2011/2012 English Premier League thread

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Locke

And yeah, money wins the title. It always has.

No it doesn't. I've shown how it doesn't. Refute it.

Go to the link I posted above. The team that spends the net most does NOT win the title the vast majority of the time.

Just because you and NBC keep repeating it does not make it true.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No it doesn't. I've shown how it doesn't. Refute it.

Go to the link I posted above. The team that spends the net most does NOT win the title the vast majority of the time.

Just because you and NBC keep repeating it does not make it true.

yes it does

you are showing history over the last 20 years, United haven't spent recently when transfer fees were inflated

their number is lower, but I would guess that in at least half of the years of the premier league they spent more money than anyone else

[NBC]

Most discussions here, that revolve around transfers and money changing hands over players typically is NOT about the net spend. When the August and January transfer windows close and discussions about club spending abound - it is just that, spending. No one really talks in terms of bought and sold, net this, plus/minus that. It just doesn't happen.

Also, I've noticed that one never hears United "supporters" mention anything about wages. Aren't wages yet another metric that people use when discussing football finances? Transfer fees are one thing, yes, but a club's annual wage bill is usually a higher monetary value than the transfer purchases for one year, no?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

you are showing history over the last 20 years, United haven't spent recently when transfer fees were inflated

their number is lower, but I would guess that in at least half of the years of the premier league they spent more money than anyone else

????

The purchased gross numbers are there to see?

And as for the second paragraph I've already mentioned that they spent more than anyone else in TWO of their 13 championship seasons.

edit to add ... NBC, I see you've changed your record to wages now. When you're throwing out these random statements try and back them up or else they become nothing more than ..... random statements.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by NBC

Also, I've noticed that one never hears United "supporters" mention anything about wages. Aren't wages yet another metric that people use when discussing football finances? Transfer fees are one thing, yes, but a club's annual wage bill is usually a higher monetary value than the transfer purchases for one year, no?

I always hear that wages argument, but it's not like the players of City, Chelsea and other clubs are playing for a beer and a sandwich, you know ...

And is there a reason why you put supporters in quotation marks?

[carom]

I know no one cares about Chelsea today, but here are my photos from the game:

From my seat:


Stamford Bridge from the north stand:







FWIW the Chelsea fans boo'd when the announcer said that City and QPR had a draw, then they cheered a second later when he said that City had scored a late(r) goal.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Bagor

????

The purchased gross numbers are there to see?

And as for the second paragraph I've already mentioned that they spent more than anyone else in TWO of their 13 championship seasons.

edit to add ... NBC, I see you've changed your record to wages now. When you're throwing out these random statements try and back them up or else they become nothing more than ..... random statements.

yes the gross numbers are there, but you are not taking in to account the rise in sales

United did their buying when the market was much lower now

Rio Ferdinand went for an at the time record of 30m, if more clubs had United money what Rooney was bought for could have been doubled

they bought when they were by far the richest club around, now there are about 6 or 7 clubs who can spend whatever they want, which raises the prices

United have bought their way to titles just as much as Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, and now City have

[NBC]

Originally Posted by devo22

I always hear that wages argument, but it's not like the players of City, Chelsea and other clubs are playing for a beer and a sandwich, you know ...

And is there a reason why you put supporters in quotation marks?

I agree with the wages argument. Chelsea, City and United are the three biggest spenders.

2009:

MUFC - £123 m
MCFC - £82.6 m
CFC - 167.1 m

2010:
MUFC - £131 m
MCFC - £133.3 m
CFC - £174.11 m

My point to all of this is that while City have spent egregiously on both transfers and salaries over the past four seasons, United are hardly a model of fiscal responsibility. They are in the top four of all-time Premier League spenders and have a very high wage bill at the club. That is not to say this is unique to them - hardly. It is a substantial problem across the board in Europe.

