Liverpool on top of the EPL ladder.....sort of

[BigPete33]

You have spectacularly missed the point.

Arsenal spend stuff all, that is why they are a good example.

Just because they have money coming in from sponsorship etc, doesn't mean it's actually being spent on players - because it clearly isn't.

Chelsea seem to have actually spent stuff all this season too (looking at transfers in AND out).

Man Utd spent 30 mil on ONE player (Berbatov) but got a large chunk of that back from transfers out and paying less in wages due to loan deals, so in effect spent stuff all.

Liverpool spent 20 mil on Robbie Keane but got a large chunk of that back for the same reasons (just selling Crouch was 11 mil).

So from that the 'big 4' have spent STUFF ALL.

Let's look at Stoke, because they SUCK.

Ins: Seyi George Olofinjana (Wolves, £3m), Thomas Sorensen (unattached), Dave Kitson (Reading, £5.5m), Abdoulaye Faye (Newcastle, £2.25m), Amdy Faye (Charlton, undisclosed), Andrew Davies (Southampton, £1.3m), Ibrahima Sonko (Reading, £2m), Danny Higginbotham (Sunderland, undisclosed), Tom Soares (Crystal Palace, £1.25m), Michael Tonge (Sheffield United, £2m).

Outs: Marlon Broomes (Blackpool, free), Ryan Shotton (Tranmere, loan), Jon Parkin (Preston, loan).


Pretty much all they have done is SPEND (possibly more than some of the big 4), which is what you are trying to tell me they basically HAVE to do to be any good.

I bet you $50 they get relegated because it's NOT JUST ABOUT THE MONEY.

There is a large gap between the top of the table and the bottom. There's 20 clubs benny the cunt - there's going to be a gap.
You are not giving enough credit to things like sound business plans, good managers, good youth policies, and stability. THAT is a large part of why there's such a difference between top and bottom.

[BigPete33]

In addition, here's what the 'big 4' have done for this season.

ARSENAL
Ins: Mikael Silvestre (Man Utd, undisclosed), Aaron Ramsey (Cardiff, £5m), Samir Nasri (Marseille, undisclosed), Amaury Bischoff (Werder Bremen, undisclosed).

Outs: Gilberto Silva (Panathinaikos, £1m), Alexander Hleb (Barcelona, £11.8m), 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).

LIVERPOOL
Ins: David Ngog (Paris St Germain, undisclosed), Emmanuel Mendy (Murcia Deportivo, free), Diego Cavalieri (Palmeiras, undisclosed), Andrea Dossena (Udinese, undisclosed), Philipp Degen (Borussia Dortmund, free), Robbie Keane (Tottenham, £20.3m), Vitor Flora (Botafogo, free), Peter Gulacsi (MTK Hungaria, undisclosed), Albert Riera (Espanyol, undisclosed).

Outs: Jack Hobbs (Leicester, loan), Godwin Antwi (Tranmere, loan), Adam Hammill (Blackpool, loan), Scott Carson (West Brom, £3.25m), Peter Crouch (Portsmouth, £11m), Harry Kewell (Galatasaray, free), Paul Anderson (Nottingham Forest, loan), Anthony le Tallec (Le Mans, undisclosed), John Arne Riise (Roma, £4m), Besian Idrizaj (Wacker Tirol, free), Danny Guthrie (Newcastle, undisclosed), Robbie Threlfall (Hereford, loan), David Martin (Leicester, loan), Sebastian Leto (Olympiakos, loan), Steve Finnan (Espanyol, undisclosed), Andriy Voronin (Hertha Berlin, Loan).

CHELSEA
Ins: Jose Bosingwa (FC Porto, £16.2m), Deco (Barcelona, £8m), Mineiro (Unattached).

Outs: Steve Sidwell (Aston Villa, £5m), Ben Sahar (Portsmouth, loan), Ryan Bertrand (Norwich, loan), Slobodan Rajkovic (FC Twente, loan), Claude Makelele (Paris St Germain, free), Khalid Boulahrouz (Stuttgart, £4m), Tal Ben Haim (Manchester City, undisclosed), Shaun Cummings (MK Dons, loan), Anthony Grant (Southend, free), Claudio Pizarro (Werder Bremen, loan), Andriy Shevchenko (AC Milan, undisclosed), Shaun Wright-Phillips (Manchester City, undisclosed)

MANCHESTER UNITED
Ins: Dimitar Berbatov (Tottenham, £30.75m).

Outs: Dong Fangzhuo (Released), Mikael Silvestre (Arsenal, undisclosed), Adam Eckersley (AC Horsens, free), Gerard Pique (Barcelona, £5m), Tom Heaton (Cardiff City, loan), Chris Eagles (Burnley, £1m), Danny Simpson (Blackburn, loan), Lee Martin (Nottingham Forest, loan) Louis Saha (Everton, undisclosed), Fraizer Campbell (Tottenham, loan).

[Bacon]

Pete, Stoke aren't a good example, cos they are newly promoted. They needed to buy players in order to compete with the higher level.

I'd suggest you look at Pompey. Since they've been bought by their Ukrainian sugar-daddy, they've spent a bucketload.

And they are still no good (but getting better). But then every 2 years, 'Arry's gonna complain about the Africans Nations Cup taking 40% of his starting line-up, yet he's the one who bought the Africans, cos they were cheaper.

[BigPete33]

I deliberately avoided Portsmouth because whilst they do indeed have a Russian sugar daddy they've spent what appears to be very little (at least to a non-fan who can't go past Chelsea) and still done well.

