Is the Premier League too rich for us?

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Negatives

1. Best player gone
2. Vestergaard still not signed a new deal (or been sold)
3. Operating in bargain bin and club has said as much
4. Team has very little goal threat
5. League is very much becoming a playground we can't afford to play in
6. Absolutely nothing about a takeover which means the club is heading only one way

 

Positives

1. We're so broke and so desperate we're genuinely attractive to 18 year olds in big clubs as they know they will get gametime
2. Signed a left back (still one short)
3. Some takeovers come out of the blue, but I really am clutching at straws here

[Saint Garrett]

Yes, it is. We will try and compete using other methods (signing kids and hope to sell them on for big money. Buy foreign players and hope to sell them on for big money)

Eventually luck will run out and we’ll get relegated. I think we were all hoping and expecting we’d get bought this summer. 

[Turkish]

Aside from the first two seasons after promotion back Our whole time since we’ve been at st Mary’s and in the premier league we’ve operated a sell to buy model. Same under Lowe as it is now.  Despite being back for 10 years we can’t compete with most clubs and the top 4-6 are pulling further away, the next 3-4 below them are also blowing us out the water. So much for Shanghai leisure holdings proving the needed investment we were told we’d get to push on.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Aside from the first two seasons after promotion back Our whole time since we’ve been at st Mary’s and in the premier league we’ve operated a sell to buy model. Same under Lowe as it is now.  Despite being back for 10 years we can’t compete with most clubs and the top 4-6 are pulling further away, the next 3-4 below them are also blowing us out the water. So much for Shanghai leisure holdings proving the needed investment we were told we’d get to push on.

I think its even worse than that in terms of the way things are trending:

 

Light Years Away Forget About It

• Man City
• Man Utd
• Chelsea
• Liverpool
• Spurs
• Arsenal

 

Too Big / Too Rich (either by size and / or investment from owners)

• Everton
• Leeds
• Aston Villa
• Leicester

 

In & Around Us But More Means

• Wolves
• Brighton
• Crystal Palace
• West Ham

 

Hopeless Praying On Muck Coming Up

• Saints
• Newcastle
• Burnley

 

Promoted Clubs - Wilcards But Likely Crap

• Watford
• Norwich
• Brentford

 

We're really only a couple of promoted clubs getting their act together or Newcastle waking up to being back to where we were most of my life - but back then there was always a clutch of teams fighting it out each season but those above us will simply leave us stranded because of the investment they get while we decay.

 

[whiteleySaint30]

YES

[LGTL]

We’ll go down eventually. Teams like us always do. Constantly hoping there’s three teams worse then us is a pretty shit existence. 

[tajjuk]

lol this thread looks kind of silly when more than half the league have barely bought more than 1 player so far. 

[Dellman]

To answer the question--YES--the Premier League is too rich for us but another dozen clubs may be feeling the same, it's not just us. Wealth has got in to a small clique. Three or four clubs can sweep up all the top talent. But that makes me keener to support my team and so proud that we have been in the top flight as long as we have, against all the odds

[Chris cooper]

Look on the bright side if we go down we’ve got 3pm Saturday kick offs ..new grounds to go too ..better atmospheres .. chance of a trophy 🏆 (maybe) .. more games .. re group and maybe someone rich will buy us .. 

Relegation is imminent.. we won’t replace ings .. I think we will struggle if we havnt got an out n out goal scorer ..ings never even thanked us for the chance we gave him ..nothing to the fans and nothing from the club .. that’s not Southampton born way to treat your boyhood club .. disappointed ☹️ 

[Charlie Wayman]

 What is most telling is that even average PL players like Ings, Bertrand and likely Vestergaard and Poster Boy (apparently) want out even though they had been a huge part of creating the mess we find ourselves in. When the bigger rats leave with their suitcases you know the ship is about to founder. 

Why are they queuing up to leave? Perhaps they are fed up with having to follow the instructions of Watson, Davis & Co rather than Hasenhuttl?

