Premier League 22/23

SELR_addicks said:

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

You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade. 

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. 

Palace really did get themselves into the PL at the right time.

Such is the gap now between the Championship and the PL that you can more or less guarantee that at least one, if not two, of the teams coming up will go straight back down. And it's hard to see that either coventry/Middlesborough  and Sheff utd have a hope in hell of staying up next year.

So all Palace need do is keep building and stay out of that third relegation spot to ensure their PL stay continues for many more years yet.

Hugely depressing.

ForeverAddickted said:

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

SELR_addicks said:

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

You genuinely don't understand the sheer scale of the investment into the area over the course of over a decade. 

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. 

Palace really did get themselves into the PL at the right time.

Such is the gap now between the Championship and the PL that you can more or less guarantee that at least one, if not two, of the teams coming up will go straight back down. And it's hard to see that either coventry/Middlesborough  and Sheff utd have a hope in hell of staying up next year.

So all Palace need do is keep building and stay out of that third relegation spot to ensure their PL stay continues for many more years yet.

Hugely depressing.

Southampton have just shown that nothing lasts forever...

True. And you probably could quote Leicester to me as well this year.

And Fulham had been an established PL team for a good few years before their first relegation.

I just think this season is a bit of an outlier. By and large teams coming up these days will struggle to stay up.

We can only hope that Palace completely misfire one season.  But that looks very unlikely atm.

Leuth said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Leuth said:

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) 

This is true but they do know when to say no. They pulled out of the Alexis Sanchez deal when the wages got too high. They pulled out of the Cucurella deal when the fee got too high, and depending on who you believe they also pulled out of signing Ronaldo.

Up until the Grealish transfer they'd consistently bought players for 40-60m but didn't get involved in the really high fees (70m+) that Chelsea and United were paying. In a list of the top 35 highest transfers of all time, City feature once.

Yes they spend a lot, we all know that. But they generally spend it well and a lot of their signings improve there. 

This is because they have employed literally the best backroom staff to make the best decisions. They have the best analytics. They are optimised at all levels. 

Not sure how that is a negative...

I get City have money, but they haven't splashed as much as others. Whether they have got the best staff or picked out the right players, they have done everything properly. I don't really get all the shade when teams before them have always won because they have had money, United, Chelsea etc. bar Leicester,

Just the way it is, i like how they have done it personally and equally will be the same for Newcastle who are gradually going to make their team into world beaters. It's not as easy as just signing the best players, look at Chelsea and how much they have failed having signed some big players this year. 

Personally i just sit and admire City, class team and good to watch. I am hopeful they finally get that champions league they deserve.

shine166 said:

You can spend all the money you like, but it means fuck all if you're not spending it wisely. 

Todd Boehly: "What do you mean by that?"

DaveMehmet said:

shine166 said:

You can spend all the money you like, but it means fuck all if you're not spending it wisely. 

Just ask Dowie

Exactly ! Only time we've actually tried to spend money, we got relegated 🤣

Arsenal blew it mate, but you'll get over it.

MrOneLung said:

SELR_addicks said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Leuth said:

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) 

This is true but they do know when to say no. They pulled out of the Alexis Sanchez deal when the wages got too high. They pulled out of the Cucurella deal when the fee got too high, and depending on who you believe they also pulled out of signing Ronaldo.

Up until the Grealish transfer they'd consistently bought players for 40-60m but didn't get involved in the really high fees (70m+) that Chelsea and United were paying. In a list of the top 35 highest transfers of all time, City feature once.

Yes they spend a lot, we all know that. But they generally spend it well and a lot of their signings improve there. 

Employing more scouts, more trainers, better equipment, better manager, better doctors, better analytics all costs more money. 

It then saves money with transfers, and even then they have spent more than most. 

The practice of falsifying their sponsorships to account for their expenditure is financial doping, plain and simple. 

So are Arsenal not Employing more scouts, more trainers, using better equipment, have a better manager, use better doctors, better analytics  compared to 88 other clubs in the league system ?

They don't need to falsify their income in order to spend an extortionate amount on those things. 

Man City are backed by a literal Nation State. They have 100x the amount of funds available so it makes their 'success' a hollow one. 

Man City have won the league 5 times out of the last 6 (including this year) and will likely have reached over 90 points in 4 of those seasons. 100 and 98 in two of them. 

Enjoyable to see Arsenal bottle it, found it laughable the media and armchair fan campaign to portray them as some loveable underdog story this season.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Leuth said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Leuth said:

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) 

This is true but they do know when to say no. They pulled out of the Alexis Sanchez deal when the wages got too high. They pulled out of the Cucurella deal when the fee got too high, and depending on who you believe they also pulled out of signing Ronaldo.

Up until the Grealish transfer they'd consistently bought players for 40-60m but didn't get involved in the really high fees (70m+) that Chelsea and United were paying. In a list of the top 35 highest transfers of all time, City feature once.

Yes they spend a lot, we all know that. But they generally spend it well and a lot of their signings improve there. 

This is because they have employed literally the best backroom staff to make the best decisions. They have the best analytics. They are optimised at all levels. 

Helps that they have the best manager as well. He first tried an inverted full back, now we see Arsenal trying to do it with Zinchenko and Liverpool with Trent.

Then mid-season (maybe even as late as March) he's completely changed formation and put Stones into midfield and it's made them even better. Obviously there are not many ball playing defenders around with Stones' ability but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we start to see more teams trying to play the same way with this hybrid defender/midfield role. I wonder if Arteta could try it with Ben White there.

You say he is  the best manager but jt’s not reallt a fair contest with the players he has to work with.

Newcastle have started very strongly v Brighton.

I think Guimaraes managed to pull off more generic goal celebrations in a single goal celebration than any player before him just now. Fair play. 

SELR_addicks said:

MrOneLung said:

SELR_addicks said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Leuth said:

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) 

This is true but they do know when to say no. They pulled out of the Alexis Sanchez deal when the wages got too high. They pulled out of the Cucurella deal when the fee got too high, and depending on who you believe they also pulled out of signing Ronaldo.

Up until the Grealish transfer they'd consistently bought players for 40-60m but didn't get involved in the really high fees (70m+) that Chelsea and United were paying. In a list of the top 35 highest transfers of all time, City feature once.

Yes they spend a lot, we all know that. But they generally spend it well and a lot of their signings improve there. 

Employing more scouts, more trainers, better equipment, better manager, better doctors, better analytics all costs more money. 

It then saves money with transfers, and even then they have spent more than most. 

The practice of falsifying their sponsorships to account for their expenditure is financial doping, plain and simple. 

So are Arsenal not Employing more scouts, more trainers, using better equipment, have a better manager, use better doctors, better analytics  compared to 88 other clubs in the league system ?

They don't need to falsify their income in order to spend an extortionate amount on those things. 

Man City are backed by a literal Nation State. They have 100x the amount of funds available so it makes their 'success' a hollow one. 

Man City have won the league 5 times out of the last 6 (including this year) and will likely have reached over 90 points in 4 of those seasons. 100 and 98 in two of them. 

They don't need to falsify their income because they, along with Man Utd, spent the 90s ensuring they got a bigger piece of the pie than anybody else. 

Don't pretend City are some dirty cheats, whilst the rest of the sky 4 (or 6) did it the honest way. They're all as dirty as each other, the only difference between City/Chelsea and Man Utd/Arsenal is the latter rigged the whole system in their favour, whilst the former overcame that with sheer spending power.

Why do you think FFP came in? It wasn't to protect the game, it was to protect the old big clubs from being outspent and superseded by new challengers.

Whoops wrong thread... ignore me... I wasnt here