Non-Saints Games

[Lighthouse]

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.

 

It's not really about who 'deserves' what, it purely a question of how much money people spend and how well they invest it.

 

Liverpool really aren't that far behind Man City in terms of what they can spend, no matter how much they bleat about it. In the last year and a bit they've bought the worlds most expensive defender and goalkeeper, then bought Keita for up to £60m. Even the likes of Lovren and Lallana would have been £40m and £50m in today's money.

 

4 years ago, when City bought Sterling, I would have agreed they're are at an unfair advantage. Now though, could you honestly see City signing Salah or Virgil?

[shurlock]

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.

 

Makes sense as it doesn’t adjust for transfer fee inflation which has been ramped up by the latest TV money, so will skew upwards those sides that have spent longer and featured more recently in the PL.

[shurlock]

It's not really about who 'deserves' what, it purely a question of how much money people spend and how well they invest it.

 

Liverpool really aren't that far behind Man City in terms of what they can spend, no matter how much they bleat about it. In the last year and a bit they've bought the worlds most expensive defender and goalkeeper, then bought Keita for up to £60m. Even the likes of Lovren and Lallana would have been £40m and £50m in today's money.

 

4 years ago, when City bought Sterling, I would have agreed they're are at an unfair advantage. Now though, could you honestly see City signing Salah or Virgil?

 

Am sure City could have afforded VVD when Liverpool bought him which is the more relevant comparison; rather they were sniffy about spending so much money on a player with a limited track record from little ole Southampton.

Edited 7 May, 2019 by shurlock

[mrfahaji]

It's not really about who 'deserves' what, it purely a question of how much money people spend and how well they invest it.

 

Liverpool really aren't that far behind Man City in terms of what they can spend, no matter how much they bleat about it. In the last year and a bit they've bought the worlds most expensive defender and goalkeeper, then bought Keita for up to £60m. Even the likes of Lovren and Lallana would have been £40m and £50m in today's money.

 

4 years ago, when City bought Sterling, I would have agreed they're are at an unfair advantage. Now though, could you honestly see City signing Salah or Virgil?

 

a) Maybe not in terms of what they CAN spend, but that's hypothetical. Unfortunately when fans complain about money other teams spend what they normally mean is "I want my club to be able to spend that as well", rather than "spending that amount shouldn't be allowed". I'm definitely in the latter, but probably the minority.

 

b) Is it not also about how they got that money in the first place? So they might both have £500m to spend, but if Liverpool got that from selling £500m worth of players and Man City got that because their owner gave them £500m, those are surely different?

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

True, but he devil is in the detail. If one club signs up a lot of free transfers which then allows them to spend more on wages that will distort the figures.

 

Or if one club, let's call it Southampton, spends a load of money on signing inadequate players which it then loans out won't that also affect the table?

[Lighthouse]

Am sure City could have afforded VVD when Liverpool bought him; rather they were sniffy about spending so much money on a player with a limited track record from little ole Southampton.

 

No doubting they could and probably wish they had. Merely pointing out that Liverpool can and did sign him, for a fee which beats City's record signing by a good £15m.

[shurlock]

True, but he devil is in the detail. If one club signs up a lot of free transfers which then allows them to spend more on wages that will distort the figures.

 

Or if one club, let's call it Southampton, spends a load of money on signing inadequate players which it then loans out won't that also affect the table?

 

Those are all possibilities; but then again, how likely are they?

 

Re (i) Its hard to think of many squads that have been built largely or entirely on free transfers. They are a small and arguably declining part of the game confined to the lower leagues. Clubs go to great lengths to structure contracts and time sales so that they maximise the transfer value of players. At worst they'll sell a player with a year or so left on the contract and accept a small hit (a la Wanyama and Clyne) and the buying club will get a player at a smallish discount (a la Cedric).

 

More important, insofar as clubs do use free transfers, you have to further assume that some clubs systematically use them more than other clubs; otherwise the effect will cancel itself out across clubs and won't particularly affect overall figures. I can't think of many circumstances in which this assumption holds.

 

Re (ii) I think you're answering a different question which is about the quality or efficiency of investment. The fact that we've loaned out alot of dross doesn't change the fact that we've incurred those fees.