Placing our faith in youth is probably a misjudgement as we need to stay in the PL long enough for them to develop their full potential.

 

 

Edited 5 August, 2021 by Charlie Wayman

[aintforever]

It is just a matter of time before we go down with the current owners. Every time a club gets an owner that actually invests it gets harder for us to keep up, nowt we can do about it though so pointless worrying about it. The Championship is fine.

[Dellman]

Everyone knows Danny's goals did a lot for us but we did just as much for Danny. We  picked him up from Liverpool where he was the forgotten man and brought him back into top football. When he finally retires I am sure his Southampton years will be his most successful.

[Portugalsaint]

To be honest £100m for Grealish who was no more than a super sub is ridiculous.  I didn’t see a decent English striker on the pitches at the Euros.  Harry Kane was poor and no amount of chucking his toys out of the pram with Totty has got him anywhere especially with the Grealish announcement.  As for Danny, good luck to him, Villa will need to keep him fit. That will be interesting as even Liverpool couldnt.

[tajjuk]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It is just a matter of time before we go down with the current owners. Every time a club gets an owner that actually invests it gets harder for us to keep up, nowt we can do about it though so pointless worrying about it. The Championship is fine.

Wolves aren't spending, Arsenal aren't spending, Spurs aren't spending, Burnley aren't spending, none of the promoted clubs are spending much, Newcastle have literally not signed anyone, not even a freebie, Palace are only spending because half their team left on a free, Liverpool have bought one centre-back and have lost an influential centre mid.

Villa so far have only actually spent the money they got from Grealish.

Even money bags Everton have basically signed free transfers. 

The only clubs that can sustain real big spending are Utd, City and Chelsea. 

Clubs like Everton and Villa have had some investment, but the former have wasted it and I reckon are now restricted by their wage bill and I think Villa had the freedom because they were promoted.

Leicester do what we did, but now do it better, by cheaper, sell big and then re-invest wisely. Their transfers have largely been funded by selling Mahrez, Maguire and Chillwell for huge fees.  They look like the might do it again with Maddison, buy him for £25 million sell him on for £70 million. 

I don't really get this 'woe betide us' attitude everyone has like we are hard done by, 98% of the clubs in world football are run sustainably and only spend what they make.

The second biggest club in Germany that has 80k fans follows the exact same policy we do pretty much, buy cheap, develop youth, sell big. 

The biggest club in Portugal, Benfica have sold 1 billion Euros worth of players in the last year, that is an average of 100 million Euros per season in sales, their best players going year in year out and they are traditionally one of the biggest clubs in Europe with a big fanbase who regularly get 65k ever match watching them.

Even Real Madrid and Barcelona can't afford to buy players at the moment and Inter are having to sell their best players.

We get like £120 million in TV money, that is more than enough to run a decent PL club together with the usual income of gate receipts, merchandising, sponsorship etc. not exactly sure why people we are hard done by.

Until recently we have spent like £50-60 million on new players every season. We are only struggling in the last two to three years because of a string of poor signings who basically have not contributed anything to the club and have had next to no re-sale value. Carrillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Elyonoussi, etc. have probably cost us north of £150 million in transfer fees and wages, and we are still probably paying some of their wages now just to get other clubs to take them.

Add in the lost revenue from Covid and the club are probably £200 million down from where they should be, as either those players would have been successful so we would have sold them for a profit or they would be key first teamers and we wouldn't needed to have signed other players to replace them. Like if Lemina is a key first teamer we don't need to spend £12 million to sign Diallo, if Hoedt wasn't wasn't utter gash we don't need to spend on Vestergaard etc. etc.

A raft of utter crap signings that have had no re-sale value and have shackled the wage bill, plus covid on top, that is why we are skint. Not because we are crap and everyone elses owners splash the cash, because they simply don't. Even Man City are trying to run more sustainably and Chelsea's big splurge of spending was largely funded by sales, for example Hazard. 