You ruined my surprise Bacon!

[bennymacca]

Arsenal spend stuff all, that is why they are a good example.

Just because they have money coming in from sponsorship etc, doesn't mean it's actually being spent on players - because it clearly isn't.

how is that a good business plan? why would you not spend money on getting players?

Let's look at Stoke, because they SUCK.

comparing stoke to arsenal is ridiculous pete.

of course they have to spend money on players, they were in the championship last year. how can you compare them to a well established team that has been able to build a team over many years because of the huge amounts of cash they can accumulate

There is a large gap between the top of the table and the bottom

This is my point pete. the gap is much much much larger than sports that have a salary cap.

You are not giving enough credit to things like sound business plans,

you don't get a good business plan out of thin air - the clubs with the most money to invest in things like this are the ones that do well. stoke have to spend all of their hard earned on players just to compete.

so the rich clubs have an advantage, which is what i have been saying all along.

good managers

money gets you the best managers. if you are good manager at a crap club, then you are snapped up by a bigger club who can pay you lots more.

youth policies

youth policies are only worth their salt if you can retain your players once you develop them.

and if you are a young player, wouldn't you wanna go to the richest clubs?

stability

once again, good cash flows gives you stability.


all of the things you have mentioned are undoubtedly correct pete. just being rich doesn't automatically make you a winning team. but this is not my point. my point is that you are not able to build a winning team without lots of cash.

in other words, rich clubs can be crap, but winning clubs are never ever poor.

do you understand where i am coming from pete? i think we might be arguing slightly different things here.

[Bacon]

I deliberately avoided Portsmouth because whilst they do indeed have a Russian sugar daddy they've spent what appears to be very little (at least to a non-fan who can't go past Chelsea) and still done well.

You ruined my surprise Bacon!

Maybe in total, they've spent little, but they paid a lot for Defoe, Crouch (the 2nd time!), Diarra, Nugent, Yakubu, Benjani, but re-couped fees on them.

They got lucky with Sol & Teflon.

[BigPete33]

My main point on Stoke was that they have indeed spent (and yes they did have to because newly promoted) but they still have not spent wisely IMHO and they will still suck because of it.

Arsenal don't spend large on players benny the cunt because they very deliberately spend smaller sums of money on younger, still developing players and they usually hang onto them. Saves them an absolute fortune - Liverpool have recently adopted a very similar approach and Newcastle attempted to but the Geordies scared off the boss cos he actually has half a brain and might have taken them somewhere.

What Arsenal spend their money on is their new stadium, and yes that WILL enable them to have even more money - that they still won't need to spend on players.

benny the cunt, clubs get money practically thrown at them as soon as they get into the Premier League. Just the money from TV rights is HUGE. There's no Russian sugar daddy required in order to have and maintain a sound business plan.

Already well recognised managers do cost more money to acquire, but not as much as players! New managers such as Roy Keane and Paul Ince are already in the Premier League but for different reasons. Paul Ince kept getting clubs promoted then leaving to a bigger club. Roy Keane got Sunderland promoted (from ROCK BOTTOM of the Championship) and stuck with them and here they are in their second straight EPL season. Both credible managers but neither cost huge sums of money to acquire.

Yes, having more money than most other clubs does automatically afford you more choices. No, it's NOT a pre-requisite to doing well as there's already large sums of money being thrust in your general direction.

I like Sunderland at the moment because they are a club that i feel illustrates this point well. Previously, they sucked more arse than a gay hoover. They were making bad decisions left right and centre, constantly firing managers if their team wasn't performing and then getting relegated right after being promoted - very much in the 'what not to do' mould. Now, they have actually recruited a manager who wasn't a complete muppet and they're actually listening to him and that's about the only thing that's changed. Low and behold they're still in the premier league and steadily climbing the ladder. Give them time and they will be regularly challenging for Europe if not better and all without a Russian sugar daddy.


As far as a salary cap goes... that's VERY tricky. I am not against the idea but geez they'd want to get it right. The main problem lies in that they can't just place one on the EPL because then that'd give the rest of Europe an advantage in ANY player transfer negotiations - Real Madrid anyone?

Can anyone find the salary cap structure for the A-League? I had a quick look but no luck.

[bennymacca]

good points pete

but i am talking about teams that will win the premiership - not teams that will climb the ladder and challenge for european spots.

i think the whole money/good team thing is a bit of a self reinforcing thing. you get money because u have star players, which earn you more money etc.

this leaves the clubs that don't have money out of the loop. there are very few ways to break that loop. one of them is to have some filthy rich dude buy you out, but this doesn't solve the problems automatically, although throwing enough money at something can solve most problems.

benny the cunt, clubs get money practically thrown at them as soon as they get into the Premier League. Just the money from TV rights is HUGE.

yeah but that would pale into insignificance if you add all of the sponsorship, merchandise and other money that the bigger clubs would get, compared to the smaller clubs.

[BigPete33]

We're going in circles here

It's not what you've got, it's how you spend it.

They all have enough money to at least get themselves heading in the right direction, some of them just do a really crap job of it. ALL clubs have periods of good and bad, even the 'big 4'.

I started a new topic just for the salary cap, get on it.

[bennymacca]

We're going in circles here

weeeeeee isn't if fun!!

ALL clubs have periods of good and bad, even the 'big 4'.

OMFG arsenal finished 6th this year, and didn't win a major trophy. what a DISASTER.

on the other hand, porstmouth finish 6th, and its a great success.

this is my point.


but yes, i am going to stop now, i feel dizzy with the amount if circles we are going in.