Txiki Begiristain...

[Anonymous]

of course there was, but over the course of the campaign we earnt the title, Liverpool were lucky in almost every aspect all the way through, big difference.

The arrogance of you and Dave recently is tiresome, if you want to debate you should show a bit of respect about it.

Wages do have to be factored in but at the end of the day Fergie isn't the one who decided the combination of Gareth Barry and Robbie Keane were better than Xabi Alonso, or that Fernando Morientes and Robbie Fowler were good signings or Andrea Dossena.

Besides, when you spend £200m + wages the argument of another team spending more is a bit mute 2bh, you should be doing better than 4 years without any sort of trophy, and when your transfer logic is to piss off one of your best players and buy a lot of rubbish then really it's on your head be it.

I would also question the figure being twice as much for Chelsea & United.

In your desperate need to slag off my argument you've missed the point spectacularly. Taconinja said

Lots of clubs spend a lot of money and never get a sniff of a title or a cup.

I said give me an example. You gave me an example of a team who won the European Cup, got to another final, won the FA Cup, and finished second to United on 87 points which would have won the league in any other premiership season. Hence I said your argument was stupid.

Now if that makes me arrogant then I can only apologise. The argument is stupid.

 

[OB1]

Benitez spent over £200m, The Champions League whilst historic was a complete fluke and they bottled the league and again fluked that FA Cup thanks to Gerrard and Reina.

You'd have murdered Mancini if he ended up with Benitez track record.

And you don't think winning the league with the last kick of the season had an element of luck about it ? Jesus that's about as stupid a reply to my post as you could've gotten. You should've warned me you weren't interested in a real discussion.

BTW ... 200 million he may well have spent, but factor in wages and you'll find that Chelsea and United were literally spending twice what Liverpool were.

EDIT:

Fuck it - if people don't see that spending needs to take into account transfer fees AND wages, then the discussion is dead.

Big wage bills tend to correlate with footballing success. I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that show that.

 

[Cobwebcat]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...ity-close-in-on-barca-and-real-madrid-010501/

2012 wages if anyone wants them.

 

[Anonymous]

Big wage bills tend to correlate with footballing success. I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that show that.

That's the point I'm trying to make. I've just looked it up and Liverpool's wage bill around the time we're talking about was circa 110 million per season, United's was circa 135 million per season, Chelsea's was circa 170 million per season, yet Liverpool finished higher than Chelsea in the 08/09 season on the 87 points I mentioned earlier.

 

[OB1]

With the money City have spent (wages and transfer fees), winning the title was to be expected; whether it happened a season early or late (or on time) thanks to Mancini is a matter of opinion. I think the timing was about right but we should have got closer in 2010/11.

 

[taconinja]

of course there was, but over the course of the campaign we earnt the title, Liverpool were lucky in almost every aspect all the way through, big difference.

The arrogance of you and Dave recently is tiresome, if you want to debate you should show a bit of respect about it.

Wages do have to be factored in but at the end of the day Fergie isn't the one who decided the combination of Gareth Barry and Robbie Keane were better than Xabi Alonso, or that Fernando Morientes and Robbie Fowler were good signings or Andrea Dossena.

Besides, when you spend £200m + wages the argument of another team spending more is a bit mute 2bh, you should be doing better than 4 years without any sort of trophy, and when your transfer logic is to piss off one of your best players and buy a lot of rubbish then really it's on your head be it.

I would also question the figure being twice as much for Chelsea & United.

In your desperate need to slag off my argument you've missed the point spectacularly. Taconinja said

Lots of clubs spend a lot of money and never get a sniff of a title or a cup.

I said give me an example. You gave me an example of a team who won the European Cup, got to another final, won the FA Cup, and finished second to United on 87 points which would have won the league in any other premiership season. Hence I said your argument was stupid.

Now if that makes me arrogant then I can only apologise. The argument is stupid.