[SaveloyMush]

44 minutes ago, Dellman said:

To answer the question--YES--the Premier League is too rich for us but another dozen clubs may be feeling the same, it's not just us. Wealth has got in to a small clique. Three or four clubs can sweep up all the top talent. But that makes me keener to support my team and so proud that we have been in the top flight as long as we have, against all the odds

You are an advocate of the proposed ESL, then?

[Turkish]

9 hours ago, tajjuk said:

Wolves aren't spending, Arsenal aren't spending, Spurs aren't spending, Burnley aren't spending, none of the promoted clubs are spending much, Newcastle have literally not signed anyone, not even a freebie, Palace are only spending because half their team left on a free, Liverpool have bought one centre-back and have lost an influential centre mid.

Villa so far have only actually spent the money they got from Grealish.

Even money bags Everton have basically signed free transfers. 

The only clubs that can sustain real big spending are Utd, City and Chelsea. 

Clubs like Everton and Villa have had some investment, but the former have wasted it and I reckon are now restricted by their wage bill and I think Villa had the freedom because they were promoted.

Leicester do what we did, but now do it better, by cheaper, sell big and then re-invest wisely. Their transfers have largely been funded by selling Mahrez, Maguire and Chillwell for huge fees.  They look like the might do it again with Maddison, buy him for £25 million sell him on for £70 million. 

I don't really get this 'woe betide us' attitude everyone has like we are hard done by, 98% of the clubs in world football are run sustainably and only spend what they make.

The second biggest club in Germany that has 80k fans follows the exact same policy we do pretty much, buy cheap, develop youth, sell big. 

The biggest club in Portugal, Benfica have sold 1 billion Euros worth of players in the last year, that is an average of 100 million Euros per season in sales, their best players going year in year out and they are traditionally one of the biggest clubs in Europe with a big fanbase who regularly get 65k ever match watching them.

Even Real Madrid and Barcelona can't afford to buy players at the moment and Inter are having to sell their best players.

We get like £120 million in TV money, that is more than enough to run a decent PL club together with the usual income of gate receipts, merchandising, sponsorship etc. not exactly sure why people we are hard done by.

Until recently we have spent like £50-60 million on new players every season. We are only struggling in the last two to three years because of a string of poor signings who basically have not contributed anything to the club and have had next to no re-sale value. Carrillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Elyonoussi, etc. have probably cost us north of £150 million in transfer fees and wages, and we are still probably paying some of their wages now just to get other clubs to take them.

Add in the lost revenue from Covid and the club are probably £200 million down from where they should be, as either those players would have been successful so we would have sold them for a profit or they would be key first teamers and we wouldn't needed to have signed other players to replace them. Like if Lemina is a key first teamer we don't need to spend £12 million to sign Diallo, if Hoedt wasn't wasn't utter gash we don't need to spend on Vestergaard etc. etc.

A raft of utter crap signings that have had no re-sale value and have shackled the wage bill, plus covid on top, that is why we are skint. Not because we are crap and everyone elses owners splash the cash, because they simply don't. Even Man City are trying to run more sustainably and Chelsea's big splurge of spending was largely funded by sales, for example Hazard. 

Apart from the £50m on Ben white and the rumors of £70m for Maddison and the £47m spurs are just about to spend on a centre back plus the £22m they’ve already spent  you mean? Norwich have spent £35m Brentford £25m and palace have spent £45m and look like they’re about to snatch Armstrong from under our nose but hey who needs a striker. I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post as any credibility it had was blown apart in the first paragraph as despite lots of words you evidently don’t know what you’re on about.

Edited 6 August, 2021 by Turkish

[Whitey Grandad]

The PremierLeague is too rich for most of the teams in it. It’s a farce that some clubs can spend so much more than most of the others.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

If we run ourselves well then we can compete in mid table in the Premier League. If we don't then we'll get relegated. Twas ever thus really

Edited 5 August, 2021 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Saint Garrett]

21 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The PremierLeague is too rich for most of the teams in it. It’s a farce that some clubs can spend so much more than most of the others.

As is the championship in fairness ! 

