Jump to content

Official English Premier League Thread


Recommended Posts

This post kind of bewilders me, because everything you say I have already refuted in my previous post1. We do have homegrown talent, look at Joe Cole and John Terry for evidence.2. Man Utd have bought in loads of expensive players, "other clubs productions" as you called them.
These are the only 2 points I'll mention as the other 2, how much money Lewis puts into Spurs and what team Jono supports don't interest me.You cannot compare Manchester's homegrown talent to Chelsea's. If you look from the beginning of the Premiership Man U have consistently brought through youth with resulting trophies: Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham, other Neville, Butt etc. Now Chelsea since they started to become a legit title contenders (pre-Abramovich) have brought through Terry. That's it. Joe Cole and Lampard would be products of West Ham.While its obvious that the big teams can and will buy other teams prized assests it can't be argued that Chelsea have done far more of this than Man Utd. Look at their most recent signing £16m for Boswinga. A decent, nothing more, right back. At times it does appear that Chelsea are just looking to throw money around to get what they want. Man Utd seem far more shrewd in the transfer market and youth development areas.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This post kind of bewilders me, because everything you say I have already refuted in my previous post1. We do have homegrown talent, look at Joe Cole and John Terry for evidence.2. Man Utd have bought in loads of expensive players, "other clubs productions" as you called them.3. You're saying Spurs has a billionaire owner who doesn't invest any money in the club? That's ridiculous. Of course he puts his own money in, otherwise what would be the point in owning it? I doubt you have an indepth knowledge of where the money comes from and what its spent on in every league team, so stop talking out of your ass and pretending to know everything.4. I wasn't saying you are a Man Utd fan, I was saying that you are supporting them to win against Chelsea (both in the league and Champions league), but the criticisms you make of Chelsea could all be said for Man Utd, so there's no reason why you should prefer them and insult us.Enough said.
Chelsea bought Joe Cole from WestHam in 2003 for £6.6M. Hardly home grown.
Link to post
Share on other sites
These are the only 2 points I'll mention as the other 2, how much money Lewis puts into Spurs and what team Jono supports don't interest me.You cannot compare Manchester's homegrown talent to Chelsea's. If you look from the beginning of the Premiership Man U have consistently brought through youth with resulting trophies: Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham, other Neville, Butt etc. Now Chelsea since they started to become a legit title contenders (pre-Abramovich) have brought through Terry. That's it. Joe Cole and Lampard would be products of West Ham.While its obvious that the big teams can and will buy other teams prized assests it can't be argued that Chelsea have done far more of this than Man Utd. Look at their most recent signing £16m for Boswinga. A decent, nothing more, right back. At times it does appear that Chelsea are just looking to throw money around to get what they want. Man Utd seem far more shrewd in the transfer market and youth development areas.
What youth development does UTD have?, Giggs/Scholes/Neville etc are from 10 -15 years ago. Name 5 players that have come out of the youth squad since 2000 (who have played regular first team football)?UTD have spent over £150M trying to buy the title just like Chelsea have.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What youth development does UTD have?, Giggs/Scholes/Neville etc are from 10 -15 years ago. Name 5 players that have come out of the youth squad since 2000 (who have played regular first team football)?UTD have spent over £150M trying to buy the title just like Chelsea have.
Perhaps recently. But Man Utd dominated the league in the 90s with a core of players developed from youth.As for players who have come through Utd's ranks, maybe not superstars or regulars but have all certainly done their part:Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher. I'm not a Man Utd fan, perhaps others can name some future talent. But the point is Chelsea have developed far less youth talent than Man Utd.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps recently. But Man Utd dominated the league in the 90s with a core of players developed from youth.As for players who have come through Utd's ranks, maybe not superstars or regulars but have all certainly done their part:Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher. I'm not a Man Utd fan, perhaps others can name some future talent. But the point is Chelsea have developed far less youth talent than Man Utd.
