on a regular basis and does things to deliberately harm other players when they're off the ball. It's not a mis-timed, over-competitive challenge; sometimes it's nothing short of assault. In my opinion he should be banned from the sport for life given his extensive history of violent conduct.
Click to expand...

I don't thing he regularly does wrong - and I don't recall many challenges where he has gone out to harm players. Someone like Lee Cattermole is far more thuggish imo and Paul Scholes has made many worse challenges than Barton - yet everyone comes out with the old 'Scholes can't tackle' line.

Things get highlighted so much more these days, on the old days when there were a handful of cameras at the ground it was easier to get away with things.

I am willing to bet that there are quite a few players who have made more fouls and been 'dirtier' than Barton if you look at the stats over the last 5 years.
 
Missed the England game last night but with any luck a bit of confidence might be building.
 
Gutted to see sloth leave liverpool. Fenerbahce got a bargain there.

He scored 2 important goals this season, let's remember them:

[YOUTUBE]kWjl0QHl-rQ[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]Dp51Xr-8kbM[/YOUTUBE]
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
FFS! Another one bites the dust!

Cahill out of the Euros with a broken jaw.
Click to expand...

Why Kelly when Richards is much better in every respect?
 
I'm not even sure what to say anymore regarding this England team.
 
lol at you two.... Aren't we upto 6 Liverpool players in the squad now?

Oh well, at least there's little expectation....

The irony of Roy H having so many LFC players in his squad considering his record with them is quite funny really is it not?!
 
wibbly said:
lol at you two.... Aren't we upto 6 Liverpool players in the squad now?

Oh well, at least there's little expectation....
Click to expand...

Joking aside - at the end of the day I guess it's a 'cup team' we're needing.

Regardless - I'll be fully behind whatever band of merry men we end up with.
 
Rio passed over because of Mr Terry:shake:

No doubt he'll have his prison uniform on under his suit at the trial in case he's convicted
 
Chelsea confirm hazard deal !!!

Great news for CFC, now come on the Hulk !
 
Ruffy said:
Chelsea confirm hazard deal !!!

Great news for CFC, now come on the Hulk !
Click to expand...

"With all respect to Chelsea, I'd rather join a club with history such as Liverpool or Arsenal." - Eden Hazard (January 23rd 2012)

Hopefully now he's signed for a club he can stop running his mouth! :D
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
"With all respect to Chelsea, I'd rather join a club with history such as Liverpool or Arsenal." - Eden Hazard (January 23rd 2012)

Hopefully now he's signed for a club he can stop running his mouth! :D
Click to expand...

History counts for nothing when your winning b****r all ! As each year passes, that history is getting re written !
 
Ruffy said:
History counts for nothing when your winning b****r all ! As each year passes, that history is getting re written !
Click to expand...

I think what you mean is history counts for nothing when you've got a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions into a club and completely destroying any sense of rationality in the transfer market.

Football is being *******ised by the huge sums foreign oil tycoons are investing in players and FFP is woefully inadequate to do anything to combat it. I can't explain sufficiently how much I resent how clubs like Chelsea, Manchester City and others around the world have warped the transfer market.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I think what you mean is history counts for nothing when you've got a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions into a club and completely destroying any sense of rationality in the transfer market.

Football is being *******ised by the huge sums foreign oil tycoons are investing in players and FFP is woefully inadequate to do anything to combat it. I can't explain sufficiently how much I resent how clubs like Chelsea, Manchester City and others around the world have warped the transfer market.
Click to expand...

I do have too agree with you however Chelsea have not spent big for a long time, when mr A arrived on the scene...yes he did spend loads but he cut his spending for a long time (apart from the £50m spent on a donkey)
 
Ruffy said:
I do have too agree with you however Chelsea have not spent big for a long time, when mr A arrived on the scene...yes he did spend loads but he cut his spending for a long time (apart from the £50m spent on a donkey)
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that

Chelsea spent £82.8m last season, £99.8m the season before and £24.2m the season before that.

Man City spent £76m last season, £154.75m " " " " and £124m " " " "

Man Utd spent £52.9m last season, then £27.2 and £21m 3 seasons ago

Arsenal spent £53.15m last season then £14.5m and £15.75 the season before that.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I think what you mean is history counts for nothing when you've got a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions into a club and completely destroying any sense of rationality in the transfer market.

Football is being *******ised by the huge sums foreign oil tycoons are investing in players and FFP is woefully inadequate to do anything to combat it. I can't explain sufficiently how much I resent how clubs like Chelsea, Manchester City and others around the world have warped the transfer market.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
pooley said:
Funny how all these people who complain about city and Chelsea splashing the cash never moaned when their teams were breaking transfer records.

