Does the EPL make the worst transfer decisions??

just to get this out of the way my guess is that the argument is aimed mainly at the topto middle brass of the epl, and not lower sides as not many people, myself included follow what goes on in relegation to lower-middle table transfers (anyone who does, i mean that as no disrespect)

they make the worst decisions in comparison to who? according to some, the epl (don't quote me on this, i'm just going by hearsay) brings in the most funds and has the biggest market, so the spending habits of their top brass will be different from those of lets say serie a, la liga (with the exception of real n barcelona), ligue un (with the exception of the rich clubs)

the fact that england has 4 or 5 teams that have a lot of spending capacity unlike other leagues means they are likely to take more risks with regards to expenses and thus end up with more flops. for example anytime there's a big player on the market, he's linked to real, barca and a bunch of english teams....when real and barca are out of the mix or not interested, then you have a bunch of clubs from the same country that can sign said player, in order to avoid a bidding war, the price and wages get hiked up without any thought.

i disagree that its due to lack of scouting, everybody makes transfer errors, when you're fc porto, lyon, benfica et al who can't spend 30 million on one player, you become very frugal with your spending. and if you're real and barcelona who hold a duopoly, u're signings can appear smarter than they are , even though ibra, drenthe, song, kaka, hleb, faubert etc tells us that's not always the case

titosantill wrote:just to get this out of the way my guess is that the argument is aimed mainly at the topto middle brass of the epl, and not lower sides as not many people, myself included follow what goes on in relegation to lower-middle table transfers (anyone who does, i mean that as no disrespect)

they make the worst decisions in comparison to who? according to some, the epl (don't quote me on this, i'm just going by hearsay) brings in the most funds and has the biggest market, so the spending habits of their top brass will be different from those of lets say serie a, la liga (with the exception of real n barcelona), ligue un (with the exception of the rich clubs)

the fact that england has 4 or 5 teams that have a lot of spending capacity unlike other leagues means they are likely to take more risks with regards to expenses and thus end up with more flops. for example anytime there's a big player on the market, he's linked to real, barca and a bunch of english teams....when real and barca are out of the mix or not interested, then you have a bunch of clubs from the same country that can sign said player, in order to avoid a bidding war, the price and wages get hiked up without any thought.

i disagree that its due to lack of scouting, everybody makes transfer errors, when you're fc porto, lyon, benfica et al who can't spend 30 million on one player, you become very frugal with your spending. and if you're real and barcelona who hold a duopoly, u're signings can appear smarter than they are , even though ibra, drenthe, song, kaka, hleb, faubert etc tells us that's not always the case

Just to answer your quote, look at Liverpool and Spurs for example after getting massive windfalls of money from Suarez and Bale.

They basically made pretty bad purchases with the money.  Now when a La Liga side or French or teams from Portugal and Italy get a cash injection like that they generally invest in youth and a mix of proven players but don't go buy a guy like Benteke for 40 million dollars just because they have the money.

A comparison would be Atletico when they sell a superstar forward every couple years they replace them easily and generally have cash left over to spend.

I would rather see them spend the entire Sterling or Bale money on one superstar player if they could then buying a bunch of "good" players.  Spurs squandered that Bale money horribly and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

QPR were outspending teams in Europe from other leagues and they were relegated.

It's a systematic problem in the EPL and almost a race of who can be more insane with there money.  There is almost no thought into why there buying a player, where he fits in, the long term strategy of the purchase.  It's just we have money, he will come here let's pay him a boatload of money (which can kill a players drive) and just figure it our later or dump it on a new coach after we fire our next manager.

And it's not just 5 or 6 clubs in the EPL doing all the spending a lot of teams have terrible transfer policies which is reflected in Europe.

The league has all types of money, spend it like crazy yet can't compete in Europe with teams that have rational transfer policies. Since the spending spree in modern football started happening like 5 or 6 years ago the EPL has gotten worse in Europe while outspending there counterparts.

It should be the opposite.

I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

If you look at Gladbach, this season, they signed Lars Stindl for 3 mio Euros, Josip Drmić for 10 mio Euros, Nico Elvedi for 4 mio Euros, Thorgan Hazard for 8 Mio Euros and Tobias Sippel for free.

Very likely, none of these players would even be considered by any EPL team right now, but you can be sure they will give a good account of themselves and you will even see them play in the CL (okay, not Tobias Sippel as he was signed for the bench anyway).