That is completely irrelevant seeing as we are talking about the current teams, but if you want to look at youth players from the 90s, look at Duberry, Myers, Newton, Morris, all started at Chelsea and were prominent first team players at a time when the club never dropped out of the top 6 in league finishes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
These are the only 2 points I'll mention as the other 2, how much money Lewis puts into Spurs and what team Jono supports don't interest me.You cannot compare Manchester's homegrown talent to Chelsea's. If you look from the beginning of the Premiership Man U have consistently brought through youth with resulting trophies: Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham, other Neville, Butt etc. Now Chelsea since they started to become a legit title contenders (pre-Abramovich) have brought through Terry. That's it. Joe Cole and Lampard would be products of West Ham.While its obvious that the big teams can and will buy other teams prized assests it can't be argued that Chelsea have done far more of this than Man Utd. Look at their most recent signing £16m for Boswinga. A decent, nothing more, right back. At times it does appear that Chelsea are just looking to throw money around to get what they want. Man Utd seem far more shrewd in the transfer market and youth development areas.
As I've already said, Man Utd have spent far more buying in players recently than Chelsea. Just look at Rooney, the most expensive league purchase in history. A lot of their best players were bought for more than £20 million in recent years, they are not homegrown or shrewd purchases.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh?
What's not to get? Man Utd paid more for Wayne Rooney than any other premiership league player has costed.
Top 10 Premier League Transfers1. Andriy Shevchenko: AC Milan to Chelsea - 30 million GBP (2006)2. Rio Ferdinand: Leeds to Manchester United - 29.1 mil (2002)3. Juan Sebastian Veron: Lazio to Manchester United - 28.1 mil (2001)4. Michael Essien: Lyon to Chelsea - 24.43 mil (2005)5. Didier Drogba: Marseille to Chelsea - 24 mil (2004)6. Wayne Rooney: Everton to Manchester United - 23 mil (2004)*7. Shaun Wright-Phillips: Manchester City to Chelsea - 21 mil (2005)8. Fernando Torres: Atletico Madrid to Liverpool - 20 mil (2007)9. Ricardo Carvalho: Porto to Chelsea - 19.85 mil (2004)10. Ruud Van Nistelrooy: PSV to Manchester United - 19 mil (2001)*: The listed fee for Rooney was the initial fee United paid for him, though the total in the end was be nearer to 30 million, due to incentives Rooney/United reached and other costs.
And on a related note, no one complains that Real Madrid bought success, yet they spent exorbitantly more on two of their top players:1. Zinedine Zidane: Juventus to Real Madrid - 45.62 million GBP (2001)2. Luis Figo: Barcelona to Real Madrid - 37 mil (2000)That being said, let's give this argument a rest, I think everything has been said at this point and it's clear that no one is going to change their minds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As I've already said, Man Utd have spent far more buying in players recently than Chelsea. Just look at Rooney, the most expensive league purchase in history. A lot of their best players were bought for more than £20 million in recent years, they are not homegrown or shrewd purchases.
OK £20m or thereabouts for Rooney when he was what? 19/20? And quite clearly going to be a worldclass player and sound long-term investment or £30m for a 30 year old Andriy Shevchenko, who had he played at the level he is capable of would have only given Chelsea 2 or 3 good years, as it turns out he flopped.Fact is Man Utd's big money signings have delivered for the most part, can you say the same about Chelsea, Drogba and Carvalho aside?Kezman, Robben, Duff, SWP, Malouda, Boulahrouz, Maniche, Crespo, Shevchenko, Del Horno, Alex - none exactly stellar buys.If someone could find figures for money spent by each side and profits on players when sold on I would think Man Utd would come out on top.
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK £20m or thereabouts for Rooney when he was what? 19/20? And quite clearly going to be a worldclass player and sound long-term investment or £30m for a 30 year old Andriy Shevchenko, who had he played at the level he is capable of would have only given Chelsea 2 or 3 good years, as it turns out he flopped.Fact is Man Utd's big money signings have delivered for the most part, can you say the same about Chelsea, Drogba and Carvalho aside?Kezman, Robben, Duff, SWP, Malouda, Boulahrouz, Maniche, Crespo, Shevchenko, Del Horno, Alex - none exactly stellar buys.If someone could find figures for money spent by each side and profits on players when sold on I would think Man Utd would come out on top.
That being said, let's give this argument a rest, I think everything has been said at this point and it's clear that no one is going to change their minds.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was typing my post just before you got yours up LG. Sorry, heaven forbid someone chime in when you have clearly put the thread to rest. A thousand pardons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was typing my post just before you got yours up LG. Sorry, heaven forbid someone chime in when you have clearly put the thread to rest. A thousand pardons.