Double standards and a bit bitter ???
Click to expand...

Nobody is bitter, just stating that there used to be a saying 'you cannot buy success' - well I think that has been proved wrong in the last 20 years.

Man City, in the last 20 years, have spent £649,180,000

Man Utd - £483,150,000 Newcastle - £345,345,000

Liverpool - £552,205,000 Sunderland - £230,015,000

Chelsea - £744,440,000 Blackburn - £195,462,000

Arsenal - £341,090,000 Middlesboro - £193,985,000

Spurs - £412,050,000 Pompey - £116,600,000

Leeds - £147,280,000 Villa - £305,190,000

Everton - £218,245,500 Stoke - £79,615,000

These figures are readily available for anyone to see ( I haven't just made them up)
 
pooley said:
Funny how all these people who complain about city and Chelsea splashing the cash never moaned when their teams were breaking transfer records.

Double standards and a bit bitter ???
Click to expand...

I'm going to indulge you with this discussion because this argument is a particular bug bear of mine.

Firstly, lets have a look at the spending of Premier League clubs.

In the period of 2006-2011 Manchester City have spent £531,670,000 on players and sold £112,800,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £418,870,000, or £83,774,000 per season.

In the same period Chelsea have spent £282,300,000 on players and sold£126,400,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £155,900,000, or £31,180,000 per season.

The third biggest net spend in this period is Liverpool who have spent £309,640,000 on players and sold £226,330,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £83,310,000, or £16,662,000 per season.

Manchester United are the 8th largest net spenders having spent £217,200,000 on players and sold £165,600,000 worth of players resulting in a net spend of £51,600,000, or £10,320,000 per season.

Arsenal, by contrast, have spent £85,150,000on players and sold £116,500,000 worth of players giving a net spend of -£31,350,000, or -£6,270,000 per season. I repeat, a profit of £6,270,000 per year from player sales after new purchases.

(Link to figures) - If you look in the 2003-2011 period you can include much more of Chelsea's spending to highlight the huge investment they've seen.

To look at it another way, lets review spending on player wages in the season 2010-2011 when Manchester United won the league. 46% of their revenue went towards paying the players' wages. Compare that to Manchester City who spent 114% of their revenue on paying their players' wages.

Interestingly, the gap in wages between these two clubs isn't that significant. Manchester United paid £153m on wages that year compared to Manchester City who paid £174m. The major difference is in the amount of revenue these two clubs generate. Manchester United, along with most other clubs in the Premier League, have built themselves up to be able to afford these wage demands sustainably within their business model. Manchester City, however, have flushed hundreds of millions into the club that comes from the pocket of the owners rather than the profitability the club itself is capable of generating.

Incidentally, Chelsea continued to pay the highest wages having paid £191m in the 2010-2011 season , which is 92% of revenue.

For reference, Arsenal paid £124m in wages (48% of revenue) and Liverpool £135 (73% of revenue) in the 2010-2011 season.

(Link to figures)
(Link to figures)

In the world rankings of football club's revenues Manchester United are 3rd after Real Madrid and Barcelona with a revenue of €367m. Arsenal are 5th with €251.1m and Chelsea catching in 6th with €249.8. Liverpool are 9th in the rankings with a revenue of €203.3m. Down in 12th and behind Tottenham Hotspur is Manchester City with a revenue of €169.6.

(Link to figures)

So down to the real question; am I jealous and bitter of the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. No. Do I wish Arsenal had that kind of spending power? Only in moments of madness.

The way these two clubs, and indeed a few others in different leagues, are run is frankly absurd, unsustainable, and perhaps even a little unethical.

Don't even get me started on the somewhat dubious sponsorship deal Manchester City secured to rationalise and obscure some of their spending. Read here for more info.

For all my moaning about Arsenal, I have to praise the pursuit of a stable financial model. Interestingly, debate looms around the possibility of a rights issue for Arsenal that would either clear the debt and increase future profits or allow us to have a big pot of cash to binge on players at no risk to continuing to meet our debt obligations. There's a great article here explaining the debate in full and what it would mean for the club.
 
Last edited:
The fact is, you may not like the way football is run these days - I certainly don't and would have loved to have won the league with a load of Manchester lads in the starting 11 like the old celtic 'Lisbon lions' - but spending to win is now the way of the world.

not many people though can say hand on heart that if a sugar daddy took over their club and attracted top world class players then they would be upset.

