Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Catch - is that you?


Paul
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe we should put Ryan Babel on £300,000-a-week, sit back and watch him evolve into the best player on earth.

 

I just made a statistical study of your 17000+ posts, and surprisingly 93% of them turned out to be nonsense. The definition of nonsense used for this study was: "Nonsense (pronounced /ˈnɒnsəns/ (UK), /ˈnɒnsɛns/ (US)[1]) is a verbal communication or written text that is spoken or written in a human language or other symbolic system but lacks any coherent meaning."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About standard for most clubs isn't it?

Is it notmore constructive to talk about the first team and bench which has blatantly had a revolving door policy.

 

We all know the issues with reserves and youth

 

No, we have more than any according to figures published a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said above, you need time, money or both. Arsenal and the Mancs have continuity in their squads. It takes far longer for a squad player to learn their role.

 

O'Shea, Neville, Evans, Fletcher, Parke etc not world beaters but they have learnt their role and become useful. Our squad gets chopped and changed to scrape funds for the first team.

 

How long does one need to instill a consistent brand of good football? 6 seasons?

 

The high turnover of players could also be attributed to poor forward planning and an obsessive strategy. He wasn't forced to sell anyone but did anyway and bought poorly instead of making better use of solid reserves liked you mentioned at the mancs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just check something, are we including the money Porto paid to referees to fix the league in Mourinho's spending over there or not?

 

Can't help but think that a nice easy league campaign would leave players a little fresher for that amazing achievement in Europe too.

I'm sure Rangers and Celtic would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long does one need to instill a consistent brand of good football? 6 seasons?

 

The high turnover of players could also be attributed to poor forward planning and an obsessive strategy. He wasn't forced to sell anyone but did anyway and bought poorly instead of making better use of solid reserves liked you mentioned at the mancs.

 

Fair point, i think it takes a good few years and you need to be bailed out by the owners when you do cock it up which will invariably happen. Look at the hargreaves, nani and anderson window - all shite, 50 million and the fact that none really play or have played did not affect them one bit. They would be some of ourmost expensive players ever, 2 are shite and one is a crock.

 

Other managers get a few chances with 20 mil players and even 30 mil players but if we bought a 30 mil crock many would call for Rafa's head whereas others fill their benches with players who cost more than our record signings

 

From now we have a good chance to have a decent squad and keep them together, i reckon the current crop could be really good in a few years of playing and training together.

 

However it depends if we get the first teamers in without having to sell, cant see it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point.

Bit smartarse actually, but one thing I disliked from 2005 and 2007 is Chelsea fans and Mancs telling us we only reached the finally because we had no league title chase to contend with.

 

I'm not entirely enamoured with the idea of the Spesh coming here either, but fair's fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit smartarse actually, but one thing I disliked from 2005 and 2007 is Chelsea fans and Mancs telling us we only reached the finally because we had no league title chase to contend with.

 

I'm not entirely enamoured with the idea of the Spesh coming here either, but fair's fair.

 

I think he;s good but there are clouds over most of his achievements. The fact that he spent a third of a billion at Chelsea, was buying refs in Oporto and that AC and Juve got savaged after the bung scandal cannot be overlooked when judging the merit of his titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juventus and AC Milan have more money than Inter, Benfica had more than Porto.

 

I dont know the lad italian lad ,Seraf ,on the recent podcast, but he clearly stated that Inter have the biggest budget to play with, followed by Milan and Juve.

 

I do agree that Jose is a good manager though and not just lucky with money, he has earnt the right to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't belive the snotty "I'm smarter than you"-tone in that article, it's almost like he's meant it ironic or as a joke. Paul, I would more say it's written by someone with Catch's brain and Code's debating style :)

 

His points are valid though. There is an extremely high correlation, whether people like it or not. To deny it would be to put your head in the sand and believe that we'll win the league if we only attack teams and have a manager who is best buddy with the players.

 

That is so well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so well said.

 

It isn't really because no one has said that and it's just the opposite end of the extreme. Wages are hugely important but so is building team spirt and the right approach. We had the same wage bill last season and yet when we went out in a positive frame of mind and attacked teams we almost won the league. So to write off one or the other is daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PurpleNose
I'm pretty sure that Inter Milan have outspent AC Milan and Juventus both in wages and transfers for a good few seasons now.

 

They have. But the much less relevant "revenue" is being used to aid an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PurpleNose
It isn't really because no one has said that and it's just the opposite end of the extreme. Wages are hugely important but so is building team spirt and the right approach. We had the same wage bill last season and yet when we went out in a positive frame of mind and attacked teams we almost won the league. So to write off one or the other is daft.

 

Did we? Genuinely don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why Maddock felt he needed to write that piece in the smart arse way he did. He makes a very obvious and clear point which is that if you pay higher wages then you can attract a better quality of player. Yet, just like some on here, the comment was twisted to Maddock saying that if you pay a shite player loads of money he becomes good. This was not what he said, or what was said by the people who brought it up here, yet the usuals twisted it that way to try and belittle the point instead of seeing it for what it was, which was correct.

 

Yes, there are always exceptions like free transfers where an average player who would usually have cost roughly £8m can be get a much higher salary because you can give him the 3 or 4 million extra on to a £40k a week salary and still be saving as you got him for free.

 

But the main point is spot on and is proved time and time again. However, people will be off on their twisty twisty again and come out with the usual stupid comment of "Well, we'll give Riera £100k a week and he'll be brilliant so" thus entirely missing the point on purpose

 

By the way, any time Mourinho has won a league he has been the biggest spender in that league at that time by a distance. He may not have been at the richest club, but he was spending the most money. And if he comes to City, he again wont be at the richest club (on turnover it is the Mancs), but will spend the most money.

 

Posted by me at 11:09am

 

 

 

Maybe we should put Ryan Babel on £300,000-a-week, sit back and watch him evolve into the best player on earth.

 

Predictably posted by Hermes at 11:49am. Laughable to say the least. I'll leave others to decide whether he is purposely twisting the comment, or just plain stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should put Ryan Babel on £300,000-a-week, sit back and watch him evolve into the best player on earth.

 

You can make jokes about it but if you do not think that Chelsea can afford to spend 50M GBP more on wages alone each year does not equal a better squad and therefore a much better chance of playing well week in week out through out a season I can't help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make jokes about it but if you do not think that Chelsea can afford to spend 50M GBP more on wages alone each year does not equal a better squad and therefore a much better chance of playing well week in week out through out a season I can't help you.

 

Is the 10% the reason why Chelsea haven't won the league for 3 seasons, which doesn't really correlate given the 90% factor in winning titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...