pete, while i understand you points, i think that you are the one that is not looking at the facts.
with regards to spending money, i am not talking about player transfers only, but whole operating cashflow.
with regards to arsenal, are you seriously trying to tell me that they are not one of the richest clubs in the premier league? come off it.
there is a reason that Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea are nicknamed "The Big 4". now ill answer your pionts.
BigPete33 wrote:Given that they ALL spend copious amounts of cash - your entire argument is useless.
of course they all spend copious amounts of cash, it is the premier football league in the world, probably. BUT if you dont think that the big 4 spend LOTS more than the middle range clubs, then you are in fairyland.
BigPete33 wrote:What I'm trying to get across to you is that they can spend as much money as they want, that's no guarantee that they'll even be top 4.
chelsea!!!!!
you can't really count manchester city yet, as they have only been taken over a week ago. chelsea took a season or two to come good, and look at what has happened since.
BigPete33 wrote:I'll make the assumption that your idea of spend is purely to do with player transfers - more specifically, bringing players in to bolster the team/squad.
wrong assumption pete. transfers is a part of it - but the increased cashflows from marketing gives them a massive advantage over the smaller clubs. this is one of the major reasons that teams like man city probably won't be successful in the short term - the market share of the big 4 clubs is incredible, and this makes it hard to crack into that market. but in the long term, this money for extra players does have an impact because star players = support for their team.
BigPete33 wrote:I don't think anyone other than the clubs own financers or perhaps the leagues governing bodies know the actual figures (because you often see 'undisclosed sum' next to a players name after a transfer) but I'll be very willing to bet Arsenal weren't in the top 4 spenders.
if they weren't in the top 4, they were in the top 5 or 6 pete. what is your argument here?
here is a pretty good quote about arsenal
The difference between the elite and the others was evident last week in Spurs' inability to beat what was effectively Arsenal's reserves, albeit with the considerable assistance of Cesc Fabregas, at home. Much as Arsene Wenger has been criticised for his selection policy in the Carling Cup, reaching the final without once using Thierry Henry, Robin van Persie, Tomas Rosicky, Gilberto Silva, William Gallas or Jens Lehmann would be an unarguable defence of the Arsenal understudies.
BigPete33 wrote:1) Their supporters are ALWAYS whinging about not having spent any money to bring in a known superstar eg: splashing the cash on someone like Robinho (but they weren't whinging when they went 50 odd games undefeated).
pete, your arsenal argument is silly. they are one of the big 4 clubs - they might spend less than man u, but they obviously spend more than say a reading or a portsmouth or someone like that.
BigPete33 wrote:2) They don't really need to because they already have a) a sound business model and b) a manager who is unbeliveably good at spotting raw young talent and then developing them. They consistently appear to be spending less than those around them and they are consistently there or thereabouts.
you are reinforcing my argument pete.
even if the manager has unbelievable talent spotting abilities, this would mean jack carp if they didn't have the money to keep the players at the club
how many times do you see a young player from a smaller premier league club star in the competition, only to be snapped up by a bigger club TO SIT ON THE BENCH!!
this is because these clubs can pay their reserves more money than what other clubs can pay their stars.
BigPete33 wrote:Having said all of that, there's plenty of money that comes back in to clubs from the sale of existing players which somehow always seems to get overlooked by people like your good self benny the cunt
please dont patronise me pete. i am well aware that clubs get money for selling their talent to the bigger clubs. but this wouldn't go close to the dollars generated by the extra exposure that the big 4 clubs have over the rest of the competition.
BigPete33 wrote:I'm only able to find the current season but again, here's Arsenal as an example:
Ins: Mikael Silvestre (Man Utd, undisclosed), Aaron Ramsey (Cardiff, £5m), Samir Nasri (Marseille, undisclosed), Amaury Bischoff (Werder Bremen, undisclosed).
Outs: Gilberto Silva (Panathinaikos, £�), Alexander Hleb (Barcelona, £1�8m), Jens Lehmann (Stuttgart, free), Mathieu Flamini (AC Milan, free), Kerrea Gilbert (Leicester, loan), Nacer Barazite (Derby, loan), Armand Traore (Portsmouth, loan), Philippe Senderos (AC Milan, loan), Justin Hoyte (Middlesbrough, £3m�
So for their transfer spending we don't know the actual numbers but we can see that there's 5 players coming in and 3 leaving plus a few loan deals and free transfers.
Loan deals means that the club they are being loaned to pays their wages (I'm not sure you considered wages).
Free transfers means that they are out of contract and able to walk away for nothing (also called a Bosman).
this only tells me that they already have a good team through previous spending.
BigPete33 wrote:Liverpool won the fricking Champions League without spending anywhere near the kind of money you are alluding to and I can say this because the money that goes out is never far away from the money coming in and I'm happy to dig up the articles if you wish.
wow, you can find one isolated example in the past 15 years of premier league. that really supports your argument
PETE I HAVE 1 QUESTION FOR YOU......
IF THERE WASN'T A SPENDING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BIG 4 AND THE REST, THEN WHY ARE THE REST CONSISTENTLY THE "REST".
WHY DO THEY CONSISTENTLY FAIL TO CHALLENGE THE BIG CLUBS?