I agree wholeheartedly with the ethical arguement but again, that's the way it is.

I just get sick and tired hearing jealous fans slating city when they would love exactly the same thing we've got to happen at their club, and that's before the whinging starts from manure fans who never complained about being the first English club to really splash the cash - let's not forget in the recent derby uniteds starting 11 cost more than ours.
 
pooley said:
Funny how all these people who complain about city and Chelsea splashing the cash never moaned when their teams were breaking transfer records.

Double standards and a bit bitter ???
Click to expand...

United were indeed the big spenders in years gone by but having that money available was reward for the club's own succes in both commercial and footballing terms. Better players brought about more success which in turn enabled continued commercial growth, further investment in players and so on and so on

Chelsea and City simply have players bought for them.

I wouldn't say I'm bitter but I certainly don't consider the spending to be the same scenario nor do I consider the resulting success to be of equal merit to the club.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
United were indeed the big spenders in years gone by but having that money available was reward for the club's own succes in both commercial and footballing terms. Better players brought about more success which in turn enabled continued commercial growth, further investment in players and so on and so on

Chelsea and City simply have players bought for them.

I wouldn't say I'm bitter but I certainly don't consider the spending to be the same scenario nor do I consider the resulting success to be of equal merit to the club.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For all the rivalry that exists between Arsenal and United I hope you'd agree in saying that there is a lot of mutual respect given each way because of how they've developed their clubs over the centuries.

Teams like Chelsea and City can make no such claims, and deserve no such respect. They got lucky in that some unaffiliated rich man plucked their name out of the hat and adopted them as their indulgent play thing. Sure, they've won the premier league and some other trophies between them but in my eyes, and indeed in the eyes of many other football fans, you haven't actually earned that trophy. It was bought for you by some rich man from thousands of miles away who needed a way to dent his fortunes.

Bitter? Slightly. Resentful? Very. Outraged? Extremely. Jealous? Never.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'm going to indulge you with this discussion because this argument is a particular bug bear of mine.

Firstly, lets have a look at the spending of Premier League clubs.

In the period of 2006-2011 Manchester City have spent £531,670,000 on players and sold £112,800,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £418,870,000, or £83,774,000 per season.

In the same period Chelsea have spent £282,300,000 on players and sold£126,400,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £155,900,000, or £31,180,000 per season.

The third biggest net spend in this period is Liverpool who have spent £309,640,000 on players and sold £226,330,000 worth of players giving a net figure of £83,310,000, or £16,662,000 per season.

Manchester United are the 8th largest net spenders having spent £217,200,000 on players and sold £165,600,000 worth of players resulting in a net spend of £51,600,000, or £10,320,000 per season.

Arsenal, by contrast, have spent £85,150,000on players and sold £116,500,000 worth of players giving a net spend of -£31,350,000, or -£6,270,000 per season. I repeat, a profit of £6,270,000 per year from player sales after new purchases.

(Link to figures) - If you look in the 2003-2011 period you can include much more of Chelsea's spending to highlight the huge investment they've seen.

To look at it another way, lets review spending on player wages in the season 2010-2011 when Manchester United won the league. 46% of their revenue went towards paying the players' wages. Compare that to Manchester City who spent 114% of their revenue on paying their players' wages.

Interestingly, the gap in wages between these two clubs isn't that significant. Manchester United paid £153m on wages that year compared to Manchester City who paid £174m. The major difference is in the amount of revenue these two clubs generate. Manchester United, along with most other clubs in the Premier League, have built themselves up to be able to afford these wage demands sustainably within their business model. Manchester City, however, have flushed hundreds of millions into the club that comes from the pocket of the owners rather than the profitability the club itself is capable of generating.

Incidentally, Chelsea continued to pay the highest wages having paid £191m in the 2010-2011 season , which is 92% of revenue.

For reference, Arsenal paid £124m in wages (48% of revenue) and Liverpool £135 (73% of revenue) in the 2010-2011 season.

(Link to figures)
(Link to figures)

In the world rankings of football club's revenues Manchester United are 3rd after Real Madrid and Barcelona with a revenue of €367m. Arsenal are 5th with €251.1m and Chelsea catching in 6th with €249.8. Liverpool are 9th in the rankings with a revenue of €203.3m. Down in 12th and behind Tottenham Hotspur is Manchester City with a revenue of €169.6.

(Link to figures)

So down to the real question; am I jealous and bitter of the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. No. Do I wish Arsenal had that kind of spending power? Only in moments of madness.

The way these two clubs, and indeed a few others in different leagues, are run is frankly absurd, unsustainable, and perhaps even a little unethical.