[tajjuk]

9 hours ago, Turkish said:

Apart from the £50m on Ben white and the rumors of £70m for Maddison and the £47m spurs are just about to spend on a centre back plus the £22m they’ve already spent  you mean? I didn’t bother with the rest of your plus. Norwich have spent £35m Brentford £25m and palace have spent £45m and look like they’re about to snatch Armstrong from under our nose but hey who needs a striker. post as any credibility it had was blown apart in the first paragraph as despite lots of words you evidently don’t know what you’re on about.

You mean the £50 million that allowed Brighton to spend then, basically covering more than their incomings.

Then Norwich spent £35 million did they? Oh did they not sell Buendia for £33 million? Hmmmn.

Brentford are promoted so they have a windfall of PL money, but LOL that would be Brentford who got £50 million in sales last season and only spent £6 million. Almost like they are re-investing that money. 

That would be Palace who released FOURTEEN players, including some of their highest earners, tends to free up a lot of funds to add to your squad when half your squad is gone.

That would be Spurs who have spent £22 million and received £26 million then, but of course if you need transfer rumours then you are grasping at straws aren't you and don't really have a point. 

 

Yeh who doesn't know what they are on about? Would be you by the looks of things.

But how could we possibly compete with like half the PL who are all pretty much spending what they earn or a little bit more, I thought it was only us that do that? LMAO

13 of the 20 PL club so far in the window have spent less than £20 million or received more than they have spent, but yeh we can't possibly compete, everyone is clearly richer than us, oh wait....

Edited 6 August, 2021 by tajjuk

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

You mean the £50 million that allowed Brighton to spend then, basically covering more than their incomings.

Then Norwich spent £35 million did they? Oh did they not sell Buendia for £33 million? Hmmmn.

Brentford are promoted so they have a windfall of PL money, but LOL that would be Brentford who got £50 million in sales last season and only spent £6 million. Almost like they are re-investing that money. 

That would be Palace who released FOURTEEN players, including some of their highest earners, tends to free up a lot of funds to add to your squad when half your squad is gone.

That would be Spurs who have spent £22 million and received £26 million then, but of course if you need transfer rumours then you are grasping at straws aren't you and don't really have a point. 

 

Yeh who doesn't know what they are on about? Would be you by the looks of things.

But how could we possibly compete with like half the PL who are all pretty much spending what they earn or a little bit more, I thought it was only us that do that? LMAO

13 of the 20 PL club so far in the window have spent less than £20 million or received more than they have spent, but yeh we can't possibly compete, everyone is clearly richer than us, oh wait....

 "relying on transfer rumours" as you put it in the case of Spurs, this would be the £47m centre back that is having a medical today, yeah just a rumour. Guess when you dont even know that you dont really have a point do you, LOL.

You said all of them aren’t spending. You are wrong. It’s that simple.

Edited 6 August, 2021 by Turkish

[hackedoff]

Just keep your fingers in your ears ( or your head in the sand ) and keep paying Mr Gao.

[skintsaint]

On 19/04/2021 at 04:28, Lallana's Left Peg said:

Is the Premier League becoming too rich for us to exist in?

Yep. Next.

[tajjuk]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

 "relying on transfer rumours" as you put it in the case of Spurs, this would be the £47m centre back that is having a medical today, yeah just a rumour. Guess when you dont even know that you dont really have a point do you, LOL.

You said all of them aren’t spending. You are wrong. It’s that simple.

LOL no I didn't, didn't say anything of the sort, if you can only claim stupid strawman arguments it shows how dumb you are. Plus you can't answer any of the others mentioned can you, wrong on Brentford, wrong on Norwich, didn't know Spurs had sold more than they spent, oh look nothing said about those, what a surprise. 

Simple reality is a lot of clubs are not spending massively, aren't getting huge investment from their owners and are often just re-investing sales money or spending a little over, so the claim the league is 'too rich for us' makes no sense.

Again the irony of you calling others 'Mr Wrong' when you fit the name so well. 