I wasn't being rude, just drawing your attention to what I said so that you wouldn't think I was ignoring you. Consider yourself pardoned.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What's not to get? Man Utd paid more for Wayne Rooney than any other premiership league player has costed.
£23m for Rooney£28m for Veron£29m for Ferdinand£31m for Shevchenko???????
Link to post
Share on other sites

premiership spending 2002-03 - 2006-07 seasonChelsea £268.30mLiverpool £58.07mTottenham £37.30mNewcastle £35.65mMan United £34.95mAston Villa £31.45mMiddlesboro £19.85mCharlton £13.65mBolton £11.55mEverton £9.95mArsenal £9.90m(I assume those are net figures)Not sure what they would look like fully updated, but Chelsea would still be way out in front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
£23m for Rooney£28m for Veron£29m for Ferdinand£31m for Shevchenko???????
I posted the figures from a credible source above, and made the footnote about Rooney bold. He costed as much as Shevchenko did.Now please, stop arguing, we are going around in circles. There are no winners or losers in this discussion, so let's call it quits.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted the figures from a credible source above, and made the footnote about Rooney bold. He costed as much as Shevchenko did.
Sorry, missed the footnote.
Now please, stop arguing, we are going around in circles. There are no winners or losers in this discussion, so let's call it quits.
Why do we have to stop? If you don't want to continue discussing it that's fine, but don't close it off for all of us.I like talking about how Chelsea have bought success and how badly Mourinho failed in the transfer market.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, missed the footnote.Why do we have to stop? If you don't want to continue discussing it that's fine, but don't close it off for all of us.I like talking about how Chelsea have bought success and how badly Mourinho failed in the transfer market.
Well like I said, everything has been said already so if you keep talking about you'll just be repeating yourself, so it will be boring and a waste of time.I'm done talking about it, I have a lot of studying to do. Continue if you want, but without me responding it's kind of pointless because you're preaching to the choir.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps recently. But Man Utd dominated the league in the 90s with a core of players developed from youth.As for players who have come through Utd's ranks, maybe not superstars or regulars but have all certainly done their part:Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher. I'm not a Man Utd fan, perhaps others can name some future talent. But the point is Chelsea have developed far less youth talent than Man Utd.
Frazier Campbell should be getting looks in the first team very soon at striker and if the log jam ever breaks up, Craig Cathcart should get some good looks at central defense(though with him being left footed, a move to left back would make it easier for him). I'm not sure where I'd put someone like Pique as we did nab him from barca, but he then did go into our youth system. Ben Foster is a bit of a conundrum too as we did buy him from stoke, but he never played for stoke and only played on loan. Anyway
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm biased, but I'll try to comment from a neutral point of view... United seem to have a better general infrastructure than Chelsea and do buy, and sell, better also.We're a bigger club (top 3 in the world, with Barca and Madrid), for a start, which helps in the transfer market. We've got great ties with lower league clubs, and also foreign clubs (Sporting Lisbon, Antwerp, some other one in Europe, and a couple in Asia too for the future). Having the connection with Lisbon wasn't the ONLY reason we got Ronaldo and Nani, but it most definitely helped. We have a better youth system, that's just a fact and doesn't even need to be argued here.Over the last say, 5-6 seasons, both clubs have spent ridiculous amounts of money on players, but I think it's very obvious that United have spent their money more wisely. Chelsea seem to just fire off 30 Mil for a 30 year old here, a 29 year old there... I mean seriously, Chelsea need to buy younger players. I know Abramovich can afford it, but there doesn't seem to be as much thought about 'team spirit' and longevity etc, as there is at United. There's also no managerial stability, and I honestly don't think there ever will be whilst RA is owner... he won't let any manager dominate the club, and make every single decision ala Fergie. And comparing the purchase of Rooney with Shevchenko purely in terms of money is silly. Even if they'd both flopped, Rooney was still by far the better buy.I also still see Liverpool as a way bigger club than Chelsea. Not just talking about current success, but looking at the complete package, including history, trophy cabinet, fan base etc. Not even close, imo. Arsenal are a bigger club too, easily. Maybe even Man City, Villa and Spurs. That may sound silly, looking at the Chelsea team now, but really all Chelsea has is Abramovich. If he leaves tomorrow... what happens then? I'd give it 3 seasons before Chelsea drop out of the top 4, then a couple more seasons before they're 6-8th again.Another thing which holds Chelsea back from completely breaking into the super-elite is the stadium. It's not big enough, and there's no room for expansion unless they move somewhere else.That