Like Tree294Likes

Premier League 2013/14 early predictions

Reply
Page 47 of 137 FirstFirst ... 39 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 55 ... LastLast
  1. #461

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wanchai
    Posts
    4,453

    I wasn't having a dig by the way although happy with the bite i got .

    I was just saying that it's not fair to label other teams as having 'bought the title' when in essence every single team that has won the premier league, including Blackburn, has spent big to make sure it happens.

    Man United to a lesser extent in the mid nineties to early 00's (But let's not forget Ferdinand 30m, Veron 28m, V Nistelrooy 19m, Forlan 7.5m, Barthez 7.8m, Yorke 12.6m, Stam 10.75m and Cole 6m)

    Special mention to Taibi @ 4.5m hahahaha now that really was a failure.

    The simple fact is, teams need to buy the best players in order to win trophies and that will obviously cost money. Some teams are just luckier than others in inheriting a sugar daddy (chelsea, city) or more clever in terms of penetrating the overseas markets before everyone else (man united).


  2. #462

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913

    Shenwen, calm yourself down. There's nothing less credible than an angry little Man United fan.

    Let me remind you what I originally said:

    With the risk of setting Shenwen on another meltdown, Man Utd's successes was actually borne out of spending massively in the late 80s. This was before the mid-90s when the likes of Scholes and Becks came through.
    What you just provided me demonstrates EXACTLY what I said: Manchester United SPENT MASSIVELY to achieve their success. Yes, one or two other teams did the same, but that doesn't absolve the fact that Manchester United did, and that SAF didn't miraculously come in and transform their existing side into league winners.

    Don't be a pillock. You can have a reasonable conversation without going into meltdown.

  3. #463

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,478
    Quote Originally Posted by shenwen:

    between 88/89 and 92/93 (the period during which SAF had to rebuild the team resulting in first title) spending increases, but not by much comparatively
    MU - 24.5
    AFC - 12
    LFC - 22.5
    TFC - 18
    BRFC - 20
    I'll be honest, I'm struggling to see how that supports the argument that MU didn't outspend their rivals to win the title!
    iliketurtles likes this.

  4. #464

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913

    Plucking random teams isn't as useful as plucking the top two/three and comparing the performances each year against money spent. See below.

    Season 85/86: MUFC 4th (939k), LFC 1st (400k), EFC 2nd (1.1mil)
    Season 86/87: MUFC 11th (65k), EFC 1st (2.4mil), LFC 2nd (700k)
    Season 87/88: MUFC 2nd (2,7mil), LFC (5.5mil) 1st NFFC 3rd (600k)
    Season 88/89: MUFC 11th(2.02mil), AFC 1st (0) LFC 2nd (850k)
    Season 89/90: MUFC 13th (11 mil), LFC1st (3.8mil), AVFC 2nd (1.4mil)
    Season 90/91: MUFC 6th (1,4mil), AFC 1st (2mil), LFC 2nd (2.3mil)

    Yes, these are gross fees, and no, I don't have the time to net these off against all the teams I listed above. The point I made was the amount of money MUFC spent.

    It is quite clear that in the late eighties, MUFC spent an absolute wad load (which they had to do) to achieve their successes. The only myth is that Man U fans cannot accept this.


  5. #465

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913

    So, re-quoting Shenwen:

    Don't enter an argument unless you really know your stuff. At least Trebor has a leg to stand on. Utd did begin spending big (as in sustained big spending rather than one-off big money buys) after 2006.
    Don't patronise people, especially when you yourself provide the evidence for the counter of your argument (i.e. my argument). If Trebor has one leg to stand on, and I apparently have no legs to stand on, you're full blown quadriplegic!
    Trebor likes this.

  6. #466

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tsim Sha Tsui
    Posts
    3,987

    I have nothing against the other clubs who are now owned by sugar daddies and spending big. Arguably, man utd were like that to some extent, but their marketing base was huge and fully supported it.

    If you look back to the last 20 years or so, only a very small handful of clubs have gotten any success at the top level without spending big, off the top of my head I can recall maybe Porto strangely winning the CL, and Dortmund winning the Bundesliga. In modern football, if your club is not going to spend, then it's not going to get any success.

    Tbh, I have no qualms if Man Utd splashed out again soon. Ever since they sold Ronaldo for a world record fee at the time, the only really big spend has been De Gea and maybe Kawaga.



    Sent from my GT-N7100 using GeoClicks mobile app


  7. #467

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wanchai
    Posts
    4,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Proplus:
    Tbh, I have no qualms if Man Utd splashed out again soon. Ever since they sold Ronaldo for a world record fee at the time, the only really big spend has been De Gea and maybe Kawaga.



    Sent from my GT-N7100 using GeoClicks mobile app

    Ermmm did you not see my list - Van Persie? Young? Jones? Fellaini? Zaha? Bebe?
    Last edited by Trebor; 21-01-2014 at 06:11 PM.

  8. #468

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by justjoe86:
    I'll be honest, I'm struggling to see how that supports the argument that MU didn't outspend their rivals to win the title!
    You being serious?

    Difference between spent more, outspent and bought the title.

  9. #469

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    Shenwen, calm yourself down. There's nothing less credible than an angry little Man United fan.

    Let me remind you what I originally said:



    What you just provided me demonstrates EXACTLY what I said: Manchester United SPENT MASSIVELY to achieve their success. Yes, one or two other teams did the same, but that doesn't absolve the fact that Manchester United did, and that SAF didn't miraculously come in and transform their existing side into league winners.

    Don't be a pillock. You can have a reasonable conversation without going into meltdown.
    wow, being proved wrong really upsets you doesn't it?

    You said:

    Man Utd's successes was actually borne out of spending massively in the late 80s.
    I have shown that not be the case. Utd actually spent less than other top teams. The ONLY exception was 89/90. Spin this how you want, but you made a generalisation, got caught out and are now falling back on abusive language. Typical of the uniformed, post-92, soccer saturday football fan.

    I think it is clear to any reader that if anyone is having an online "meltdown', it is certainly not me.
    Last edited by shenwen; 21-01-2014 at 06:21 PM.

  10. #470

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    So, re-quoting Shenwen:



    Don't patronise people, especially when you yourself provide the evidence for the counter of your argument (i.e. my argument). If Trebor has one leg to stand on, and I apparently have no legs to stand on, you're full blown quadriplegic!
    Nope, Trebor said UTD spent big post 2004. He was right. You said 1980s. You was wrong. Thus no legs for you pal.

Reply
Page 47 of 137 FirstFirst ... 39 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 55 ... LastLast