hypochondriac Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 so..man u have not spent...arsenal have not spent...chelsea have not spent...villa have not spent...?? I woud say man city are miles better than they were 2 years ago ad are serious contenders to win trophies this season....which they have not done for what...30 years..? unless, money has not done this for them So are we wouldnt you say? I think it emphasises that these things take time.
Thedelldays Posted 27 January, 2010 Author Posted 27 January, 2010 So are we wouldnt you say? I think it emphasises that these things take time. hmmm...mid table league 1... no
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 and lets see where we are 2 years after the takeover? Mid table league 1 and I will join you on your moaning crusade!
hypochondriac Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 hmmm...mid table league 1... no I think we are better than 2 years ago (1 year ago at least) and in with a chance to win trophies. Man city weren't miles better 6 months after their takeover...
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 only the last few weeks, 18 months after takeover, and after outspending their competition by an unbelieveable amount, are they really competing. And they didn't come out of administration. And they didn't have -10. Andy they had the lure of premiership to attract players
Thedelldays Posted 27 January, 2010 Author Posted 27 January, 2010 only the last few weeks, 18 months after takeover, and after outspending their competition by an unbelieveable amount, are they really competing. And they didn't come out of administration. And they didn't have -10. Andy they had the lure of premiership to attract players they have the lure of the prem to attract...err, prem players.. bellamy, lescott, adebayor, toure, barry are NOT world class players not once have man city bought the best players in their league we have the the ability (and have proven it) to attract players above our station/league..the best players in our league.. I would say we have MORE of an edge over our rivals than city do over theirs..
doddisalegend Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 bellamy, lescott, adebayor, toure, barry are NOT world class players not once have man city bought the best players in their league .. At least four of those are internationals which would suggest they are world class to me. wasn't you that called us the Man City of league one the other week. Now you're saying we're nothing like Man City then.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 Real Madrid spend more than anyone and still don't win their own league or get anywhere near winning the Champions League.
Thedelldays Posted 27 January, 2010 Author Posted 27 January, 2010 At least four of those are internationals which would suggest they are world class to me. wasn't you that called us the Man City of league one the other week. Now you're saying we're nothing like Man City then. stern john has shed loads of international goals..is he world class..? would you say sagga is world class.?
John B Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 stern john has shed loads of international goals..is he world class..? would you say sagga is world class.? So is Thomson or Thompson in our reserves an International
John B Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 I think we are better than 2 years ago (1 year ago at least) and in with a chance to win trophies. Man city weren't miles better 6 months after their takeover... Yes you are right but are you not worried that the team in the last month is not winning comfortably against teams like Luton or ten man Exeter. Lets hope things change against both Stockport and Exeter in the next two games
Micky Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 Yes, spending big does make a difference, but it doesn't make a big difference.
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 (edited) they have the lure of the prem to attract...err, prem players.. bellamy, lescott, adebayor, toure, barry are NOT world class players not once have man city bought the best players in their league we have the the ability (and have proven it) to attract players above our station/league..the best players in our league.. I would say we have MORE of an edge over our rivals than city do over theirs.. not sure why I bother but... Tevez? Given? etc Man City spending a fortune, buying players the top teams would have liked to keep for example Tevez, Adebayor, Barry. Spending of their rivals doesn't compare - literally over £100 million behind! 18 months in and still not at top - without coming out of administration with -10. One poster on here regular compares us to Man City so use them of a good example that it doesn't happen overnight - and there pillaging of rivals and excessive spending makes us look conservative Edited 27 January, 2010 by NickG
The Kraken Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 not sure why I bother but... Tevez? Given? etc spending fortune, buying players top teams would have liked to keep Tevez, Adebayor, Barry. Spending of rivals doesn't compare. 18 months in and still not at top - without coming out of administration with -10. One poster on here regular compares us to Man City so use them of a good example that it doesn't happen overnight - and there pillaging of rivals and excessive spending makes us look Conservative Spot on.
Thedelldays Posted 27 January, 2010 Author Posted 27 January, 2010 not sure why I bother but... Tevez? Given? etc Man City spending a fortune, buying players the top teams would have liked to keep for example Tevez, Adebayor, Barry. Spending of their rivals doesn't compare - literally over £100 million behind! 18 months in and still not at top - without coming out of administration with -10. One poster on here regular compares us to Man City so use them of a good example that it doesn't happen overnight - and there pillaging of rivals and excessive spending makes us look conservative conservative.. unless citeh have spent more than the rest of the their league combined..I would say you are wrong..
aintforever Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 This thread must win the stupid question of the year award, of course spending makes a difference.