 

[once_bitterne]

11 hours ago, LGTL said:

We’ll go down eventually. Teams like us always do. Constantly hoping there’s three teams worse then us is a pretty shit existence. 

Indeed.  Apart from the Big 6 and Everton we're the team with the longest current run in the PL which shows it will be our turn soon.

We are now in a mini-league with the 3 promoted clubs, Burnley, Palace, Brighton and Newcastle where the aim is to finish above 3 of the others.  So come on boys, pay your s/t money to watch that.....

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

LOL no I didn't, didn't say anything of the sort, if you can only claim stupid strawman arguments it shows how dumb you are. Plus you can't answer any of the others mentioned can you, wrong on Brentford, wrong on Norwich, didn't know Spurs had sold more than they spent, oh look nothing said about those, what a surprise. 

Simple reality is a lot of clubs are not spending massively, aren't getting huge investment from their owners and are often just re-investing sales money or spending a little over, so the claim the league is 'too rich for us' makes no sense.

Again the irony of you calling others 'Mr Wrong' when you fit the name so well. 

 

" That would be Spurs who have spent £22 million and received £26 million then, but of course if you need transfer rumours then you are grasping at straws aren't you and don't really have a point. "

Yes you did. Clearing referencing the fact they're signing a player for £47m which you appear to think is just a rumour. Otherwise why say it?

You claimed all these clubs aren't spending. You are wrong, dont get upset about it, it's okay to be wrong. You either win or you learn pal.  Carry on putting your fingers in your ears saying it's me thats wrong if you like, but you claimed they weren't spending which is wrong, you make out imminent signings are rumours and you then try and justify your error by typing and typing and typing with a whole host of reasons why they clubs you said werent spending actually are. You're all over the place. Think before you type.

Edited 6 August, 2021 by Turkish

[tajjuk]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You are wrong

Yeh you are repeatedly. Mr Wrong himself.

You are arguing a dumb strawman because you know I am right, and I don't see any confirmation of any Spurs signing, just usual transfer news that deal has apparently been done, cos those are always correct. So how am I wrong exactly, there is no official confirmation. You were already wrong because you claimed they had spent £23 million when they had already received MORE than that.

Plus they are likely going to have to sell Kane, so even if they do sign, they are likely to receive more than they spend. 

And no comments on you being wrong on Brentford or Norwich then? 

Do your own research 'pal' and learn how to make an actual argument, not a dumb strawman, you are the guy that claims we are the only club that needs to sell to buy, yet about half the PL have basically bough what they have sold LMAO. 

Edited 6 August, 2021 by tajjuk

[Nordic Saint]

6 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

LOL no I didn't, didn't say anything of the sort, if you can only claim stupid strawman arguments it shows how dumb you are. Plus you can't answer any of the others mentioned can you, wrong on Brentford, wrong on Norwich, didn't know Spurs had sold more than they spent, oh look nothing said about those, what a surprise. 

Simple reality is a lot of clubs are not spending massively, aren't getting huge investment from their owners and are often just re-investing sales money or spending a little over, so the claim the league is 'too rich for us' makes no sense.

Again the irony of you calling others 'Mr Wrong' when you fit the name so well. 

 

The question is: will we?

Will the Danny Ings transfer money be spent on a replacement?

If we can't even use 2/3 of it it to compete with Watford and Palace for our preferred target, Adam Armstrong, then it does perhaps signal that our owners are no longer prepared to compete at this level. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

[SKD]

11 hours ago, tajjuk said:

 

Leicester do what we did, but now do it better, by cheaper, sell big and then re-invest wisely. Their transfers have largely been funded by selling Mahrez, Maguire and Chillwell for huge fees.  They look like the might do it again with Maddison, buy him for £25 million sell him on for £70 million. 

 

You’re right, Leicester’s model is pretty similar to us and is where we were 4/5 seasons ago. 
 

The reason they do it better is because they are willing to invest a bit to pick up good young players who they know will give them a return on investment in the future. As an example Tielemans. 
 

