Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Premier League 22/23
Comments
-
Curtis Jones has scored 33 percent of his career total of Premier League goals in a four-minute spell at Leicester.1
-
I remember when United won their 3rd title in a row and then sign RVN and Veron, everyone expected them to be the first to win 4 in a row...ValleyGary said:Yeah it comes more from the fact Arsenal had something like 43 points at a stage, which was the most in Prem history. So the title was in their hands and they bottled it. That’s taking nothing away from City.
I think City will break points and goals records next season.
I would be shocked if City don't win in next year though.0 -
Granted Leicester haven’t been very good but A-Arnold has looked very good in a midfield role. Drifts about playing easy balls with the occasional attempt at threading someone through. And a brilliant free kick.
All with Southgate watching.2 -
Where the hell has it all gone wrong for Leicester?
They looked like 1970s Brazil against Spurs a few months back...
...to be fair, everyone looks like 1970s Brazil against Spurs FFS...but thats not what I was getting at.8 -
Only 1 win since then in 3 months...JohnBoyUK said:Where the hell has it all gone wrong for Leicester?
They looked like 1970s Brazil against Spurs a few months back...
...to be fair, everyone looks like 1970s Brazil against Spurs FFS...but thats not what I was getting at.
At this rate, Forest could stay up with 34 points0 -
Terrible defence.
Full backs have all been injured, so has Evans, they didn't replace Schmeichel or Fofana really.
0 -
There's a definite chance that Liverpool could catch either Newcastle or Man U. They're in much better form0
-
As a neutral seeing Leicester in championship next season will be very interesting. Probably be about 4s to win the title. Imagine zero planning has been done for relegation until last week or so. Ridiculously large wage bill, and almost every team will want to stuff them after hearing their fans brag about winning the title.0
-
Haaland looks like the scary looking lady on the board at Newcastle.DaveMehmet said:
2 -
City beating Arsenal in both league games is the key. The same as Leicester winning both games against Totteringham when Leicester won the title.lordromford said:
I don’t think it disrespects City at all. They’re a great football side and they’ve piled on the points recently. I don’t think anyone is saying they’re not outstanding.SouthWest_Addicks said:I do find the Arsenal bottle comment a bit disrespectful to City who are the best club side to play in England. 11 league wins in a row. 12 in last 13 including beating Arsenal twice. No side in English history comfortably wins 15+ matches in a row every season. To finish above City you need to be getting 90+ points minimumBut Arsenal had it in their own hands. They then drew three in a row, handing the initiative to City, who then, by way of exchange, handed them back their arses on a silver platter.Now they’ve been given a bare-arse spanking by a team that got mullered 5-1 at home last week by a team threatened by relegation.So no. There’s no disrespect for Man City here. Just for Arsenal.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Macronate said:Granted Leicester haven’t been very good but A-Arnold has looked very good in a midfield role. Drifts about playing easy balls with the occasional attempt at threading someone through. And a brilliant free kick.
All with Southgate watching.
Great video I watched on the topic of TAA playing midfield recently...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdOKorarH2M 0 -
You mean when Spurs finished third?ElfsborgAddick said:
City beating Arsenal in both league games is the key. The same as Leicester winning both games against Totteringham when Leicester won the title.lordromford said:
I don’t think it disrespects City at all. They’re a great football side and they’ve piled on the points recently. I don’t think anyone is saying they’re not outstanding.SouthWest_Addicks said:I do find the Arsenal bottle comment a bit disrespectful to City who are the best club side to play in England. 11 league wins in a row. 12 in last 13 including beating Arsenal twice. No side in English history comfortably wins 15+ matches in a row every season. To finish above City you need to be getting 90+ points minimumBut Arsenal had it in their own hands. They then drew three in a row, handing the initiative to City, who then, by way of exchange, handed them back their arses on a silver platter.Now they’ve been given a bare-arse spanking by a team that got mullered 5-1 at home last week by a team threatened by relegation.So no. There’s no disrespect for Man City here. Just for Arsenal.0 -
Not disputing that but those other clubs also spend a fortune on wages. City don't have the highest wage bill.SELR_addicks said:
Do you really think 'spending' is only done with player transfers? That doesn't take into account wages to start with.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
In the net spend table over the last 5 years, City are 10th.SELR_addicks said:
I'd put the Arsenal bottle job the year Leicester won the title as a bigger bottle job than this one personally.JohnBoyUK said:
Ha. Not. Even. Close.SELR_addicks said:
Liverpool and Gerrard would like a word.se9addick said:Arsenal this season will go down as one of the biggest bottle jobs of the modern era.
The bottle job to end all bottle jobs.
Anyone for a beer...
Man City have rigged the league with financial doping. Unless you're winning 38 games you aren't beating them to the league anymore.
430m less than Chelsea
315m less than Man U
260m less than Arsenal
110m less than Spurs
And even less than Wolves and West Ham.
Obviously no one can deny they have a lot of money, but it's lazy to just say they win because of this especially when other clubs spend more. Man U since Fergie left are clear proof that spending money doesn't equal success. City's management structure is first class and their hit rate for signings is far higher than other top clubs.