said, Chelsea are a super solid team at the moment, and will keep attracting players so long as Abramovich keeps waving his cheque-book around to pay the biggest wages in Europe. Attracting a different type of player to that of a United player, imo, but still great players.It's also a little unlucky for Chelsea that the best team in Europe happens to play in the same league as them. But it's still a great achievement to be in the Champions League final... there's nothing wrong with being losers runners-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that complaining about how much Chelsea spends to field a team is mind bogglingly silly. Critiquing how they spend that money is one thing, but the amount? That's just daft. Competitive balance has never been a mark of the Premiership. Personally, I think Europe would be much better off with a super league, where the 20 biggest clubs compete. Having a Squad like Chelsea and Man U in the same league as Stoke City or Fulham just doesn't make any sense at all. If you had a super league, you could instate a salary cap or a transfer cap, and keep one or two teams from spending money like sailors on shore leave in Amsterdam.I know this super league is extremely unlikely to ever happen, but a guy can dream. I think regulating Premiership spending, as the way things are now, would put English clubs at a competitive disadvantage in Europe, so any sort of caps would have to be Europe-wide, and good luck herding those cats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont comment on your other points as others seem to have already said what i was going to.

3. You're saying Spurs has a billionaire owner who doesn't invest any money in the club? That's ridiculous.
Not really, he owns the club why would he keep putting money into a business that is already turning a profit. He bought it, thats his investment, now the investment makes a profit for him, is that so hard to understand.I think you are blinded by the Chelsea model of investment in football clubs where the owner buys it then pumps millions upon millions into it to try and make it into his personal hobby fantasy football team.
Of course he puts his own money in, otherwise what would be the point in owning it?
To make a profit out of it, not a loss by pumping 100s of millions in every year :club:
I doubt you have an indepth knowledge of where the money comes from and what its spent on in every league team, so stop talking out of your ass and pretending to know everything.
No not every team, but I do have that knowledge of mine as I make it my business. And I know for a fact that every penny of what we spend on transfers and wages comes out of club cashflow and isnt funded by outside sources such as the owners private bank accounts. Why is that a ridiculous statement? Do you have no idea of the nature of investment etc?
Link to post
Share on other sites
All the stuff said about Spurs.
Don't you boys have the best sponsorship deal in the league with Mansion? I know it was when it was first agreed, is that still the case?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that complaining about how much Chelsea spends to field a team is mind bogglingly silly. Critiquing how they spend that money is one thing, but the amount? That's just daft. Competitive balance has never been a mark of the Premiership. Personally, I think Europe would be much better off with a super league, where the 20 biggest clubs compete. Having a Squad like Chelsea and Man U in the same league as Stoke City or Fulham just doesn't make any sense at all. If you had a super league, you could instate a salary cap or a transfer cap, and keep one or two teams from spending money like sailors on shore leave in Amsterdam.I know this super league is extremely unlikely to ever happen, but a guy can dream. I think regulating Premiership spending, as the way things are now, would put English clubs at a competitive disadvantage in Europe, so any sort of caps would have to be Europe-wide, and good luck herding those cats.
honestly, why would europe be better off with a 20 club only super league. It would kill all of the domestic leagues, its the same reason that Rangers and Celtic most likely will never play in england. THe money that the smaller clubs get from playing the bigger clubs and being in the top division is massive for them and it also provides those fans with fun memories. Imagine if you are a Bradford City fan, while your club may now be in the crapper like it normally is, you still have those great memories of those two seasons in the top flight that hadn't happened in something like 80 years. You can say that any top flight league in europe is a joke because x clubs are in it. SerieA has had clubs recently that have a long history of being in SerieC1 and SerieB same with LaLiga. Can you logically come up with a model that would make it work so that the smaller clubs can benefit from such a super league, because they won't
Link to post
Share on other sites
honestly, why would europe be better off with a 20 club only super league. It wouldn't It would kill all of the domestic leagues Exactly
It's a nice idea, in a 'fantasy league' type way, and I can see why some would like it. However, in reality it'd be the worst thing ever to happen to European football.Anyway, we don't need it... the Premiership is the most exciting league in the world and we now have 4 teams playing in Europe's top competition each year. That's quite enough, imo.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...