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

The simple explanation is that spending money on players doesn't necessarily mean having a better team for European competition. While there's emphasis on building a team that can be successful in domestic competition, the tactical side of things and preparation for European games can be neglected. Whereas in other countries, I believe their domestic game more closely resembles the European game, so they're already better equipped regardless of which players they sign.

I think you're overexggarting it being a wide-spread issue in the Premier League. You've given Spurs, Liverpool and QPR as examples of teams with poor transfer policies but I can point to teams like Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and Everton who have good transfer policies. Chelsea have spent well recently in the market (and don't forget they won the CL in 2012 and the EL in 2013), City for the most part spent well in the market, Arsenal generally spend well in the market. The latter two haven't done well in Europe but as I've said, that's not down to poor spending - it's down to poor preparation and tactics. Time will tell if United have invested well and how well they'll do in the Champions League.

So there are clubs with good transfer policies, club with bad ones, clubs who have mixed success. It's basically the same as anywhere else in Europe, only it's more noticeable because of the amount of money involved. Until last season, Serie A clubs had a poor record in Europe, yet you didn't mention those, probably because they didn't have as much money to spend. What about the Turkish clubs who can spend more than their domestic rivals but regularly fail to impact European competitions?

rwo power wrote:I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

...

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

This isn't really the case, though. Yes, there's an initial skepticism when a player is brought in for much cheaper than a fee received for an outgoing player, but once that player proves to be a good player fans stop caring about how much he cost. And I believe that's the same anywhere in Europe.

What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one. Again, though, this preconception is cleared once the player proves he is a good player and again, I think this is the case anywhere else in Europe.

GoonerJay29 wrote:What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one.

Yeah, that's something that I noticed in quite some forums. As a matter of fact, this actually helps keep players in the Bundesliga more often than not as the clubs with lots of money prefer to go for the expensive solutions instead of snapping up bargain that might be as good (or maybe even better for the team as they don't feel like superstars, but more as team players).

When I see what amounts of money often is paid for players in the EPL which I wouldn't consider as too desirable, then I'm really dumbstruck as often one could get far more value for money elsewhere.

GoonerJay29 wrote:The simple explanation is that spending money on players doesn't necessarily mean having a better team for European competition. While there's emphasis on building a team that can be successful in domestic competition, the tactical side of things and preparation for European games can be neglected. Whereas in other countries, I believe their domestic game more closely resembles the European game, so they're already better equipped regardless of which players they sign.

I think you're overexggarting it being a wide-spread issue in the Premier League. You've given Spurs, Liverpool and QPR as examples of teams with poor transfer policies but I can point to teams like Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and Everton who have good transfer policies. Chelsea have spent well recently in the market (and don't forget they won the CL in 2012 and the EL in 2013), City for the most part spent well in the market, Arsenal generally spend well in the market. The latter two haven't done well in Europe but as I've said, that's not down to poor spending - it's down to poor preparation and tactics. Time will tell if United have invested well and how well they'll do in the Champions League.

So there are clubs with good transfer policies, club with bad ones, clubs who have mixed success. It's basically the same as anywhere else in Europe, only it's more noticeable because of the amount of money involved. Until last season, Serie A clubs had a poor record in Europe, yet you didn't mention those, probably because they didn't have as much money to spend. What about the Turkish clubs who can spend more than their domestic rivals but regularly fail to impact European competitions?

rwo power wrote:I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

...

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

This isn't really the case, though. Yes, there's an initial skepticism when a player is brought in for much cheaper than a fee received for an outgoing player, but once that player proves to be a good player fans stop caring about how much he cost. And I believe that's the same anywhere in Europe.

What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one. Again, though, this preconception is cleared once the player proves he is a good player and again, I think this is the case anywhere else in Europe.

I mean you can say teams from other countries are much more set up for Europe with the style of play and I buy that to an extent but than the EPL it's self has been very poor the last two years so the signings aren't really even helping the league out.

I wouldn't consider Man City's transfer policy good with the amount of money there spending they are burning through players at an astonishing rate.  They released Jack Rodwell and Javi Garcia= 23 mill in transfer money not even accounting for salaries

Bony- 28 mill
Mangala- 40 mill
Navas- 23 mill
Negredo- 20 mill for one season
Fernandinho-30 mill
Jovetic- 26 mill - sold for like 8 mill and got nothing out of him
Sterling - 44 mill
There first couple windows were good but lately they have been awful in the market just buying to buy.  LOOK how much money that is for players who barely contribute outside of Fernandinho.

