Nothing like a contradiction. You say United have been buying the league for the last ten years and then put up transferleague and it says otherwise.
Man Utd, Chelsea historically over the last ten years have been paying the highest transfer fees and the highest wages. Does that not constitute spending more than every other team in the league.
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Berbatov all over £25million. No other team outwith United and Chelsea ( Man City last two years) have been paying that sort of transfer fees on a regular basis. Include the wages. Whats Rooney on now £200k + a week. What other teams in the Premiership are paying that sort of money ?
Well, I tell them there's no problem Only solutions
Nothing like a contradiction. You say United have been buying the league for the last ten years and then put up transferleague and it says otherwise.
Man Utd, Chelsea historically over the last ten years have been paying the highest transfer fees and the highest wages. Does that not constitute spending more than every other team in the league.
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Berbatov all over £25million. No other team outwith United and Chelsea ( Man City last two years) have been paying that sort of transfer fees on a regular basis. Include the wages. Whats Rooney on now £200k + a week. What other teams in the Premiership are paying that sort of money ?
Ah but it's all about net spend. Go and look at how much United have clawed back from sales in the last ten years.
In fact look at the net spend per year by United since 1992. It won't fit into your "United buy the league ever year" but it might enlighten you to the truth.
Nothing like a contradiction. You say United have been buying the league for the last ten years and then put up transferleague and it says otherwise.
Man Utd, Chelsea historically over the last ten years have been paying the highest transfer fees and the highest wages. Does that not constitute spending more than every other team in the league.
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Berbatov all over £25million. No other team outwith United and Chelsea ( Man City last two years) have been paying that sort of transfer fees on a regular basis. Include the wages. Whats Rooney on now £200k + a week. What other teams in the Premiership are paying that sort of money ?
Ah but it's all about net spend. Go and look at how much United have clawed back from sales in the last ten years.
In fact look at the net spend per year by United since 1992. It won't fit into your "United buy the league ever year" but it might enlighten you to the truth.
United are a well run club/business by Sir Alex. But before Man City came on the scene - it was only United and Chelsea that could and did pay £20million plus for players and pay the highest wages which had attracted the best English players. These players now want to go to Man City cause they are paying more. Rooney is the prime example - only interested in the money. Would have been playing for City this season if United/Fergie had not caved into his excessive wage demands.
Well, I tell them there's no problem Only solutions
Nothing like a contradiction. You say United have been buying the league for the last ten years and then put up transferleague and it says otherwise.
Man Utd, Chelsea historically over the last ten years have been paying the highest transfer fees and the highest wages. Does that not constitute spending more than every other team in the league.
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Berbatov all over £25million. No other team outwith United and Chelsea ( Man City last two years) have been paying that sort of transfer fees on a regular basis. Include the wages. Whats Rooney on now £200k + a week. What other teams in the Premiership are paying that sort of money ?
Ah but it's all about net spend. Go and look at how much United have clawed back from sales in the last ten years.
In fact look at the net spend per year by United since 1992. It won't fit into your "United buy the league ever year" but it might enlighten you to the truth.
United are a well run club/business by Sir Alex. But before Man City came on the scene - it was only United and Chelsea that could and did pay £20million plus for players and pay the highest wages which had attracted the best English players. These players now want to go to Man City cause they are paying more. Rooney is the prime example - only interested in the money. Would have been playing for City this season if United/Fergie had not caved into his excessive wage demands.
United's net spend over 19 years is less than Liverpools. There really is no argument about it.
Quote by nefc'net spend' is a real new fan bellend phrase, belowved by kopites on phone ins (i've only read the last post in this thread)
Being an Evertonian I'd imagine you'd know all about net spend. It has been important to club chairman for ever, so it isn't a new fan phrase at all.
its a proper phone in/ internet horse shit phrase used by nitwits who phone up radio 5 banging on about 'the football club'.
I've never phoned a radio phone-in show, I don't even listen to them. But even in the 80s, probably before your time, football fans talked about transfer fees, both in and out. I think you're letting your bitterness about Liverpool cloud your thoughts and are probably just repeating what you read on EFC forums.
Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Quote by nefc'net spend' is a real new fan bellend phrase, belowved by kopites on phone ins (i've only read the last post in this thread)
Being an Evertonian I'd imagine you'd know all about net spend. It has been important to club chairman for ever, so it isn't a new fan phrase at all.
its a proper phone in/ internet horse shit phrase used by nitwits who phone up radio 5 banging on about 'the football club'.
I've never phoned a radio phone-in show, I don't even listen to them. But even in the 80s, probably before your time, football fans talked about transfer fees, both in and out. I think you're letting your bitterness about Liverpool cloud your thoughts and are probably just repeating what you read on EFC forums.
Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Carry on.
you;ve lost me here. im 40 and yes transfer fees have always been discussed but this 'net spend' nonsense is a new strain among people who talk about football. i know you're trying to flesh the point out a bit this is just daft (in my opinion): Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
lets be honest though David .. the pretty football is great , but reward has to come , fans expect trophies .. six baron seasons is a long time ... not sure how as an Arsenal fan you view it , but a top four club , i'd be wanting some success ...
League ? I'm not so sure .. Mickey Mouse Cup ? who they drawn ? FA Cup ? always possible . Champions League ? of course they can , but not sure they will ....
just my take on it , same response above goes for Chelsea .
Who knows, I just think they'll shut a few people up, like they have been doing of late. They always get plenty of stick from the Anti Arsenal brigade and the media especially. I think I must have read a new column everyday for about 4 weeks citing how they had gone, we're finished, Wenger had lost the plot, shadow of their former self etc etc when they were going through their 'crisis'.
Point of the fact being, they might have had a few baron seasons but then that's football - they haven't had the financial clout to buy the league year after year like some teams have. Everyone has their day, I'm pretty sure Arsenal will have theirs again soon enough.
Quote by nefc'net spend' is a real new fan bellend phrase, belowved by kopites on phone ins (i've only read the last post in this thread)
Being an Evertonian I'd imagine you'd know all about net spend. It has been important to club chairman for ever, so it isn't a new fan phrase at all.
its a proper phone in/ internet horse shit phrase used by nitwits who phone up radio 5 banging on about 'the football club'.
I've never phoned a radio phone-in show, I don't even listen to them. But even in the 80s, probably before your time, football fans talked about transfer fees, both in and out. I think you're letting your bitterness about Liverpool cloud your thoughts and are probably just repeating what you read on EFC forums.
Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Carry on.
you;ve lost me here. im 40 and yes transfer fees have always been discussed but this 'net spend' nonsense is a new strain among people who talk about football. i know you're trying to flesh the point out a bit this is just daft (in my opinion): Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Right. So United sell Beckham to Madrid for £20+M. Are you saying if they then spend that money on a replacement that it simply means United are buying the league again? Of course it is important and always has been.
Football fans have always moaned when transfer money has come into a club but not then been spent on replacements. No difference.
Quote by nefc'net spend' is a real new fan bellend phrase, belowved by kopites on phone ins (i've only read the last post in this thread)
Being an Evertonian I'd imagine you'd know all about net spend. It has been important to club chairman for ever, so it isn't a new fan phrase at all.
its a proper phone in/ internet horse shit phrase used by nitwits who phone up radio 5 banging on about 'the football club'.
I've never phoned a radio phone-in show, I don't even listen to them. But even in the 80s, probably before your time, football fans talked about transfer fees, both in and out. I think you're letting your bitterness about Liverpool cloud your thoughts and are probably just repeating what you read on EFC forums.
Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Carry on.
you;ve lost me here. im 40 and yes transfer fees have always been discussed but this 'net spend' nonsense is a new strain among people who talk about football. i know you're trying to flesh the point out a bit this is just daft (in my opinion): Being on a forum like this where a lot of clobber gets bought and sold then "net spend" is even a factor on here.
Right. So United sell Beckham to Madrid for £20+M. Are you saying if they then spend that money on a replacement that it simply means United are buying the league again? Of course it is important and always has been.
Football fans have always moaned when transfer money has come into a club but not then been spent on replacements. No difference.
