Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Premier League 23/24
Comments
-
Addick Addict said:I don't think I can recall a player with the number of misses in one season that Jackson has managed to achieve. It's not just that though, it's the fact that so many of his attempts are so horrendous - he's got pace to burn and gets in good positions but then ends up looking like a poor man's Churchino!
Awful, awful player.
This chance, how any professional footballer doesn't get this on target, let alone a £32m striker, baffles me:
https://x.com/avfcfern/status/17828735734151253931 -
I said this during the FA cup game at the weekend. I feel I’ve said everything I need to.lordromford said:I know it’s been said before, but by Christ, Nicolas Jackson is a turd of a player.0 -
Kin ell Graham Stuart’s chubbed up nicely0
-
No more than Everton deserve. Liverpool look very shaky so far.0
-
Have you noticed how much the Everton fans boo. I’ve been to Goodison a few times and they really are a bitter bunch0
-
Rooney's head is huge these days.
0 -
Aren't they booing Liverpool? They're their main rivals....kafka said:Have you noticed how much the Everton fans boo. I’ve been to Goodison a few times and they really are a bitter bunch0 -
Serves me right for Captaining Salah this week!0
-
They just boo life.North Lower Neil said:
Aren't they booing Liverpool? They're their main rivals....kafka said:Have you noticed how much the Everton fans boo. I’ve been to Goodison a few times and they really are a bitter bunch2 -
And me for triple captaining him.killerandflash said:Serves me right for Captaining Salah this week!2 - Sponsored links:
-
Liverpool surely out of the title race if they lose this.0
-
Everton have been shit for years but put them against Liverpool at Goodison and the atmosphere is rocking and they are all over them.
Proper big football club Everton - none of this Chelsea or City bollocks. Maybe it’s the 80s kid in me but I still see them as bigger than them other two I mention.8 -
Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?3
-
Enjoying this, and the Klopp strop afterwards will be even better if it stays like this.
3 -
5
-
I cant remember the last time I saw a Liverpool performance as bad as this.0
-
0
-
Let me down by just being all sad rather than sulky!North Lower Neil said:Enjoying this, and the Klopp strop afterwards will be even better if it stays like this.1 -
I may be wrong but siince Gomez hasn’t been in the starting line up their results have got worse?0
-
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
0 - Sponsored links:
-
4
-
Did you forget last season when they were 8 points clear in April and then had a meltdown?SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
There's also a chance they could blow it again this season. Up until last week City hadn't been top since early November and the title was in Arsenal's hands. 7 wins needed to be champions.........and then they lost to Villa.1 -
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.2 -
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
5 -
It can be argued that they've had to spend those amounts to try and catch up with City in the first place.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
But then City had to spend those amounts to catch up with the top six in the first place... Its a chicken vs egg scenario.
The top clubs were able to make their millions, and were allowed to spend these amounts, because they did so first, and then by sitting at the top table they helped get FFP introduced to try and stop anyone from dislodging them.
Yes Man City are potentially rotten, as they're state owned, same as Newcastle (Yet they don't even appear to be trying to buy their way up the table like Chelsea have been of late) - But lets not pretend that Man City have dominated, and changed the Premier League since they got their millions, the issue is Pep!! - Can see it opening back up again once he buggers off
Man Utd / Chelsea / Leicester / Liverpool have all won the title since they won the lottery
The Premier League was dominated by Man Utd / Chelsea / Arsenal in the years prior to it... Oh and Blackburn1 -
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.1 -
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
1 -
If Chelsea make poor choices of how they invest their money then that is on them.Addick Addict said:
So a net spend differential between City and Chelsea of £100m per annum doesn't help fund the infrastructure that you talk about and a scouting system that finds the Alvarez of the world for £11m? Yet if Brighton does that, it becomes a fantastically run club? All the things you talk about is what the top clubs should be doing. But they don't because the owners want their return each and every year - the Glazers have taken over £1bn out since they became owners of United. City can't keep all the best youngsters they produce but being there gives those players an excellent grounding - just look at Cole Palmer - and that has to be good for England too.SELR_addicks said:
Net spend talk again ignoring the capital investments into Manchester City to have the best worldwide scouting network and negotiation team in the world.Addick Addict said:
I think that you might have made a "snap judgement" here. It's not their "unlimited wallets" that have been the recipe for their success, it's the acquisition of the best players at the right price and having one of, if not the best, coach in the world. Net spend over the last six seasons:SELR_addicks said:
Completely fair, just funny the reactions after one loss to a team in 4th place.Callumcafc said:
As much as it pains me, Liverpool have actually won a Premier League title and two European Cups since Arsenal last won the league twenty years ago.SELR_addicks said:Thought Arsenal were the bottlers?
The best way for Arsenal to drop the bottlers tag is to actually see one of these title charges over the last 20 years through to its completion…
But snap judgements are the name of the game.
Again it's 3 points so wouldn't put Liverpool out of the race just yet.
Think Man City with their unlimited wallets have set unrealistic expectations for top teams that they have to win every single game or they are bottlers.
Chelsea: £866m
Arsenal: £570m
United: £546m
Spurs: £393m
Liverpool: £348m
City: £327m
People seem to forget that City do not pay over the top for their players and unlike the other clubs mentioned tend not to make too many mistakes (Kalvin Phillips apart) with their purchases so they profit or recoup a large proportion of the money spent on a player. Haaland and Alvarez cost them a combined £65m and the last two seasons they've sold the likes of Sterling (£47.5m), Jesus (£45m), Palmer (£42m), Trafford (£19m) and Mahrez (£30m). Most of those can't get a regular start at their new clubs with the exception of Palmer who is also the only one of that lot on an upward curve but to get £45m for a lad who had made a handful of appearances was hardly shocking business.
Chelsea's net spend over that period swamps that of City by £539m. By your reckoning they should be walking the PL but are actually sitting in 9th place. And City should be 6th!
Plus the expenditure into their academy running into the millions upon millions.
Alongside the transfer expenditure that then pays itself back when they resell investments to aquire new players.
Purely looking at 'net spend' is so lazy in its analysis. There is a lot more to spend on in football than players and transfer fees.
It is Man City and their unlimited wallets that have led to (in the long-run) a reduction in their transfer expense. Economies of scale.
Manchester City have a bigger budget and more funds available than any of their rivals put together. So any 'head hunting' is won by Man City outright. You also haven't looked at wage expenditure, and I wonder why players like Haaland choose Man City over any other rival in the world?0 -
I do think using net spend in a specific window is a difficult argument to make - you can find a cut off point that makes almost any of the top six clubs look like the worst offender.Yes City sold Sterling for nearly 50m and bought Alvarez cheaply, but they also bought Sterling for nearly 50m nine years ago.
Without spending that money in the first place a decade ago, they wouldn’t have the asset to sell today.0