[Useful Idiot]

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.

 

I already posted the net spend tables from 2003 earlier, which I stated made more useful sense.

 

My whole point in sticking the 2018-19 table up there with the facetious sentence above it was that short term analysis of figures is highly misleading.

 

Thanks for your input though, pal.

[bpsaint]

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.

 

Even better than that, Jimenez breaks down the wing in the last minute, puts in a low cross, and Lovren puts the ball into his own net!

[Window Cleaner]

Even better than that, Jimenez breaks down the wing in the last minute, puts in a low cross, and Lovren puts the ball into his own net!

 

 

But in reality City and Liverpool will probably both win 3-0 after going ahead in the first 10-15 minutes and the day will be a total anti-climax. The PL need to programme some games between "big teams" in the last 2 rounds of fixtures. Liverpool derby, North London derby and Manchester derby on the last day would shake the bag up a bit.

Edited 7 May, 2019 by Window Cleaner

[Lighthouse]

But in reality City and Liverpool will probably both win 3-0 after going ahead in the first 10-15 minutes and the day will be a total anti-climax. The PL need to programme some games between "big teams" in the last 2 rounds of fixtures. Liverpool derby, North London derby and Manchester derby on the last day would shake the bag up a bit.

 

They deliberately don’t because that’s a waste of exciting fixtures. When the title hinges on Liverpool vs Wolves and Brighton vs City, that’s a bonus for Sky. Two fixtures your average fan wouldn’t usually be that bothered about.

[nta786]

But in reality City and Liverpool will probably both win 3-0 after going ahead in the first 10-15 minutes and the day will be a total anti-climax. The PL need to programme some games between "big teams" in the last 2 rounds of fixtures. Liverpool derby, North London derby and Manchester derby on the last day would shake the bag up a bit.

 

think i remember reading something about how they compile the fixture lists- the premier league have a rule where none of the top 6 can play each other on the final day of the PL.

 

edit: yes here below.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-six-given-priority-over-key-fixtures-qz9z85c90

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5702761/Premier-League-deliberately-arrange-fixtures-six-clubs-not-meet-weekend.html

[Window Cleaner]

think i remember reading something about how they compile the fixture lists- the premier league have a rule where none of the top 6 can play each other on the final day of the PL.

 

edit: yes here below.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-six-given-priority-over-key-fixtures-qz9z85c90

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5702761/Premier-League-deliberately-arrange-fixtures-six-clubs-not-meet-weekend.html

 

None of the top 6 from the previous season I suppose. Both articles seem to say though that it's an arrangement and not a fixed rule. How did they get on when Leicester made Top 6 I ask myself.

Edited 7 May, 2019 by Window Cleaner

[badgerx16]

None of the top 6 from the previous season I suppose. Both articles seem to say though that it's an arrangement and not a fixed rule. How did they get on when Leicester made Top 6 I ask myself.

The articles say it is based on average position over the previous 3 seasons. As well as not playing each other on the final match day, they don't play each other during the first match weekend.

[Whitey Grandad]

think i remember reading something about how they compile the fixture lists- the premier league have a rule where none of the top 6 can play each other on the final day of the PL.

 

edit: yes here below.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-six-given-priority-over-key-fixtures-qz9z85c90

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5702761/Premier-League-deliberately-arrange-fixtures-six-clubs-not-meet-weekend.html

 

That's a total disgrace. It also means that we won't see any single matches such as the one in 1988-1989 when Michael Thomas scored for Arsenal at Anfield to clinch the title.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"The match is considered to be one of the most dramatic conclusions to a league season in the history of the English game. It is also regarded as the starting point of a renaissance in English football; the ban on English clubs playing in European football was lifted a year later and a new top-flight division – the Premier League, was formed in 1992 which generated more revenue for clubs. The title decider also formed the centrepiece of Nick Hornby's book Fever Pitch."

[badgerx16]

That's a total disgrace.

 

££££££, nothing else matters.

[whelk]

That's a total disgrace. It also means that we won't see any single matches such as the one in 1988-1989 when Michael Thomas scored for Arsenal at Anfield to clinch the title.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"The match is considered to be one of the most dramatic conclusions to a league season in the history of the English game. It is also regarded as the starting point of a renaissance in English football; the ban on English clubs playing in European football was lifted a year later and a new top-flight division – the Premier League, was formed in 1992 which generated more revenue for clubs. The title decider also formed the centrepiece of Nick Hornby's book Fever Pitch."