United supporters (no inverted commas this time) crying foul over how much City spends rings hollow for me. They've spent massively over the past 20 years on both transfers and wages, as have Chelsea, Liverpool, etc. They all spend ridiculous amounts on players and wages. I don't begrudge City for spending the way that they have. It is the way business is done in the Premier League these days and they are simply playing catch up and doing what every other professional football club in their position would do - spend.

People here in the South-East hate Crawley Town for the same reason. They went from being a provincial club in the Conference to League One in a few seasons, due to a new owner at the club. He's invested money (legally) into the club and they've made some good purchases and sales. But people hate them because they spend when other clubs like Wycombe, Gillingham, etc, cannot.

I personally would love to see a much more rigorous set of financial considerations placed upon EPL clubs - probably akin to some sort of hard cap. That will never happen, though I argue for its benefits with my neighbour (MCFC) fan all the time.

As long as wealthy oil sheikhs and ex-Soviet kleptocrats are interested in football ownership, and Rupert Murdoch keeps throwing money at the FA to have exclusive broadcast rights and the pot of Champions League money keeps on growing, this is only going to get worse. And by worse I mean that the rich clubs will keep spending huge sums on players and wages and all the other clubs will have to fight it out for a top 10 finish and a lengthy Cup run.

Oh and I do the "" thing because I'm a pedant.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

United did their buying when the market was much lower now

It was low for everyone?

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

they bought when they were by far the richest club around, now there are about 6 or 7 clubs who can spend whatever they want, which raises the prices

United have bought their way to titles just as much as Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, and now City have

I repeat ..... when they won their titles they were NOT the highest buyers in 11/13 seasons. 98/99 aside it's not even close to being debatable.

Let's talk about what they paid for Rooney but ignore what they got for Beckham just before? Or that Ferdinand cost 10M when Staam is taken into account?

When Chelsea won their 3 they were by far the highest spenders on 2 occasions and 2nd to city (100M) on the other. When city won theirs .... well.

If titles could be bought Liverpool would have about 3-4.

[d_phaneuf]

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bagor

It was low for everyone?



I repeat ..... when they won their titles they were NOT the highest buyers in 11/13 seasons. 98/99 aside it's not even close to being debatable.

Let's talk about what they paid for Rooney but ignore what they got for Beckham just before? Or that Ferdinand cost 10M when Staam is taken into account?

When Chelsea won their 3 they were by far the highest spenders on 2 occasions and 2nd to city (100M) on the other. When city won theirs .... well.

If titles could be bought Liverpool would have about 3-4.

Lol you are making it sound like united are some poor team that wins due to an unreal youth system. Their gross number is inflated due to huge fees they recieved for Becks and Ronaldo.

They were still top 4 in spending since 92, and more likely top 2 for most of it since City has only spent lots for 4 years now and Chelsea the last 10 years.

United is just as guilty at "buying" championships as the rest, they are just better at poaching other teams talented youth on the cheap and then sell them for huge profit when their value is at its highest.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

I'm happy not to see Given in that picture. Its too bad Villa managed to stay up, him being relegated would have been satisfying.

Not a great game by Newcastle today but I'm excited to see the team in Europe again.

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Fergie all class ........... as usual.

hahahahahahaha

It's funny 'cuz you're being serious.

[united]

Hell of a day for football and the craziest finish perhaps ever. One of those instances where it's such an unbelievable turn of events you can't even be mad but just laugh at what you just saw, and as an MUFC fan take your hat off at MCFC's season as they were deserved winners.

How sad is it that after what we witnessed today and the huge achievement MCFC just accomplished with their history, the majority of the posts are blindly anti-MUFC? Speaks for itself regarding the quality of posts when you see that. Although I suppose when another team losing is of greater importance than your own team winning it makes sense, as funny as those priorities are.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Lol you are making it sound like united are some poor team that wins due to an unreal youth system. Their gross number is inflated due to huge fees they recieved for Becks and Ronaldo.