But I didn't say "shit loads." I said "a lot." Sunderland has spend quite a lot of money. Nowhere near us but they've spent a lot. Liverpool has spent a fortune and it doesn't seem to do them much good lately. Tottenham have sporadically spent money, but they're a bit schizophrenic.

Spending is a factor. I've argued that it is. What I have argued against is the McDonald's Mentality, such as what Tevez City posted. You can't just hand any hobo 500 million pounds to spend on players and guarantee a title. You do need money. You also need some luck, especially in regards to injuries and the bounce of a ball here and there. Thing is without an excellent manager (and our previous was an average manager) you don't win. Spurs with 'Arry could never win the Premier League. Just can't. He's average no matter how much you spend. You have to have an excellent manager with sufficient backing to put your club in the position to take full advantage of the lucky breaks and to mitigate the unlucky breaks. That's how you win the Premier League.

 

[Anonymous]

But I didn't say "shit loads." I said "a lot."

I think you're playing semantic acrobatics mate. The manager is an integral part of any club's success, I don't doubt that for one second. But ultimately the single most important factor in a clubs relative success it it's expenditure/wage bill, because it directly correlates with the quality of players they have. It's why the top 4 wage bills in the league are nearly always the top 4 teams in the league. It's why a team managed by Avram Grant can make its way to the Champions League final, or why Real Madrid can sack coaches for fun but still continue to be there or thereabout in La Liga and in Europe.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Benitez spent over £200m, The Champions League whilst historic was a complete fluke and they bottled the league and again fluked that FA Cup thanks to Gerrard and Reina.

You'd have murdered Mancini if he ended up with Benitez track record.

And you don't think winning the league with the last kick of the season had an element of luck about it ? Jesus that's about as stupid a reply to my post as you could've gotten. You should've warned me you weren't interested in a real discussion.

BTW ... 200 million he may well have spent, but factor in wages and you'll find that Chelsea and United were literally spending twice what Liverpool were.

EDIT:

Fuck it - if people don't see that spending needs to take into account transfer fees AND wages, then the discussion is dead.

Big wage bills tend to correlate with footballing success. I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that show that.

There are and one calculates that an average Manager at City would have finished with around 70 points last season.

 

[sam-caddick]

How much has Mancini spent?

about £250m iirc.

That's how much Benitez spent and didn't win the league

I just think we should be honest with ourselves, because we won the title last year battling it out with one of the worst United teams have had under Ferguson that over-achieved beyond means... a Chelsea side that under the first 6 months under Villas Boas were in constant battle with each other and the realtionship clearly never got on, plus Chelsea were an ageing side and seemed to only really care about the Champions League, even if they did fluke it. Plus, Arsenal... they had one of the worst sides under Wenger and clearly relied on RVP to scrape them through.

Benitez's Liverpool was battling out with the best United squad since the treble season, Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney up front, Vidic, Ferdinand and Van Der Sar was the best defense in world football - Chelsea had a team where all the players were in their prime and Arsenal had by far a better side than they did last season.

We nearly lost the league last year, and if we had done it would of gone down as the biggest dissapointments in Premier League history, we will never have a better season to win it than last year.

 

[Cobwebcat]

about £250m iirc.

That's how much Benitez spent and didn't win the league

I just think we should be honest with ourselves, because we won the title last year battling it out with one of the worst United teams have had under Ferguson that over-achieved beyond means... a Chelsea side that under the first 6 months under Villas Boas were in constant battle with each other and the realtionship clearly never got on, plus Chelsea were an ageing side and seemed to only really care about the Champions League, even if they did fluke it. Plus, Arsenal... they had one of the worst sides under Wenger and clearly relied on RVP to scrape them through.

Benitez's Liverpool was battling out with the best United squad since the treble season, Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney up front, Vidic, Ferdinand and Van Der Sar was the best defensive in world football - Chelsea had a team where all the players were in their prime and Arsenal has by far a better side than they did last season.

We nearly lost the league last year, and if we had done it would of gone down as the biggest dissapointments in Premier League history, we never had a better season to win it than last year.

Disagee with that bit! Unless you are just talking about City fans.