Jump to content

Non-Saints Games

whelk

By whelk,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted
That Ihenacho miss though :lol:

 

I'm sure Liverpool will get a police investigation started as it must be a conspiracy and deliberate miss.

 

 

 

Lol. Wouldn’t put it past them. Here, a whole bunch of Montreal Canadiens fans called the police on a Boston player who injured one of their star players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted

Some classics on http://redandwhitekop.com/ tonight.

 

why this club is always without luck ? And when we are lucky we are kings of not important luck in not that important games...... Is this for Istanbul ? We got there all the luck and after that just suffer, just suffer......

 

I cant stop ****ing cry, this club dont deserve this, we dont deserve this pain.... 94 points, possible 97 and what to win ......

This is so so so so so so so so so so so so so heartbreaking and not fair..... This world is really not fair....

 

 

:lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Really??

 

I don't want Liverpool to win the title, but Man City are the lesser of two evils! Being bank rolled by the UAE nation is NOT a victory for 'the general football fan'!

 

I kepe hearing people saying 'Liverpool winning is better, it shows it's not about money''. Like, hold up. 2 seconds.

 

Virgil - £75m. Alison. £50m. Two records set for two positions.

 

Keita - £50m, Fabinho - £45m. - Two of the most expensive central midfield signings this season.

 

They got some good 'Bargains' up front in Salah, Mane and Firimino - but these guys were still above £35m. They haven't done this cheap, they've spent an absolutle fortune. That's why they're there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
simo

simo

Posted
Posted
That Ihenacho miss though :lol:

 

I'm sure Liverpool will get a police investigation started as it must be a conspiracy and deliberate miss.

 

 

 

 

Posts: 6,342Has skin in the game (about stuff he talks about)

 

Re: Chasing the Title

 

«*Reply #15326 on:*Today*at 10:02:04 PM »

 

"What made me the most angry tonight was Ihaneacho's on purpose miss...he exactly knew what he was doing. That's it: highlight of his useless career.*

*

What an absolute thunder****. Hope he's dumped into lower leagues where his talent warrants and better yet spend a few years in the gulags first."

 

From Rwawk :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted

So Ideally BHA race into a 2-0 lead and Liverpool get 1-0 up. Game is over at the Amex, OMG City have blown it. YNWA rings out loud and proud and in the dying seconds Jimenez breaks and scores and equalizer with the last kick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

I think some of you are getting a little to elaborate and sadistic with this.

 

I quite simply don’t want Lallana, Lovren and Virgil to win anything after acting like helmets trying to force a move. I also don’t want to endure the nausea of Liverpool fans and media ‘personalities’ telling us how special this is for all football fans, for the next 20 years.

 

All that being the case, a straightforward 3-0 City win and a 1-1 draw with Barca is fine by me. No trophies and a few agents twitching for moves to the properly big clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
I kepe hearing people saying 'Liverpool winning is better, it shows it's not about money''. Like, hold up. 2 seconds.

 

Virgil - £75m. Alison. £50m. Two records set for two positions.

 

Keita - £50m, Fabinho - £45m. - Two of the most expensive central midfield signings this season.

 

They got some good 'Bargains' up front in Salah, Mane and Firimino - but these guys were still above £35m. They haven't done this cheap, they've spent an absolutle fortune. That's why they're there.

 

But they did sell Coutinho for a lot, and Suarez before that.

 

I agree with warsash, I normally can't stand City because they basically have unlimited money. Liverpool have spent a lot but they have also sold players to partly fund it.

 

As I say though, I normally can't stand City, but I've been rooting for them for most of this season :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
I think some of you are getting a little to elaborate and sadistic with this.

 

I quite simply don’t want Lallana, Lovren and Virgil to win anything after acting like helmets trying to force a move. I also don’t want to endure the nausea of Liverpool fans and media ‘personalities’ telling us how special this is for all football fans, for the next 20 years.

 

All that being the case, a straightforward 3-0 City win and a 1-1 draw with Barca is fine by me. No trophies and a few agents twitching for moves to the properly big clubs.

 

Too right! It'll be enough for me that they hope and believe for 37 matches and 10 minutes of the season, no need to drag it out any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
More chance of Trump releasing his tax returns than Heisen showing us his betting slips.

 

Last night was one of the few occasions when he told us his bet in advance of the match and guess what .... he lost .

 

What a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted
But they did sell Coutinho for a lot, and Suarez before that.

 

I agree with warsash, I normally can't stand City because they basically have unlimited money. Liverpool have spent a lot but they have also sold players to partly fund it.