I mean Chelsea didn't lose money but they have such a massive squad and spent money on players who basically will never play for them.  They loan out like half there team.

Arsenal I said from the start has been restrained but they are also one of the only big teams who actually somewhat value a youth system.  That is where a lot of the insane spending starts IMO with the EPL is that the youth systems produce nothing at these bigger clubs.

And if you compare mid-table teams to there counterparts in other leagues they outspend by leaps and bounds yet again gain nothing from it.

City won the league though with Fernandinho, Navas and Negredo. Maybe that doesn't completely justify the expenditure on those players but if the aim of their policy was to sign players that would help them win the league, then it's been a success. Mangala had a dodgy first year but can get better, and Sterling is a young player. If they win the league again then arguably the outlay is justified, even more so if Mangala and Sterling become mainstays for a number of years.

We can't ignore either the likes of Kompany, Zabaleta, Clichy, Kolarov, Yaya Toure, David Silva, Milner, Nasri, Aguero or Dzeko. A few recent questionable deals doesn't undo the good work they did before.

As for Chelsea, true they sign a lot of players they don't ever use, but as far as I know (a Chelsea fan would know better) that's part of their strategy to raise funds for first team signings as they're attempting to become more self-sustainable and less reliant on owner-injected money. It's not much different to how Udinese sign a lot of players that inevitably end up at Granada or Watford without even kicking a ball in Serie A.

And if you compare mid-table teams to there counterparts in other leagues they outspend by leaps and bounds yet again gain nothing from it.

What are they supposed to be gaining? Premier League mid-table clubs are rich but the clubs finishing above them are richer and can outspend them. That's the same as it is in every other division, only on a much richer scale.

The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

GoonerJay29 wrote:The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

I think it would mean something if the Crystal Palace guys would do proper scouting in the same hunting grounds were Espenyol fishes for players - in that case, Crystal Palace would be easily able to outbid Espanyol. Fortunately, currently the EPL clubs don't seem to scout in the areas where the poorer clubs have to look for players.

rwo power wrote:

GoonerJay29 wrote:The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

I think it would mean something if the Crystal Palace guys would do proper scouting in the same hunting grounds were Espenyol fishes for players - in that case, Crystal Palace would be easily able to outbid Espanyol. Fortunately, currently the EPL clubs don't seem to scout in the areas where the poorer clubs have to look for players.

that exactly why having all that money to spend doesn't make them automatically better.

Tbf the prem just love flashing cash, so they have something to brag about, in the pre show before the league starts.

Who's saying they're better, though? We have a sensationalist media over here but I have never seen anyone suggest that our mid-table tables are superior to other division's mid-table clubs. The only time I've seen that argument come up is during league vs league debates on this forum, but we're hardly representative of the average fan.

"The Prem just love flashing the cash" - are you saying the mid-table teams of Serie A, La Liga or Bundesliga wouldn't do the same if they could?

GoonerJay29 wrote:City won the league though with Fernandinho, Navas and Negredo. Maybe that doesn't completely justify the expenditure on those players but if the aim of their policy was to sign players that would help them win the league, then it's been a success. Mangala had a dodgy first year but can get better, and Sterling is a young player. If they win the league again then arguably the outlay is justified, even more so if Mangala and Sterling become mainstays for a number of years.

We can't ignore either the likes of Kompany, Zabaleta, Clichy, Kolarov, Yaya Toure, David Silva, Milner, Nasri, Aguero or Dzeko. A few recent questionable deals doesn't undo the good work they did before.

As for Chelsea, true they sign a lot of players they don't ever use, but as far as I know (a Chelsea fan would know better) that's part of their strategy to raise funds for first team signings as they're attempting to become more self-sustainable and less reliant on owner-injected money. It's not much different to how Udinese sign a lot of players that inevitably end up at Granada or Watford without even kicking a ball in Serie A.

And if you compare mid-table teams to there counterparts in other leagues they outspend by leaps and bounds yet again gain nothing from it.

What are they supposed to be gaining? Premier League mid-table clubs are rich but the clubs finishing above them are richer and can outspend them. That's the same as it is in every other division, only on a much richer scale.

The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

It does when Mid-table La Liga sides can thrash Man United in the Europa league and challenge for the title.

It just shows a whole different way of doing things without throwing money at every problem.