Dr Who? Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 It will just take a couple more signings an attacking midfielder and a defensive midfielder, and the team will be balanced. At the moment the signings have been up top and at the back!!
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 conservative.. unless citeh have spent more than the rest of the their league combined..I would say you are wrong.. guessing few times over - by all means check. Rivals have sold such as united.
sadoldgit Posted 27 January, 2010 Posted 27 January, 2010 man city have spent big....for that they are serious contenders for 4th... one draw away from one cup final and serious contenders for the other cup. they have been no where near this for what, 30 years..? And it has cost them how much??? How much have Villa spent??? It is not what you spend, it is who you buy and what you do with what you have.
The Kraken Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 I woud say man city are miles better than they were 2 years ago ad are serious contenders to win trophies this season....which they have not done for what...30 years..? Do you really not see the disparity here? You make the example of Man City, who (by your admission) have had 2 years spending big money to get where they are now, just about challenging for top 4. Yet you criticise Saints for getting through administration, losing a number of the better players from the club, and having had to try and totally rebuild the club within a very short time. Yes, we've spent much more money that clubs around us. Yet you seem to allow Man City two years to challenge for 4th place, but less than a quarter of that time before allowing the club you seemingly support to get onto similar grounds.
hypochondriac Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 Yes you are right but are you not worried that the team in the last month is not winning comfortably against teams like Luton or ten man Exeter. Lets hope things change against both Stockport and Exeter in the next two games I think we have some big weaknesses which make the whole team weaker. Our poor midfield means that the strikers get little service and the defence has unnecessary pressure place upon it.
The Kraken Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 I think we have some big weaknesses which make the whole team weaker. Our poor midfield means that the strikers get little service and the defence has unnecessary pressure place upon it. Sorry, but I don't agree with all of that. To say we have some "big weaknesses" is going a bit far. Yes, you can't deny we're in a run of form that at the moment does us no favours. Our "poor" midfield contains Lallana who has scored 12 goals this season. Name me another midfielder who has done the same and gets criticised for being part of a poor midfield? Schneiderlin and Hammond are definitely good enough at least for this level. Antonio and Papa Waigo too. That's not a poor midfield. Wotton, yes I'd agree that he is nowhere near good enough for first team. And Lloyd James too, in my opinion, is not good enough for a CM berth in League 1. But our first choice midfield is, by comparison in this league, very good. Granted, I'd rather us sign another centre midfielder to provide a totally solid spine to the team, but describing our midfield as "poor" is just not on in my opinion.
Glasgow_Saint Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 I think we are better than 2 years ago (1 year ago at least) and in with a chance to win trophies. Man city weren't miles better 6 months after their takeover... We were better or at least on par with Charlton and Norwich last season - this season they have spent far less, yet we are now well behind them!
Glasgow_Saint Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 And it has cost them how much??? How much have Villa spent??? It is not what you spend, it is who you buy and what you do with what you have. Villa have spent millions - everyone who is anyone is the prem has spent millions. Look at every league in every country - the top sides are the sides that spend the most. We are an exception to this rule. We have spent more than every L1 side, most CCC teams and half of the prem sides, yet remain in the botom half of L1.
doddisalegend Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 Villa have spent millions - everyone who is anyone is the prem has spent millions. Look at every league in every country - the top sides are the sides that spend the most. We are an exception to this rule. We have spent more than every L1 side, most CCC teams and half of the prem sides, yet remain in the botom half of L1. How many of those expensive squads would still be top with a -10 penalty? How many of those top sides where in admin in the summer. How many of those top side have had a manager whose been in the job less than seven months? How many of these top sides had to deal with all three of those things and suffered relegation last season? You can't compare us with them this season. We started from much further behind this season than all these big spending top clubs. This time next year if we are in the same postion I'd agree with you, but I think some people expect to much from a season were we have had to make up so much ground. Where would Manure be this season with a new manager, a new owner, six months out of admin and having been forced to sell Rooney to balance the books I wonder. top of the EPL i doubt it.