Don't even get me started on the somewhat dubious sponsorship deal Manchester City secured to rationalise and obscure some of their spending. Read here for more info.

For all my moaning about Arsenal, I have to praise the pursuit of a stable financial model. Interestingly, debate looms around the possibility of a rights issue for Arsenal that would either clear the debt and increase future profits or allow us to have a big pot of cash to binge on players at no risk to continuing to meet our debt obligations. There's a great article here explaining the debate in full and what it would mean for the club.
Click to expand...

It's an era, mate. Read what you want. You can chuck figures at me all day and all night for all I give! The fact of it is that the premier league and as it used to stand was an abysmal second rate league to the likes of the Italian, Spanish, and German leagues, until money came in from sky/FA and overseas players. And what your seeing now is the injection and foresight of that. An ambition to compete within itself and grasp the Euopean stage by its balls.

I seem to remember recently, without naming, several English clubs challenging for, not only honours of the PL but also the crown in europe as well. Yep, England have suffered in this influx of foreigners, but who's to blame here? Millionaires, Billionaires? I don't see the likes of Abramovich signing up the next English star. Do You?

Do you want the best league in the world that is coveted by so many or a league which is second rate? Let’s take the Baca team for instance. Arguably the best the team on the planet, no cost there then! They just grouped together a bunch of no hoppers and won it all. Only now, some would say, they have the best players on the planet. Guff. World is full of brilliant, talented players. Yep, it’s a spending era, yep it might get under the skin but, what do you care? Of course any lesser team without such funds is going to have to ante up in some special way and beg, borrow, steal players, but take heart there are still 20 teams in the prem with only 3 who get the chop!!!


My guess is football life is not down to the incrediable, amazing, cheaply, put together team like 'Arsenal' even though it cost millions of pounds. (imagine how that would look from a non supporter.) Its the fact you don't like the way football is heading! I do:razz:
 
Vantage said:
It's an era, mate. Read what you want. You can chuck figures at me all day and all night for all I give! The fact of it is that the premier league and as it used to stand was an abysmal second rate league to the likes of the Italian, Spanish, and German leagues, until money came in from sky/FA and overseas players. And what your seeing now is the injection and foresight of that. An ambition to compete within itself and grasp the Euopean stage by its balls.

I seem to remember recently, without naming, several English clubs challenging for, not only honours of the PL but also the crown in europe as well. Yep, England have suffered in this influx of foreigners, but who's to blame here? Millionaires, Billionaires? I don't see the likes of Abramovich signing up the next English star. Do You?

Do you want the best league in the world that is coveted by so many or a league which is second rate? Let’s take the Baca team for instance. Arguably the best the team on the planet, no cost there then! They just grouped together a bunch of no hoppers and won it all. Only now, some would say, they have the best players on the planet. Guff. World is full of brilliant, talented players. Yep, it’s a spending era, yep it might get under the skin but, what do you care? Of course any lesser team without such funds is going to have to ante up in some special way and beg, borrow, steal players, but take heart there are still 20 teams in the prem with only 3 who get the chop!!!


My guess is football life is not down to the incrediable, amazing, cheaply, put together team like 'Arsenal' even though it cost millions of pounds. (imagine how that would look from a non supporter.) Its the fact you don't like the way football is heading! I do:razz:
Click to expand...

Well done on completely missing my point and then writing a response that took me 5 read-throughs to try and make any sense of.

The revitalisation of the league by the BSkyB investment in 1990 is entirely unconnected to any club takeovers by extraordinarily rich owners.

Your point regarding Barca makes absolutely no sense. There's a huge fundamental difference between a team like Barca and Chelsea or City and that is that they have a club infrastructure, fan base, and excellent youth academy sufficient to sustain the amount they spend on players and the quality they have. They aren't spending 90% or 114% of the revenue they make in a year on player wages alone, before you even consider the tens of millions of pounds of other costs.

Of course you like what's happening because your team is finally seeing some success after well over half a billion pounds worth of investment has dragged you from mediocrity. That change isn't something the club has earned, it's not something the club itself can afford to pay for, and it certainly isn't something to be admired. It's all down to one unbelievably wealthy individual throwing money above and beyond the club's own means at players in an effort to compete with those other clubs domestically and internationally that have built themselves up to be wealthy over decades of responsible and sustainable club management.

I'm not disgruntled about the success of these clubs. Indeed, I think the more competitive domestic and international leagues are the more enjoyable they are to watch, but to simply throw endless cash at something until you're finally at a comparable level is a **** way for a club to make a name for itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top