 

As I say though, I normally can't stand City, but I've been rooting for them for most of this season :)

 

Whoever wins the league generally they have bought it, if its City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Utd, they bought it over the last 10 years or so. Only really Leicester is the exception, maybe Spurs if they ever win it.

 

Liverpool have spent like over £500 million over the last 3 seasons, more I believe than City

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LGTL

LGTL

Posted
Posted

Trying to decide what would be funnier;

 

City lose to Brighton, Liverpool concede a last minute equaliser and lose it on GD

City lose and Liverpool lose

City win and Liverpool win, meaning they don't win the league with 97, that's 97, points.

 

Can we have all three?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
Whoever wins the league generally they have bought it, if its City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Utd, they bought it over the last 10 years or so. Only really Leicester is the exception, maybe Spurs if they ever win it.

 

Liverpool have spent like over £500 million over the last 3 seasons, more I believe than City

 

True for Chelsea. United have spent a lot recently but they do also have massive revenue. When it comes to Liverpool, this is what counts (I hope this is accuate but don't know for sure, but it should at least be a decent indicator of my point):

 

Net Spend PL.JPG

 

 

I am desperate for City to win the league this year, but I can't understand how you can't see the difference between spending and net spend (especially as a Saints fan), and also how while it's true that everyone spends a lot to win the title, there are also extreme cases like Chelsea and Man City which are basically having unlimited money simply from a rich owner. I don't really get how their fans can feel a genuine sense of pride from that to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

That’s massively skewed by selling three players for about £250m. £500m is a massive amount to spend, regardless of who you’ve sold.

 

Let’s suppose we sold Jack Stephens for £1bn, then over the next three years spent £500m on our squad and finished 12th. Would we be doing an amazing job to avoid relegation despite a net spend of minus £500m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
That’s massively skewed by selling three players for about £250m. £500m is a massive amount to spend, regardless of who you’ve sold.

 

Let’s suppose we sold Jack Stephens for £1bn, then over the next three years spent £500m on our squad and finished 12th. Would we be doing an amazing job to avoid relegation despite a net spend of minus £500m?

 

:lol:

 

You need to work on your thought experiments pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Useful Idiot

Useful Idiot

Posted
Posted
True for Chelsea. United have spent a lot recently but they do also have massive revenue. When it comes to Liverpool, this is what counts (I hope this is accuate but don't know for sure, but it should at least be a decent indicator of my point):

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2794[/ATTACH]

 

 

I am desperate for City to win the league this year, but I can't understand how you can't see the difference between spending and net spend (especially as a Saints fan), and also how while it's true that everyone spends a lot to win the title, there are also extreme cases like Chelsea and Man City which are basically having unlimited money simply from a rich owner. I don't really get how their fans can feel a genuine sense of pride from that to be honest.

 

I think that net spend table is a out of date and slightly arbitrary, only showing the transfers over a short period of time.

 

I think this one presents a more accurate picture of things:

 

3516e06.png

 

City still ahead by a long way, but Liverpool much higher up the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
I think that net spend table is a out of date and slightly arbitrary, only showing the transfers over a short period of time.

 

I think this one presents a more accurate picture of things:

 

3516e06.png

 

City still ahead by a long way, but Liverpool much higher up the table.

 

Lol saints bottom. Says it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted

I personally think 5 years is better reference than 16. We've been through administration and to league 1 and back in that time, so hardly think that's relevant.

 

Either way it does go to show how massively underachieving Everton have been for the outlay, how remarkable Leicesters achievement was, how little we have spent in comparison to literally everyone else, and ... Actually (outside of the very top few) how little of the tv billions has been invested on transfers, much more going to agents and players in extortionate wages. It's actually quite shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
That’s massively skewed by selling three players for about £250m. £500m is a massive amount to spend, regardless of who you’ve sold.

 

Let’s suppose we sold Jack Stephens for £1bn, then over the next three years spent £500m on our squad and finished 12th. Would we be doing an amazing job to avoid relegation despite a net spend of minus £500m?

 

Or, let's suppose we sold van Dijk for £75m and spent the money on Armstrong, Ings, Carrillo and Vestergaard. Surely we deserve to go down for spending more money than all the other clubs around us?

 

To be honest, I wasn't trying to justify how deserving they are or how good a job they are doing, but I suppose it's inferred. The key point is that Manchester City have extreme levels of spending compared to the money they have generated and Liverpool's isn't on the same level. It's the equivalent of someone selling a house in order to buy another one, and someone just buying a second or third house because they can. They've both bought a new house but clearly not the same situation.