John B Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 How many of those expensive squads would still be top with a -10 penalty? How many of those top sides where in admin in the summer. How many of those top side have had a manager whose been in the job less than seven months? How many of these top sides had to deal with all three of those things and suffered relegation last season? You can't compare us with them this season. We started from much further behind this season than all these big spending top clubs. This time next year if we are in the same postion I'd agree with you, but I think some people expect to much from a season were we have had to make up so much ground. Where would Manure be this season with a new manager, a new owner, six months out of admin and having been forced to sell Rooney to balance the books I wonder. top of the EPL i doubt it. Even with our -10 point penalty we are nowhere near the top
doddisalegend Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 Even with our -10 point penalty we are nowhere near the top I know but the other teams wouldn't be top either which was GS point, you're either top or your not with -10 these other teams would not be. My point still holds no other of these big top spending sides has had as much **** to deal with this season as us. Some have had some of those problems but none have had all of them. The season was a bust from the start as far the league went. Why so many thought we would blast through the -10 and into a play off place this year considering the summer is beyond me. If we're in this postion next year I'd be upset but people expected to much from this season IMO.
Minty Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 Having the ability to spend big makes a difference... it all depends how you use it, and how you integrate the new players and coach the team to get the best out of them. The single biggest thing having money does, as has been mentioned already, is to raise expectations. But just because the players being brought in cost more, or are (in theory) better players than we might otherwise have bought, doesn't automatically mean they'll take less time to settle into the team/the area. Some players with families take time to feel at home, especially if they're living out of a hotel room initially, or have language barriers to overcome. Then there's the style and tactics of the manager, and the idiosyncracies of the other players in the squad they have to get used to. Every combination of manager/team/club is unique, and there is no fixed amount of time that you can say 'we must be winning games after x weeks' because you're dealing with human beings, not machines. Every fan will have in their own mind, an idea of how long it should take to see consistent results. IMO most fans are too demanding, and don't consider all the factors, but it's been that way since year dot. It is reflected more in society in general nowadays too, where convenience and short-termism dominates and most people are impatient. So, in short, the answer for me is: Yes, it *can* make a difference, but it's no guarantee and should not be used to put pressure on a manager if results don't always match fans' (often unrealistic) expectations.
david in sweden Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 I'm still not sure about the Otsemobor signing. It's clear for everyone to see that Pardew wasn't sure about him either - which makes me wonder why on earth we DID sign him. Because he was surplus to requirements at Norwich...cost nothing (fee)..and is only here to the end of the season. It's a no-brainer - isn't it ? If he's good... he'll stay... and if he's not ....he walks in May. Meanwhile, we've got cover during Murty's absence (especially now that James is injured, too). very good deal IMHO.
david in sweden Posted 28 January, 2010 Posted 28 January, 2010 (edited) should it..? some think it should some clearly think it does not..? thoughts... imo...of course it does, enables you to bring in far better quality of player and results SHOULD follow suit.. you only have to look at the top of the premier league to that of the teams of the bottom....and then in the CCC.. Define BIG ? With our past history of signings when we were in the Prem./CCC then £3- 4 million is barely tea-money (although its clearly a lot for some others in League 1.) Big money doesn't mean BETTER QUALITY players - just expensive ones. The majority of our " big buys " in the past were very disappointing. £4 million for Rory Delap ..in 2001. (not entirely his fault, as no manager ever gave him a regular role, and he became sub. for every injured player in midfield or defence, and we never had strikers good enough to convert his long-throws). £3.25 million for Kevin Phillips . OK he did score some goals, but I think we deseved more for our money ..and he was quick to leave later, when things looked bad. £3 million for Agustin Delgado :smt088.say no more ! Michael Svensson and David Hirst looked well worth the money, £2 mill.each - but both had careers shortened by injury. Players like Pahars, Lundekvam, Anders Svensson, Kevin Davies and even Beattie all cost under the £1 million mark and were well worth the fee. Others like Dean Richards, Marsden, Katchloul,(cost nothing/next to nothing) It's not the fee but the manager, the team, and how they are used/ what role they play. Leeds, Pomp*y and Newcastle have all found out the hard way. Edited 28 January, 2010 by david in sweden
Bucks Saint Posted 29 January, 2010 Posted 29 January, 2010 Define BIG ? The majority of our " big buys " in the past were very disappointing. £3.25 million for Kevin Phillips . OK he did score some goals, but I think we deseved more for our money ..and he was quick to leave later, when things looked bad. You think Kevin Phillips was worth not his fee? This is a joke, right? He may have behaved like an ar*e when he left, and the management team may have sold him for half what he was worth, but he was still top quality
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now