Financial doping built their foundations and now they're reaping the benefits (with less cost) because of all the capital expenditure they put in when they first took over.
Their ownership has 'invested' £1.8 billion into the club since the takeover, and that's not including their sponsorship deals with inflated values to help them meet profit/loss limits.
And like i said i'm not denying they have a lot of money, but my whole point is it still needs to be spent wisely. As Todd Boehly has quickly found out.0 -
Would be very interesting to see if Southgate is tempted to play him in that role for England. Certainly good to have another midfield option given Kalvin Phillips has played about 10 minutes this season.Macronate said:Granted Leicester haven’t been very good but A-Arnold has looked very good in a midfield role. Drifts about playing easy balls with the occasional attempt at threading someone through. And a brilliant free kick.
All with Southgate watching.0 -
They'll need to build a new team though. I can't see the likes of Maddison, Barnes, Tielemans, Ndidi, Castagne, Iheanacho playing in the championship. The only plus for them is that all those players likely leaving, plus the parachute payments means they'll have a lot of money to throw at an immediate return.SouthWest_Addicks said:As a neutral seeing Leicester in championship next season will be very interesting. Probably be about 4s to win the title. Imagine zero planning has been done for relegation until last week or so. Ridiculously large wage bill, and almost every team will want to stuff them after hearing their fans brag about winning the title.
0 -
That eternal mystery with "too good to go down" relegated teams. You look at that list of decent, even excellent, names. Then wonder why they're bottom 3 and plungingChris_from_Sidcup said:
They'll need to build a new team though. I can't see the likes of Maddison, Barnes, Tielemans, Ndidi, Castagne, Iheanacho playing in the championship. The only plus for them is that all those players likely leaving, plus the parachute payments means they'll have a lot of money to throw at an immediate return.SouthWest_Addicks said:As a neutral seeing Leicester in championship next season will be very interesting. Probably be about 4s to win the title. Imagine zero planning has been done for relegation until last week or so. Ridiculously large wage bill, and almost every team will want to stuff them after hearing their fans brag about winning the title.1 -
North Lower Neil said:Terrible defence.
Full backs have all been injured, so has Evans, they didn't replace Schmeichel or Fofana really.
Was reminiscent of when we lost 3-0 at home to Liverpool the year we went down. Barely put up a fight. One of the very few matches I've left before the end0 -
Because footballers believe their own hype, and one of the biggest things about football is momentum, you get on a losing run and you can't buy a win, and what do clubs do? They panic, blame the manager and sack them, and expect the same players to play better all of a sudden. Sometimes, like with Palarse and Woy, it works, but they did it before they slid to the bottom of the pile. Leicester are victims of their own success, with the recent FA Cup win clouding judgement over which players should be playing for them and where they need to strengthen.killerandflash said:
That eternal mystery with "too good to go down" relegated teams. You look at that list of decent, even excellent, names. Then wonder why they're bottom 3 and plungingChris_from_Sidcup said:
They'll need to build a new team though. I can't see the likes of Maddison, Barnes, Tielemans, Ndidi, Castagne, Iheanacho playing in the championship. The only plus for them is that all those players likely leaving, plus the parachute payments means they'll have a lot of money to throw at an immediate return.SouthWest_Addicks said:As a neutral seeing Leicester in championship next season will be very interesting. Probably be about 4s to win the title. Imagine zero planning has been done for relegation until last week or so. Ridiculously large wage bill, and almost every team will want to stuff them after hearing their fans brag about winning the title.0 -
All well and good pointing out specific examples that are outliers. But the overwhelming concensus from data is spend more = win more.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Not disputing that but those other clubs also spend a fortune on wages. City don't have the highest wage bill.SELR_addicks said:
Do you really think 'spending' is only done with player transfers? That doesn't take into account wages to start with.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
In the net spend table over the last 5 years, City are 10th.SELR_addicks said:
I'd put the Arsenal bottle job the year Leicester won the title as a bigger bottle job than this one personally.JohnBoyUK said:
Ha. Not. Even. Close.SELR_addicks said:
Liverpool and Gerrard would like a word.se9addick said:Arsenal this season will go down as one of the biggest bottle jobs of the modern era.
The bottle job to end all bottle jobs.
Anyone for a beer...
Man City have rigged the league with financial doping. Unless you're winning 38 games you aren't beating them to the league anymore.
430m less than Chelsea
315m less than Man U
260m less than Arsenal
110m less than Spurs
And even less than Wolves and West Ham.
Obviously no one can deny they have a lot of money, but it's lazy to just say they win because of this especially when other clubs spend more. Man U since Fergie left are clear proof that spending money doesn't equal success. City's management structure is first class and their hit rate for signings is far higher than other top clubs.
Financial doping built their foundations and now they're reaping the benefits (with less cost) because of all the capital expenditure they put in when they first took over.
Their ownership has 'invested' £1.8 billion into the club since the takeover, and that's not including their sponsorship deals with inflated values to help them meet profit/loss limits.
And like i said i'm not denying they have a lot of money, but my whole point is it still needs to be spent wisely. As Todd Boehly has quickly found out.
