AFL Grand Final

[AceLosesKing]

I think what benny the cunt is trying to say is that even though the middle tier clubs get half a million pounds, or even a million for finishing 11th rather than 13th, it still won't change the fact that next year their extra money is going to have little (if any) impact on who is going to win the competition. The most cashed up teams will still dominate (Man U, Chelsea etc).

[BigPete33]

Again, that's rubbish.

The most cashed up team at the moment is Man City - they just lost to a bunch of no1's and I'll be surprised if they finish higher than 6th.

Chelsea spent over 100 million pounds just on players in Ambramovich's first year and they still didn't win nor did they win last season.

Machester United have been winning the title almost singlehandedly throughout the 90's and 2000's and that was well before the Glazers took over.

[bennymacca]

Again, that's rubbish.

The most cashed up team at the moment is Man City - they just lost to a bunch of no1's and I'll be surprised if they finish higher than 6th.

Chelsea spent over 100 million pounds just on players in Ambramovich's first year and they still didn't win nor did they win last season.

Machester United have been winning the title almost singlehandedly throughout the 90's and 2000's and that was well before the Glazers took over.

answer this pete

how many clubs have won the league in the last 10 years? and how many of those teams would you consider on the second tier in terms of cash spent at the clubs

the answer is NONE

just because chelsea spent up big, it doesn't mean they will win the league. this is because there can only be 1 winner per season

but the inverse is most definitely true.

if you dont spend up, you will never ever win.

Machester United have been winning the title almost singlehandedly throughout the 90's and 2000's and that was well before the Glazers took over.

are you trying to say that manchester united were not in the top tier of spending during the 90s? come on pete

the club that spends the most doesn't automatically win, but if you are not in the top 5 at least, then u have NO HOPE

[BigPete33]

top 5 of what?

top 5 money spenders or top 5 of the league in the season prior?

I've already provided you with examples of why that isn't the case for both situations.

There's little doubt it'll be easier for those already up there but to suggest that one of those 5 will automatically win the league and that all others have no hope is just ridiculous and ill informed.

As I stressed earlier, there are many reasons why a team does well in any given season or in the case of some - for an extended period of time.

Popular opinion suggests it's all about the money.
Anyone with a clue knows it's a hell of a lot more than that.

[AceLosesKing]

Money makes the world go around, the world go around...

[maccatak11]

Pete, spend = wins.

Name me one example of a team who is not in the top 5 of clubs spedning money who had won the league. Not just in the last ten years, but EVER. Since soccer began.

Im am 100% sure what the answer will be.

All of the 'other' things that you also talk about (scouts, manager, board set up, fitness coaches, facilities) ALL RELY ON CASH. Your argument is flawed Pete.

[bennymacca]

answer me this 1 question pete

When was the last team to win the league, that wasn't considered one of the top spending clubs.

i bet you can't answer it

[BigPete33]

My original question was about the AFL regular season, get back in the other topic for this