Re: Barclays Premier League 15-16 Discussion-v1

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:46 pm

I'm not saying he hasn't Surag, just the usual hypocrisy from him is funny though.

by RealGunner Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:47 pm

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CK3FzY_WsAEzSGT.png

by Gil Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:48 pm

Jesus Christ. How the hell is Pellegrini so high up with barely anything to show for it?

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:50 pm

Gil wrote:Jesus Christ. How the hell is Pellegrini so high up with barely anything to show for it?

Probably because he was Madrid manager the summer they spent a *bleep* moon and sun on players....

by Gil Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:04 pm

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:
Gil wrote:Jesus Christ. How the hell is Pellegrini so high up with barely anything to show for it?

Probably because he was Madrid manager the summer they spent a *bleep* moon and sun on players....

Forgot, the season they got knocked out by Lyon & some random club who's name resembles a gamertag in the Copa.

He's also spent a shitload at City & doesn't have to sell to fund transfers yet continuously complains about FFP. Laughing

by El Gunner Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:55 am

Our favourite journalist at it again Proud

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CK3JfQ9WoAAzcmA.jpg:small

by halamadrid2 Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:58 am

No Benitez :bow:

Gonna win the treble with 12 canteranos in the squad

by Myesyats Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:49 am

halamadrid2 wrote:No Benitez Gonna win the treble with 12 canteranos in the squad

by Kick Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:48 am

Spending since Summer 2012 wrote:
TOTAL SPEND NET SPEND
Man United £308.6m Man United £257.04m
Chelsea £271.6m Man City £156.15m
Liverpool £262.79m Liverpool £115.57m
Man City £251.83m Arsenal £89.4m
Spurs £190.05m Chelsea £82.79m
Arsenal £166.06m Spurs -£9.48m

http://www.espnfc.com/barclays-premier-league/23/blog/post/2539130/how-does-arsenal-spending-compare-to-chelsea-and-top-six

A few interesting things here, Liverpool and spent more than City in recent times, and if it wasn't for the Sterling transfer, Liverpool would be above City in Net spent, too. Chelsea have also splashed the cash, yet due to our great sales, we've spent less in net transfers than Arsenal.

And finally, Man Utd:

Spoiler:

by Nishankly Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:48 am

Liverpool needs to spend considering the fact they are no longer a top 4 club and keep losing star players, I dont think this fact is disputed but im just putting it out there. Spending wisely is also another matter.

by Art Morte Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:29 am

It's the net spending that matters and is the real indicator of how much clubs are spending.

What Chelsea have done better than anyone else is they've been able to buy players who, generally speaking, have retained their value really well even if they haven't done that great at Chelsea or haven't been in the first XI. The fees they have received for unwanted players like Luiz, Mata and Schurrle are something incredible.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:10 am

Don't see how net spending means anything when it can be easily conflicted to favour overall spending.

Sell Suarez for 80m ( or whatever it was) spend 60m on crap and you made 20m profit that window Laughing

Dat net spend.

by S Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:11 am

I would assume Liverpool spend less on wages than their rivals which explains why they spent a lot of money on crap.That also needs to be considered imo.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:17 am

They spent a lot of money just like everyone else really, no need to justify it with "net spending " so you can pretend that City are evil like people like to claim and Liverpool are not because "net spend doe ".

All top teams in England are the same, this crying about money is very double standards imo. BTW I'm not aiming this at anyone particular just a general statement.

by Unique Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:28 am

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:They spent a lot of money just like everyone else really, no need to justify it with "net spending " so you can pretend that City are evil like people like to claim and Liverpool are not because "net spend doe ".

All top teams in England are the same, this crying about money is very double standards imo. BTW I'm not aiming this at anyone particular just a general statement.

net spent means a lot. its not just money spent that has a big affect on a team. players sold also affects it.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:52 am

I know but it can very easily be twisted into something to hide the fact a team has spent 100s of millions Laughing

Not that it concerns me anyway, considering who i support Laughing

by Sri Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:59 am

Unique wrote: its not just money spent that has a big affect on a team. players sold also affects it.

...and there is definitely a huge difference in selling first team star players (Suarez/Sterling) and selling unwanted players at high value (Luiz, Mata, Lukaku..), if we talk about money + affect on team hmm

by Unique Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:01 am

srigooner wrote:
Unique wrote: its not just money spent that has a big affect on a team. players sold also affects it.

...and there is definitely a huge difference in selling first team star players (Suarez/Sterling) and selling unwanted players at high value (Luiz, Mata, Lukaku..), if we talk about money + affect on team

spot on. also if Chelsea buy 3 players for 100mil. and Liverpool buy 8 players for 100mil. the 3 Chelsea players would make the starting 11 far better than 8 squad players.

by Sri Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:04 am

Of course.

Credit where it is due, all said and done. Chelsea have been doing very good business and managing their player turnover very well. Not a surprise, considering how many people they have off on loan - eventually, those players improve and either fetch a fee or go on to improving the first team (ideally).

by Unique Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:07 am

srigooner wrote:Of course.

Credit where it is due, all said and done. Chelsea have been doing very good business and managing their player turnover very well. Not a surprise, considering how many people they have off on loan - eventually, those players improve and either fetch a fee or go on to improving the first team (ideally).

yeah they have done really well getting the money they have. 50mil for luiz. how did they manage that. Shocked

by Art Morte Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:08 am

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:I know but it can very easily be twisted into something to hide the fact a team has spent 100s of millions

Not that it concerns me anyway, considering who i support

But in such a case the club has deserved to spend "100s of millions" because their previous purchases / youth development has been so good that it has given them those monies.

Not that I care too much about what clubs spend, those with money available - from what ever source - will spend it. Simple as.

by Unique Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:18 am

EVERTON REJECT £25M STONES BID

Following on from reports earlier, it is understood by Sky sources that Everton have rejected a bid of £25m from Chelsea for John Stones.

Roberto Martinez declined to comment on the defender's future when asked at the weekend.

by Art Morte Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:21 am

Don't really care what happens in that story. Feels like a win-win if Chelsea pay £25m for Stones and Everton lose a CB when they're already short on those.

by Nishankly Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:19 pm

Southampton: Stekelenburg, Cedric, Fonte, Yoshida, Targett, Wanyama, Clasie, Davis, Tadic, Mane, Pelle.

Subs: Gazzaniga, Long, Martina, Ward-Prowse, Reed, Juanmi, McCarthy.

Debuts for 3 guys here, No Rodriguez?

Vitesse: Room, Diks, Kashia, Leerdam, Achenteh, Baker, Nakamba, Vako, Brown, Djurdjevic, Oliinyk.

Subs: Velthuizen, Vd Werff, Lelieveld, Osman, Pantic, Rashica, Dauda.

How many of these scrubs are from Chelsea?

by Myesyats Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:52 pm

Thanks for reminding me about the game lol

by RealGunner Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:53 pm

Was thinking why you would watch that but realised it's EL qual lol

Might watch 5 minutes of it

by Sponsored content