We’re always on the hunt in the bargain bin. Who more often than not end up being a load of shite (hence why they’re in the bargain bin). 
 

in answer to the OP, yeah, the league is too rich for us. The question should be why.

[tajjuk]

1 minute ago, Nordic Saint said:

The question is: will we?

Will the Danny Ings transfer money be spent on a replacement?

If we can't even use 2/3 of it it to compete with Watford and Palace for our preferred target, Adam Armstrong, then it does perhaps signal that our owners are no longer prepared to compete at this level. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

We'll see, but the Armstrong stuff is all over the place, who knows what is going on there, to me it looks like agent talk and Blackburn trying to drive the price up, iirc Norwich were claimed to have made a bid, but then came out and said they weren't interested in the player, a few days ago we were apparently close to signing, now it's Palace. 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Yeh you are repeatedly. Mr Wrong himself.

You are arguing a dumb strawman because you know I am right, and I don't see any confirmation of any Spurs signing. So how am I wrong exactly? You were already wrong because you claimed they had spent £23 million when they had already received MORE than that.

Plus they are likely going to have to sell Kane, so even if they do sign, they are likely to receive more than they spend. 

 

Ill make it simple for you. Read it VERY SLOWLY and THINK about what you said and what has actually happened

You listed a number of clubs claiming they aren't spending.

I listed the same clubs with the amounts they've spent (in the case of Spurs will be in the next couple of days link as you seem to have sand in your fanny over this one (just a rumour, LOL) Tottenham transfer news: Christian Romero speaks ahead of medical | Football | Sport | Express.co.uk) I didn't say anything about what they'd recieved, you started that bit to try to wiggle out of being wrong.

You then mentioned these same clubs and came up with a whole list of reasons why they've spent the money they have, despite initially claiming they weren't spending.

So are the spending or not? They're not spending, then they are, then they're not again, but but but but, YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT. You seem very confused, Not for the first time., as you've contradicting yourself within 3 posts. Maybe if you didn't type so much you might not confuse yourself.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

The question is: will we?

Will the Danny Ings transfer money be spent on a replacement?

If we can't even use 2/3 of it it to compete with Watford and Palace for our preferred target, Adam Armstrong, then it does perhaps signal that our owners are no longer prepared to compete at this level. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

i think we all know the answer to that DIrk. But dont forget unlike any other club we have agents fees, signing on fees, bonuses and NI contributions to make. That is probably the best excuse i've ever heard to justify our penny pinching.

[tajjuk]

1 minute ago, SKD said:

You’re right, Leicester’s model is pretty similar to us and is where we were 4/5 seasons ago. 
 

The reason they do it better is because they are willing to invest a bit to pick up good young players who they know will give them a return on investment in the future. As an example Tielemans. 
 

We’re always on the hunt in the bargain bin. Who more often than not end up being a load of shite (hence why they’re in the bargain bin). 
 

in answer to the OP, yeah, the league is too rich for us. The question should be why.

Tielemans came to them on loan, so he basically proved himself in the league before they signed him, so it made the investment less risky hence they spent more (and probably why he cost more).

They spend more on transfers now, but we have screwed our signings over the last 3-4 years so haven't had the money to re-invest. Easier to go buy a player £20-30 million, which is where most of their players are priced, when you have sold players for like £70-80 million.  

I mean the year the spent on Tielemans they had sold Maguire for £80 million. 

But yeh they do it better than us, hence why they have been more successful with it, but they haven't needed great investments, it's just good scouting. Our scouting has been crap, it's only picked up a bit recently with the change of board. 

[Nordic Saint]

3 minutes ago, SKD said:

You’re right, Leicester’s model is pretty similar to us and is where we were 4/5 seasons ago. 
 

The reason they do it better is because they are willing to invest a bit to pick up good young players who they know will give them a return on investment in the future. As an example Tielemans. 
 

We’re always on the hunt in the bargain bin. Who more often than not end up being a load of shite (hence why they’re in the bargain bin). 
 

in answer to the OP, yeah, the league is too rich for us. The question should be why.