This is the same in every sport and every division. Spend more = win more.0 -
Lol financial doping, ok because none of the other big teams have spent a vast amount of money on coaches, training facilities, stadia, players, coaches, wages, managers, transfer fees and everything else? Only difference is Man City have done it better than the others recently. Look at how much Chelsea used to spend under Abramovich, look at the fact ManUre spent astronomical amounts on flops like Di Maria, Pogba among others, look at the spending on a new stadium done by Spurs and the new training facilities of Liverpool and their 2 new stands, every big club spends to win3
- Sponsored links:
-
Coventry or Luton will be in the Premier league next season!5
-
Palace are never getting relegated are theyChris_from_Sidcup said:Coventry or Luton will be in the Premier league next season!
Luton vs Coventry really doesnt sound like it should be a Championship Play-Off Final... Hopefully it'll be a cracker of a game, with both sides going for it0 -
Fair play to Cov, if you believed w everything on this site, they shouldn’t be near it as they don’t own their ground5
-
I'd be surprised if the play off winner, Sheff Utd and Bournemouth aren't the 3 favourites to go down.ForeverAddickted said:
Palace are never getting relegated are theyChris_from_Sidcup said:Coventry or Luton will be in the Premier league next season!
Luton vs Coventry really doesnt sound like it should be a Championship Play-Off Final... Hopefully it'll be a cracker of a game, with both sides going for it
Burnley might do ok with Kompany, plus Pep will probably loan him a couple of City kids.2 -
You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade.sam3110 said:Lol financial doping, ok because none of the other big teams have spent a vast amount of money on coaches, training facilities, stadia, players, coaches, wages, managers, transfer fees and everything else? Only difference is Man City have done it better than the others recently. Look at how much Chelsea used to spend under Abramovich, look at the fact ManUre spent astronomical amounts on flops like Di Maria, Pogba among others, look at the spending on a new stadium done by Spurs and the new training facilities of Liverpool and their 2 new stands, every big club spends to win
But yes please just look at transfers again because you don't understand how infrastructure works.
The typical 'net spend' argument compounds the point if anything. Because they are now able to benefit from the scale of the investment now in sales.1 -
Can you read? My post literally states all the other spending on infrastructure they have done as well as other big clubs in the countrySELR_addicks said:
You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade.sam3110 said:Lol financial doping, ok because none of the other big teams have spent a vast amount of money on coaches, training facilities, stadia, players, coaches, wages, managers, transfer fees and everything else? Only difference is Man City have done it better than the others recently. Look at how much Chelsea used to spend under Abramovich, look at the fact ManUre spent astronomical amounts on flops like Di Maria, Pogba among others, look at the spending on a new stadium done by Spurs and the new training facilities of Liverpool and their 2 new stands, every big club spends to win
But yes please just look at transfers again because you don't understand how infrastructure works.
The typical 'net spend' argument compounds the point if anything. Because they are now able to benefit from the scale of the investment now in sales.
They aren't alone in spending an extortionate amount, they've just done it better0 -
Assuming you're talking about all the work they've done regenerating the entire local area around the stadium then that doesn't count towards any FFP rules.SELR_addicks said:
You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade.sam3110 said:Lol financial doping, ok because none of the other big teams have spent a vast amount of money on coaches, training facilities, stadia, players, coaches, wages, managers, transfer fees and everything else? Only difference is Man City have done it better than the others recently. Look at how much Chelsea used to spend under Abramovich, look at the fact ManUre spent astronomical amounts on flops like Di Maria, Pogba among others, look at the spending on a new stadium done by Spurs and the new training facilities of Liverpool and their 2 new stands, every big club spends to win
But yes please just look at transfers again because you don't understand how infrastructure works.
The typical 'net spend' argument compounds the point if anything. Because they are now able to benefit from the scale of the investment now in sales.
"Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included."1 -
Not better just more money.sam3110 said:
Can you read? My post literally states all the other spending on infrastructure they have done as well as other big clubs in the countrySELR_addicks said:
You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade.sam3110 said:Lol financial doping, ok because none of the other big teams have spent a vast amount of money on coaches, training facilities, stadia, players, coaches, wages, managers, transfer fees and everything else? Only difference is Man City have done it better than the others recently. Look at how much Chelsea used to spend under Abramovich, look at the fact ManUre spent astronomical amounts on flops like Di Maria, Pogba among others, look at the spending on a new stadium done by Spurs and the new training facilities of Liverpool and their 2 new stands, every big club spends to win
But yes please just look at transfers again because you don't understand how infrastructure works.
The typical 'net spend' argument compounds the point if anything. Because they are now able to benefit from the scale of the investment now in sales.
They aren't alone in spending an extortionate amount, they've just done it better
Man city have had the highest expenditure of any club since their takeover by a literal Nation State.0 -
Fan of the club that can afford to spend 72m on Nicolas Pepe moaning his club cannot spend like a rival5
-
City have limitless resources. They only haven't spent astronomically more on transfers than the other megaclubs because they haven't needed to. Whatever they need, they get. If they didn't already have the best coach they'd have gotten him. They get everything they need, when they need. That is the objection, and it is a serious one, no matter how good their football is (and of course it is good, the best in fact)1