Quote by soul_stylistWho knows, I just think they'll shut a few people up, like they have been doing of late. They always get plenty of stick from the Anti Arsenal brigade and the media especially. I think I must have read a new column everyday for about 4 weeks citing how they had gone, we're finished, Wenger had lost the plot, shadow of their former self etc etc when they were going through their 'crisis'.
Point of the fact being, they might have had a few baron seasons but then that's football - they haven't had the financial clout to buy the league year after year like some teams have. Everyone has their day, I'm pretty sure Arsenal will have theirs again soon enough.
think from my point of view , Arsenal are an exception to the rule .. they play the type of football in which if one player comes off , another tends to slot in , and their style doesn't change .. but past few seasons , a lot have moved on , and Wenger has been too tight with money , now Arsenal have money , 60-70 million from Fabregas & Nasri , yet where Arsenal have been difficient , keeper and defence , Wenger hasn't bought .. think the critisism is aimed there ..
I don't think Arsenal particularly need a goal keeper, I rate Schenzy and think he will only improve as time goes on.
I also think that saying Wenger has been tight with money is a little off the mark - other than money from transfers it's not as though he has a substantial financial pot such as the other top 4 teams to operate off, which would explain his actions the past few seasons. I would say he's cautious and shrewd with his use of the transfer market, which is a little different than being tight.
He says he wont spend, has belief in the team but I think this January will see him sign one or two quality players as the club have been linked with a few names that keep cropping up. Whatever way you look at it Arsenal have turned the corner and although I don't think they're going to win the league I think a lot of people will rue writing them off.
I think they'll be one of the only teams to beat Manchester City this season.
slight different slant then , RVP , gets injured / leaves come January / Summer .. how then will that effect the team ? Chamak from what I've seen is rubbish , so who can fill the mantle ? RVP is prone to the odd injury ..
TBH , I don't give a shit where Arsenal are concerned , I only worry about my team , but looking at Arsenal from the outside , however much you love the football they play , no trophies are coming in , and sooner or later that will be a factor .. then things like signings will be looked at , and I beg to differ , Wenger has had money , the whole debarkle regarding will he wont he go Barcelona hurt Arsenal - fact - cause it was too late in the day for replacements , then Nasri departs .. He could / should have put in an offer at the price that suited Bolton , and got Cahill ... look how Arsenal were torn apart by Utd ..
Steve, Arsenal were torn apart by United because more than 8 first team players were injured. Fact. Do you honestly think they would have put 8 past them otherwise? I very much doubt it.
Who says RVP is leaving in January or Summer for that matter? It's just speculation and to be quite honest, pretty boring, manufactured by the media because they've run out of crisis talk shit to print just like all those columns about Arsenal being dead and buried, now that they're playing well and winning. Everyone writes them off, what if this, what if that. It's a load of nonsense in my eyes. You judge a team by the performances they are putting in on the pitch at the time of writing and then you can judge them by what they've done over a season in my opinion. The seasons nearing its half way point and instead of citing the positives that Wenger has achieved by turning Arsenals fortunes around, you've still got people berating him for not spending money or not winning a trophy for a few seasons which just sums up my initial point and proves how much of a narrow minded influence the media can have on people. But you don't give a shit about Arsenal, so it doesn't really matter - these are just my opinions on the matter.
Quote by STEVECFClets be honest though David .. the pretty football is great , but reward has to come , fans expect trophies .. six baron seasons is a long time ... not sure how as an Arsenal fan you view it , but a top four club , i'd be wanting some success ...
Yes of course would want to win some trophies as do every other fan. But look at your own club Steve. How long did you support them before they started winning the odd cup and then league.Before Roman appeared in 2003. It took them fifty years before they won it in 2004/05. 1954/55 last time.
Well, I tell them there's no problem Only solutions
but expectations at Chelsea were never high fella , we were never a top four team , I've known relagation , you haven't .. we then got the goose with the golden egg , and our club has been transformed on it's head , so now we EXPECT trophies every season , like a spoilt kid .. I started properly watching them at about 11/12 years old , we were dire .. Luton would hump us at home ..
OFF HAND
Print view
Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:38 pm
reply