Yes. the only other Premier League clubs to have a zero or minus net spend over a 5-year period were Sheffield United and Norwich. Over those 5 years Leicester have had a net spend of £112.6 mill, which has enabled them to buy £30 mill+ players like Tielemans and so stay competitve.

Premier League net spend table: Premier League Club Netspend 5 Season - Transfer League

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, SKD said:

You’re right, Leicester’s model is pretty similar to us and is where we were 4/5 seasons ago. 
 

The reason they do it better is because they are willing to invest a bit to pick up good young players who they know will give them a return on investment in the future. As an example Tielemans. 
 

We’re always on the hunt in the bargain bin. Who more often than not end up being a load of shite (hence why they’re in the bargain bin). 
 

in answer to the OP, yeah, the league is too rich for us. The question should be why.

They've also done it better because they've not just relied on signing young players. They've signed proven premier league players too like Evans, Perez, Mcguire, Inacheo. They've also spent a bit more on quality, Tielmans you mention cost £40m. They've got quite a few around the £18-£30m mark as well, whereas a big signing for us is £15m. Prices have gone up since we were getting Mane, Van Dijk etc for £10-£15m. We're still shopping in that market, other clubs aren't.

[tajjuk]

12 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Ill make it simple for you. Read it VERY SLOWLY and THINK about what you said and what has actually happened

You listed a number of clubs claiming they aren't spending.

I listed the same clubs with the amounts they've spent (in the case of Spurs will be in the next couple of days link as you seem to have sand in your fanny over this one (just a rumour, LOL) Tottenham transfer news: Christian Romero speaks ahead of medical | Football | Sport | Express.co.uk) I didn't say anything about what they'd recieved, you started that bit to try to wiggle out of being wrong.

You then mentioned these same clubs and came up with a whole list of reasons why they've spent the money they have, despite initially claiming they weren't spending.

So are the spending or not? They're not spending, then they are, then they're not again, but but but but, YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT. You seem very confused, Not for the first time., as you've contradicting yourself within 3 posts. Maybe if you didn't type so much you might not confuse yourself.

Ah so the Express, my god how could I call something from such a might source a 'transfer rumour' lmao.

My god you are dumb, you get what the subject of the thread is yeh? It's about spending in the league, clubs being richer than us and everyone having owners that invest money to buy players that we can't. 

It LITERALLY says to survive in the league you apparently have to spend more than you earn, so OF COURSE their sales are important. Like I said when you can't understand the actual point being made and you respond with retarded strawman arguments, then it's pointless talking to you, you can't grasp simple points. 

They are spending money based on their sales FFS, that is the whole point, so when I said they are 'no spending' it means they are not just splurging the untold millions that every other club apparently has, it doesn't mean they are LITERALLY not spending because every football club has to spend money to actually exist, otherwise they would cease to actually be functioning businesses. 

Didn't think it was a particularly hard point to understand, apparently for numnuts like you it is. 

 

 

Edited 6 August, 2021 by tajjuk

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Ah so the Express, my god how could I call something from such a might source a 'transfer rumour' lmao.

My god you are dumb, you get what the subject of the thread is yeh? It's about spending in the league, clubs being richer than us and everyone having owners that invest money to buy players that we can't. 

It LITERALLY says to survive in the league you apparently have to spend more than you earn, so OF COURSE their sales are important. Like I said when you can't understand the actual point being made and you respond with retarded strawman arguments, then it's pointless talking to you, you can't grasp simple points. 

They are spending money based on their sales FFS, that is the whole point, so when I said they are 'no spending' it means they are not just splurging the untold millions that every other club apparently has, it doesn't mean they are LITERALLY not spending because every football club has to spend money to actually exist. 

Didn't think it was a particularly hard point to understand, apparently for numnuts like you it is. 

 

 

 

Okay we'll lets see who is right and who is wrong about Romero joining Spurs. Just a rumour in the Express or very close to being agreed, lets see? 

As for the other stuff I'll make it simple. 