What you guys call inflated, logical fans call smart. I still haven't found a source that shows that MUFC was the only team that could have paid £12M for Ronaldo while other teams were rejected, as you guys constantly imply...can you provide one? What is MUFC supposed to do? Turn down the fees offered to them for players or negotiate lower ones? I don't understand the logic here. Do you think whatever team you support would have stopped and said "you know what, fans on the internet will whine about how that price skews net spends, can you offer us less"? They paid for him as any team could have, developed him into a star as any team could have, and profited off it as any team would have. Seems like simple and logical business but apparently not.

If Barca was to sell Messi for the incredible fee that would be required, are they suddenly guilty of being a huge evil team that gets inflated prices? No. They are selling Messi for what another team is willing to pay, therefore it's sound business.

Originally Posted by NBC

I love diehard North American Manchester United fans.

What does that even mean? So all of us North American residents suddenly can't support big clubs because of where we currently live? I guess as a Calgary resident I should just quit having an interest in NFL, MLB, NBA, F1, etc., as there are no teams in those leagues that call Calgary home. Sorry, Jagger, even though you grew up in Liverpool (I think) you can't support them any more because you are a resident of North America. Sound logic.

[NBC]

I believe the key to that statement was diehard. No one ever made the claim that people can or cannot support whoever they wish. But the fervor that many of these people have for what seems to be nothing more than a random choice borders on lunacy. People have reasons for choosing to support a particular team/club, some reasons, such as geographic location, family history, involvement with said club, are certainly better than others. While I do not think that fanaticism and ardent zeal is a good thing, I can at least understand why it is that many Bolton supporters were upset that they were relegated, because a plurality of Bolton supporters are from Bolton. It actually means something to them - community pride, increased revenues, etc. Having one of these club "supporters" from Western Canada, Singapore or the Eastern Cape get all bent out of shape because their somewhat randomly selected English Premier League side didn't win the title that year is odd, very odd, and most people here (in the actual home of the EPL) find it odd too. Again this is not to suggest that people should not have an interest in foreign leagues, because they can. It is the level of fervor and aggression that people have in doing it.

Oh and good work in bringing Jagger into this debate. He is one of the only individuals posting here that I can understand being upset at his club of choice's poor state of affairs. Why? Because he is from Merseyside. And if I was going to have a cheeky punt, I'd wager that he comes from a long line of supporters who have proudly (though not currently) worn the red and white. Connections are a big thing for people when they choose to support a particular club. Randomly choosing to support the biggest or most successful club at the time then claiming them as one's own, irritates many people, myself included.

Go ahead, support whomever you want, glory hunt to your heart's content. My only wish is for these types of "supporters" to not get as visibly upset over results that have little impact upon their day to day lives and to have some perspective in all of it. It is a big ask I know, but one that is eminently achievable.

[NBC]

It seems that this debate over football finances has become a victim of my favoured element of linguistics - semantics.

What are we talking about when we the phrase 'football finances' is mentioned? Some refer to a gross purchase, others a net spend, and others speak in terms of salaries/wages. All of these aspects are key to any discussion on the state of football finances in the United Kingdom.

Lots of numbers, wonderful numbers have been presented to try and show how one club is acting in a more fiscally responsible way than other clubs. The enjoyable thing about a quantitative methodological approach using a data set such as the one that has been provided is how malleable the data set is.

The one, single, unifying feature of this discussion is this: money = championships. No matter how you look at it, the teams that spend high, reap the rewards. Is this to say that the highest spending club wins the title each and every season? No. As one poster has articulately demonstrated MUFC has had the highest (or lowest, I can't remember) net spend on two separate occasions, to go along with their 12 titles. MCFC has been busy in the transfer market over the past four seasons and have one title to show for it. CFC have been spending like mad since 2003-04 and have three titles to display at Stamford Bridge (though the real Stamford Bridge is in the East Riding of Yorkshire). Analyzing the data oneself one sees a fairly consistent trend in that high spending correlates directly to the ability to win championships. Looking at the past 20 years of the EPL, the four highest spenders - in terms of pounds sterling spent on annual player purchases - have won 16 of the 20 league titles.