How on earth does QPR get relegated. Again give a La Liga team that budget and they would be happy as a clam and doing well. Hell, Malaga had a nice sized budget for like a year and a half and were in the final 8 of the CL and there spending wasn't anywhere near EPL clubs.

As for City, Negredo isn't even in the team anymore, Navas is a failure at the club ask any city fan, Mangala just isn't worth 40 mill (40 mill BTW) but yes there first couple windows were decent but since then they have been awful in the market.

GoonerJay29 wrote:Who's saying they're better, though? We have a sensationalist media over here but I have never seen anyone suggest that our mid-table tables are superior to other division's mid-table clubs. The only time I've seen that argument come up is during league vs league debates on this forum, but we're hardly representative of the average fan.

"The Prem just love flashing the cash" - are you saying the mid-table teams of Serie A, La Liga or Bundesliga wouldn't do the same if they could?

You serious. Do you have any clue how many times we hear the EPl is the most competitive league in the world from top to bottom?

Dnmac4 wrote:
Just to answer your quote, look at Liverpool and Spurs for example after getting massive windfalls of money from Suarez and Bale.

They basically made pretty bad purchases with the money.  Now when a La Liga side or French or teams from Portugal and Italy get a cash injection like that they generally invest in youth and a mix of proven players but don't go buy a guy like Benteke for 40 million dollars just because they have the money.

A comparison would be Atletico when they sell a superstar forward every couple years they replace them easily and generally have cash left over to spend.

I would rather see them spend the entire Sterling or Bale money on one superstar player if they could then buying a bunch of "good" players.  Spurs squandered that Bale money horribly and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

QPR were outspending teams in Europe from other leagues and they were relegated.

It's a systematic problem in the EPL and almost a race of who can be more insane with there money.  There is almost no thought into why there buying a player, where he fits in, the long term strategy of the purchase.  It's just we have money, he will come here let's pay him a boatload of money (which can kill a players drive) and just figure it our later or dump it on a new coach after we fire our next manager.

And it's not just 5 or 6 clubs in the EPL doing all the spending a lot of teams have terrible transfer policies which is reflected in Europe.

The league has all types of money, spend it like crazy yet can't compete in Europe with teams that have rational transfer policies. Since the spending spree in modern football started happening like 5 or 6 years ago the EPL has gotten worse in Europe while outspending there counterparts.

It should be the opposite.

most will say that's even more risky and foolish to spend the whole bale money on one player. first of all, spurs, pool and epl don't have any clout with respect to making 60 million euro signings. spurs did the right thing by signing a lot of players, i think their problem was down to management. they went for squad depth but couldn't manage the team.

atletico plays in a different league with different expectations and has had the same coach for about 5 to 6 years. that goes a long way. and aside they're not competing with anyone in terms of signings....atleti aren't looking to sign players that madrid and barca are going for. and a lot of clubs in our league are riddled with so much debt that there isn't much competition for the same players by the 3rd to 7th place clubs

btw when la liga and serie a had better budgets in the late 90s to early 2000s, they also signed a lot of flops. when there's a lot of money and teams that can compete for the same players, recklessness is bound to happen every now and again.....i won't however say they make the worst decisions

It does when Mid-table La Liga sides can thrash Man United in the Europa league and challenge for the title.

It just shows a whole different way of doing things without throwing money at every problem.

If you're referring to Athletic Bilbao, they finished 6th the year before that United game, which isn't mid-table, and their subsequent finishes in 10th and 12th is hardly challenging for the title.

Athletic had an excellent season and deservedly beat a massively underachieving Man United team, but it's a result in isolation.

Of course, there are many ways of building a successful team, but where you're praising (rightfully) Athletic's methods, let's not forget that Man United's methods got them to the final of the Champions League the season before.

How on earth does QPR get relegated. Again give a La Liga team that budget and they would be happy as a clam and doing well. Hell, Malaga had a nice sized budget for like a year and a half and were in the final 8 of the CL and there spending wasn't anywhere near EPL clubs.

QPR are run by idiots, that's why. They left their transfer to Harry Redknapp, who went and blew a lot of cash on poor, past-it players, and then rather then learn from past mistakes, repeated the process with their next manager. Even in the Premier League, they're an outstanding example of a club that doesn't know what it's doing in the transfer market.