Have Arsenal, Spurs, Brentford, Palace, Norwich, Burnley, Liverpool spent money this transfer window? Yes or no will do, no need for 20 paragraphs screaming I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG YOU DONT UNDERSTAND.

 

 

Edited 6 August, 2021 by Turkish

[max_saints]

Clubs like ours will never be able to compete consistently at the top but instead should accept that we will go through peaks and troughs in terms of our levels of success.

Peaks: When everything clicks, recruitment is spot on + we get a golden generation from the youth teams + this group sticks together for more than a season. While we were enjoying consecutive top 7/8 finishes, the likes of Villa and Leeds were going through their nightmares in the Championship. 

Troughs: Inevitably after a peak, the vultures will start circling for our top players, players who know their careers are short and they won't get many opportunities to earn more or prove themselves at the highest levels. We start getting more misses than hits reinvesting the money from sales. All the head start we got from our peak is eroded and the rest of the pack catches up and we assume our place back in the average chasing pack, waiting for our next lucky break to hit a peak again.

If the question is, will we ever be able to compete with the likes of the top 6, consistently being right up there, and becoming one of the clubs young players grow dreaming to eventually play for. Nope, not in our lifetimes I don't think.

Are we able to compete with the likes of Villa and Leeds who are now enjoying what we had a few seasons ago? I don't see why not. If Villa invest the Grealish money poorly the same way we squandered the VVD money, they will eventually lose their momentum too (not that an 11th place finish is anything to brag about mind).

Key factor is how selling clubs like ourselves reinvest the money we get from our departures. Note that we can have the most spot on recruitment team and strategy, but a huge amount of luck is involved too

[OldNick]

Question, has anybody seen Armstrong play apart from the odd snippet on Sky???

Genuine question as we seem to be getting het up an unproven player in the PL

 

[beatlesaint]

When we can’t compete for Championship strikers entering the last year of their contract then the answer is yes, the Premier League is too rich for us.

[nta786]

14 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Question, has anybody seen Armstrong play apart from the odd snippet on Sky???

Genuine question as we seem to be getting het up an unproven player in the PL

 

I think in all likelihood any player we buy will be "an unproven player in the PL", if you want a proven one we can pay £150m for Kane or pay £250k+ a week for Aguero!

 

[Greenridge]

8 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

When we can’t compete for Championship strikers entering the last year of their contract then the answer is yes, the Premier League is too rich for us.

Can't and not wanting to (for various potential reasons) are not one of the same. If indeed that is the case.

[Give it to Ron]

46 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Question, has anybody seen Armstrong play apart from the odd snippet on Sky???

Genuine question as we seem to be getting het up an unproven player in the PL

 

My son has and rates him highly

[Whitey Grandad]

46 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

When we can’t compete for Championship strikers entering the last year of their contract then the answer is yes, the Premier League is too rich for us.

Who says we can’t compete? If you believe all the talk our competitors are Norwich and Crystal Palace.

But only if you believe the rumours. Being able to compete and wanting to compete are different things. 

[OldNick]

34 minutes ago, Give it to Ron said:

My son has and rates him highly

Ok thanks. 

[Turkish]

25 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Who says we can’t compete? If you believe all the talk our competitors are Norwich and Crystal Palace.

But only if you believe the rumours. Being able to compete and wanting to compete are different things. 

Maybe we dont want to compete because we cant?

[Whitey Grandad]

44 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Maybe we dont want to compete because we cant?

Same difference

[Micky]

We'll make Europe now after this thread. 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Micky said:

We'll make Europe now after this thread. 

No chance. We are a sinking ship, lots of players not good enough, up to our eyeballs in debt, thin, weak squad, no money to bring in decent replacements for outgoings. Our defence is terrible and we've just lost 1/4 of our goals, appears we're going to gamble on a cheap replacement to fill the void. The second half of last season was appalling and seen nothing to suggest anything is going to improve. 

[hackedoff]

The lack of money to complete with most clubs in this league is an obvious handicap,but the club has also fallen well behind on the business and football nous side of things.