What does this suggest? Simply put, money = championships. You have to spend, and spend considerably to win. This says nothing of selling, as that isn't forming part of this analysis. Including this current season, the four biggest spenders are:

1. CFC - £744.4 m
2. MCFC - £649.18 m
3. LFC - £552 m
4. MUFC - £482 m

With the exception of LFC, each of these clubs have won the championship. Some, obviously are better value than others, but that is not and has not been the point. Across the board and over the past 20 years, big spending teams win titles.

If economy of value is what one chooses to focus on, so be it. Certain clubs have provided a much greater return of investment than others, that is obvious from the data on hand. However, spending has a cumulative effect. For example, when Blackburn Rovers won the title in 1994-95, they spent £1.8 m on players that season. Looking more closely one would see that in the two previous years, they spent £8.19 m and £13.65 m respectively. They were purchased by lifelong Rovers fan Jack Walker during the 1990-91 season and he immediately invested some much needed capital into ailing Rovers. This eventually culminated in the 1994-95 EPL title. In short, looking at the numbers of a single season may prove to be misleading. Having a broader look across the history of the EPL provides a somewhat different perspective.

As stated earlier, money = championships. The single season highest spender does not always win the championship for that particular season - that has been established. But the teams that have spent the most, win the most - that has been established. So for one set of fans to decry another for "buying the championship" when that club has been one of the biggest spenders throughout the history of the league, seems a bit "off". If economy of value and a decent net spend make one feel better then by all means feel better. But, and this is the sticky wicket for pedants like myself, to claim some sort of moral high ground when discussing football transfer spending, and supporting a club that has spent nearly £500 m in player transfers doesn't fly. Fans of Wigan, Wolves and possibly even Everton can rue the fact at how the almighty pound is ruining football. Personally I don't think MUFC (or CFC, MCFC, LFC) fans can make the same argument and feel any sense of injustice.

Is that any more logical?

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by NBC

Oh and good work in bringing Jagger into this debate. He is one of the only individuals posting here that I can understand being upset at his club of choice's poor state of affairs. Why? Because he is from Merseyside. And if I was going to have a cheeky punt,I'd wager that he comes from a long line of supporters who have proudly (though not currently) worn the red and white. Connections are a big thing for people when they choose to support a particular club.
.

On the contrary. I'll always be proud to wear the red and white, no matter what. They had a pitiful season, no doubt, Mickey Mouse Cup notwithstanding, but I'm still proud to call myself a Liverpool fan. Always will be.

I do get your argument though, NBC, about strong ties etc.

Silly debate going on here though.

We just witnessed one of the most amazing title wins EVER. It's even bigger than Arsenal's 2-0 win at Liverpool which I unfortunately witnessed in person. That was the biggest disappointment I've ever felt as a fan of a team but looking back was an amazing result for Arsenal and for the league as a whole. Man City's comeback from the dead was even better. It was incredible stuff. You couldn't help but get caught up in it. Who friggin cares how much money they spent? That was an incredible sporting moment that will go down in history. It's why we all watch sports for cripes sake.

I'm still catching my breath.

Well done City!

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Bagor

When Chelsea won their 3 they were by far the highest spenders on 2 occasions and 2nd to city (100M) on the other. When city won theirs .... well.

When City won their championship, yesterday I believe, they were the second highest spenders in the EPL. MCFC spent £76 m on transfers and CFC spent £82.8 m.

[NBC]

Good for you Jagger. Even though as a proud Scouser you should be wearing blue and white, I admire your dedication to your team.

[NBC]

Carom, how did you rate the experience at Stamford Bridge? Looks like from your photos that you had a partially obstructed view. I've read that many seats there have a similar problem.