 

As for the Stephens example, it doesn't really matter who the players are, it's the numbers that count. But I would, if push came to shove, take Coutinho and Suarez over Jack Stephens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
True for Chelsea. United have spent a lot recently but they do also have massive revenue. When it comes to Liverpool, this is what counts (I hope this is accuate but don't know for sure, but it should at least be a decent indicator of my point):

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2794[/ATTACH]

I am desperate for City to win the league this year, but I can't understand how you can't see the difference between spending and net spend (especially as a Saints fan), and also how while it's true that everyone spends a lot to win the title, there are also extreme cases like Chelsea and Man City which are basically having unlimited money simply from a rich owner. I don't really get how their fans can feel a genuine sense of pride from that to be honest.

Net spend is meaningless. There are too many other factors involved, salaries, signing on fees, golden goodbyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
I personally think 5 years is better reference than 16. We've been through administration and to league 1 and back in that time, so hardly think that's relevant.

 

Either way it does go to show how massively underachieving Everton have been for the outlay, how remarkable Leicesters achievement was, how little we have spent in comparison to literally everyone else, and ... Actually (outside of the very top few) how little of the tv billions has been invested on transfers, much more going to agents and players in extortionate wages. It's actually quite shocking.

 

This. Although I don't generally subscribe to 'trickle down' economics, at least there is some element of that with transfers. But agents and wages is the end of the line in terms of money in the game (sure maybe players spend more money in the wider world, maybe).

 

I'm not convinced the quality has improved massively recently to reflect those increase in wages either. As soon as one club uses the extra windfall to chuck at a new player in wages, everyone else has to do the same, or risk being the ones left behind (relegated), and no-one wants that. All that happens is the same players (or same quality players) get bigger pay packets. Thoroughly depressing really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Useful Idiot

Useful Idiot

Posted
Posted
I personally think 5 years is better reference than 16. We've been through administration and to league 1 and back in that time, so hardly think that's relevant.

 

Either way it does go to show how massively underachieving Everton have been for the outlay, how remarkable Leicesters achievement was, how little we have spent in comparison to literally everyone else, and ... Actually (outside of the very top few) how little of the tv billions has been invested on transfers, much more going to agents and players in extortionate wages. It's actually quite shocking.

 

The player spend values are so skewed by time in the league that the period we were out of the top flight makes virtually no difference to our overall figure. It does show that Liverpool invested heavily in their team when money went much further as well.

 

How about this table then? It only has the figures for this year and shows that Chelsea definitely tried to buy the league, and Liverpool almost succeeded while Man City were conservative with their outlay.

 

14l6np2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Net spend is meaningless. There are too many other factors involved, salaries, signing on fees, golden goodbyes.

 

Clearly it has its limitations but that’s true of virtually every metric when used in isolation. Salaries certainly matter, though principally in cases where a club sells a player for a fortune and buys several cheaper players with all the proceeds (our business model to some extent). Other things being equal, buying several players will mean a higher total wage bill than the wages saved from selling the star player and won’t be captured by net spend (or gross or raw expenditure for that matter). Otherwise effects are either relatively small relative to fees or will wash out (that is, they are randomly distributed across transfer expenditures and income), so won’t excessively bias the use of a metric like net spend.

 

Again the problem is not the use of net spend; it’s the singular reliance on it. But to swing to the other extreme and call it meaningless and fail to acknowledge the additional information or context it provides on metrics such as gross spend is as, if not, more stupid. Only a moron would ignore the difference between gross and net results of any kind.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
The player spend values are so skewed by time in the league that the period we were out of the top flight makes virtually no difference to our overall figure. It does show that Liverpool invested heavily in their team when money went much further as well.

 

How about this table then? It only has the figures for this year and shows that Chelsea definitely tried to buy the league, and Liverpool almost succeeded while Man City were conservative with their outlay.

 

14l6np2.png

 

 

I guess you don’t use numbers a lot pal. Very few people rely on one year’s results which by their nature will be very noisy and volatile but instead look for trends over time. That’s especially true with transfers where building a squad usually takes longer longer than a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted
I think that net spend table is a out of date and slightly arbitrary, only showing the transfers over a short period of time.

 

I think this one presents a more accurate picture of things:

 

3516e06.png

 

City still ahead by a long way, but Liverpool much higher up the table.

 

Bounemouth really the 11th highest spenders since 2003?! thats mad when they've only been in the league a couple of seasons and with their tinpot ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...