But why keep focusing on QPR? Why not mention Stoke, who came up six years ago and are now an established mid-table team, or Swansea, who came in four years ago and are the same, or Crystal Palace, who came up recently and finished 10th last season? While there's evidence of poorly run clubs, there is just as much evidence of clubs who are well run and know what they're doing with their money.

Malaga spent over €100 million after they were taken over. Only three Premier League clubs spent more than that in the same period: Liverpool, Cheslea (who won the Champions League in 2012) and Manchester City (who won the Premier League in the same year). Their spending was, in fact, greater than 17 other Premier League teams.

So we've got an example of a team with a smaller budget doing well in Europe, and an example of a team with a bigger budget doing well in Europe - I think we can safely say that spending money does not equate success in Europe. Therefore, the Premier League's lack of success in Europe in recent times, in comparison to other leagues, is not necessarily reflective of poor decision making in the transfer market. It's as much down to tactics and preparations than it is to players, as I've already said.

You serious. Do you have any clue how many times we hear the EPl is the most competitive league in the world from top to bottom?

The competition claim comes from the belief that more points are dropped by teams in the PL than they are in other leagues, but is linked more to intangibles things like "spirit", "bravery" and "never giving up" than money. I've not seen or heard anybody say "our teams are richer than everyone else, therefore they are better". If there's an example somewhere, show me, and I'll readily concede the point.

Dude, the year Bilbao thrashed United they finished 10th in La Liga.

And when I said win the league I meant the Europa League.

As for Malaga and there spending money, in every other league spending money leads to CL success.  And Malaga spent about 80 mill american and that was to overhaul a midtable squad who needed a lot of quality where as pool, Spurs, United etc already have really good players but they spend 80 mill American like it's water.

France- PSG and Monaco
Spain- Barca, Madrid, Atletico, Malaga (When they had money)
Italy-Juve, Napoli
Germany- Bayern etc

The teams spending the most money in these leagues do well in the Champions League in the EPL of late that is not the case.  It points to a systemic problem and a lack of understanding on how to play the market.

And domestically Chelsea was the only team even trying to win the league last year and I've said it before I will say it again I have no clue how they didn't win the EPl the year before, IMO it was down to Mou mismanaging the teams resources.

"The competition claim comes from the belief that more points are dropped by teams in the PL than they are in other leagues, but is linked more to intangibles things like "spirit", "bravery" and "never giving up" than money. I've not seen or heard anybody say "our teams are richer than everyone else, therefore they are better". If there's an example somewhere, show me, and I'll readily concede the point."

I'm not going digging around to find any point but it is common place in the media and on message boards to say the TV money in England makes the league more competitive and La Liga should adopt the same system if they would like there league to be more competitive.

That is directly saying the mid table teams have access to more money there fore the league is more competitive, There is no other way to spin that.

The teams spending the most money in these leagues do well in the Champions League in the EPL of late that is not the case. It points to a systemic problem and a lack of understanding on how to play the market.

I don't think it's as definitive as you're making out.

Last season, the way I saw it, Monaco and PSG didn't knock out Arsenal and Chelsea because they made better transfers than those clubs, but because, during one leg of their respective ties, they had a better approach. Arsenal didn't respect the strengths Monaco had, Chelsea were too passive against PSG; these were problems that could have been avoided without signing anybody.

Man City second in their group behind Bayern, which was expected, then were knocked out by Barcelona, the eventual winners. Liverpool had enough quality, even without Suarez, to get out of a group that had Basel and Ludogorets. What's common here is that the managers of these clubs made vital mistakes that cost their teams.

Going back further, in 13/14 the PL had all four teams in the knockouts, two of which when to the quarter-finals, and one to the semi-finals. So that was a decent year. The year before was before as only two teams got through the group and they were both knocked out in the last 16. The year before Chelsea won it.

So I don't see where the systematic problem is. All I see is that English clubs have been inconsistent in Europe, which could be down to any number of factors. I reiterate that performances in Europe can't be used as evidenced that Premier League clubs make more wrong decisions in the transfer market than their Europeaan counterparts.

Dnmac4 wrote:I'm not going digging around to find any point but it is common place in the media and on message boards to say the TV money in England makes the league more competitive and La Liga should adopt the same system if they would like there league to be more competitive.

I think they mean that in the Premier league the money is distributed more evenly from first to last, while in the Spanish League, Barca and Real currently get the lion's share of the TV money and the lower positioned teams only get a tiny fraction of the money. This distribution will be changed from 2016 on for Spain, though.