 

Yeah incredible game that. TV games far rarer back then.

[aintforever]

That's a total disgrace. It also means that we won't see any single matches such as the one in 1988-1989 when Michael Thomas scored for Arsenal at Anfield to clinch the title.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"The match is considered to be one of the most dramatic conclusions to a league season in the history of the English game. It is also regarded as the starting point of a renaissance in English football; the ban on English clubs playing in European football was lifted a year later and a new top-flight division – the Premier League, was formed in 1992 which generated more revenue for clubs. The title decider also formed the centrepiece of Nick Hornby's book Fever Pitch."

 

Wasn’t that a re-arranged fixture though?

[OttawaSaint]

Yeah incredible game that. TV games far rarer back then.

 

Was an amazing game. Time ticking down, the likes of Nicol and McMahon doing fist pump gestures to the crowd. Anfield already celebrating....Michael Thomas....scores!!!! Arsenal are champions!!!

[Whitey Grandad]

Wasn’t that a re-arranged fixture though?

Indeed it was, well remembered. That was the season of Hillsborough and this match was postponed until after the Cup Final. All the other games had been completed a week before that (I had to look this up)

 

I suppose the point is still valid. I prefer the teams contesting the top of the table to be playing off against each other.

[SW5 SAINT]

Even better than that, Jimenez breaks down the wing in the last minute, puts in a low cross, and Lovren puts the ball into his own net!

 

Please could VVD have an assist on that......

[badgerx16]

Please could VVD have an assist on that......

No, because he would have previously injured himself whilst executing a challenge for which he was also sent off.

[Cabbage_Face]

I got 100 quid on Liverpool to win at 30/1. So here is hoping.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[angelman]

Liverpool looking pretty good TBH. Can see them getting more, but can they get 4 without conceding?

[Cabbage_Face]

Liverpool looking pretty good TBH. Can see them getting more, but can they get 4 without conceding?

 

Yes

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whelk]

Shame Neymar was such a greedy bastard and left.

 

Torn between wanting to watch entertaining game and also wanting scouse tears

[angelman]

Torn between wanting to watch entertaining game and also wanting scouse tears

The two are not mutually exclusive

[Saints foreva]

I bet the Liverpool fans won't be called bitter by the media for booing Suarez and Coutinho.

[Cabbage_Face]

Suarez is the ultimate troll. Fair play.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Batman]

[whelk]

Game on

[Shroppie]

Game on

It is now

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Ffs

[Batman]

oh no

[Whitey Grandad]

I can’t stand this screaming commentary. Does me ‘ead in.

 

Where can I get an unbiased one?

 

Come on Barcelona!

[Saints foreva]

FFS

[davefizzy14]

Bloody typical

[trousers]

This has got 4-4 written all over it

[Heisenberg]

Hate to say I told you so...

[Suhari]

****balls

[Cabbage_Face]

Why hello.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes... but...

 

If Barca get one in injury time...

[Cabbage_Face]

I got 100 quid on Liverpool to win at 30/1. So here is hoping.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Kerrrchiiiinggggg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whelk]

When the fck did it become the camp now?

[Heisenberg]

Insurance bets peeps. Insurance bets!

 

Makes nights like this a little bit easier

[CB Fry]

4-1 is the dream scoreline on my book.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[doddisalegend]

I see the BCC live feed is going into full Liverpool ****fest….

[Whitey Grandad]

I see the BCC live feed is going into full Liverpool ****fest….

 

BT Sport is just as bad.

[Tamesaint]

Kerrrchiiiinggggg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Presumably you mean 30 /1 on Liverpool qualifying. I really don't think that you got 30 /1 on them winning on the night.

 

If so you seem to be as full of bullsh ite as your mate Heisenberg.

[doddisalegend]

BT Sport is just as bad.

 

they have some strange idea that because they are an English team we are all rooting for them...…. Bollix to that I hate ****ing Liverpool, as I expect must none Liverpool fans do, personally I want Ajax to win the CL.