We have two players valued at £77M in the team yesterday
It has nothing to do with the money
Wenger lack of tactical nounce, formation is the major weakness
Blue mvp ,you have it in a nutshell.I think it's about time they had a change around in they're management to be honest.They're supporters are becoming a standing joke ,feel sorry for the genuine ones,but we don't hear many of those !
Atletico Madrid winning isn't a good example - there is so much third party ownership involved at that club that they have a huge financial leg-up from companies like the one owned by Jorge Mendes, so it is not the small-budget victory that is portrayed by some.
Athletico's achievement was all the more impressive because of the smaller resources available to them.
That is why everyone is so impressed with it and why so many people were cheering them on, people love supporting the underdog.
They are the underdog because of the huge difference in resources...
So yes huge resources do make a big difference.
I think Arsenal would have won much much more if they had the same spending as Chelsea over the past 12 years, would anyone really disagree with that?
Wenger is running out of excuses.
Ozil and Sanchez alone cost about £75 million. How many clubs in world football can spend that kind of money on two players ?
Very very few.
SAF, why cant a teams like Everton, Southampton,Villa compete with City, CFC, UTD, Afc.
They're embarrassing idiots with Wenger's loser mentality.
Ifarka money I would say...
Arsenal are somewhat off a halfway house, between the super rich clubs and the normal ones...
They are slowly catching up with the super rich, it is not an instant thing though, how long were Man City getting millions and millions thrown at them before they even managed top 4?!
Chelsea didn't have Chelsea standing in their way, obviously City didn't have City in their way, they both had a low spending Arsenal in ther way which was easier to overhaul with big money.
Hate the whole money debate - it is usually only brought in as an excuse when teams lose.
On winning the FA cup did Arsenal fans not celebrate it, or feel it was a hollow victory because they only played teams who had less of a budget than them en route to the trophy?
The aim is to win... if you have lots of money and can use it then that's great - use it. (I don't think any big teams would really like a salary cap where they could only pay the same wages as much smaller clubs - so it would be hypocritical to reap the rewards of a big bank balance and dominate smaller teams - and then moan about inequality with other large sides)
To me it is similar to playing style... when fans/managers/players moan about a team that plays defensively it is ridiculous. They played to their strengths and did what they could to try and win the game - ultimately it is about winning!
Surely it's a valid excuse though Mr Mortimer, look at City before and after the money...
Can you really say that wasnt almost exclusively due to the money?
Money alone took them from an average (or even worse) prem team to one of the best in the league!
Yes money can make a difference but I think the point now is arsenal have money and have been spending it, so trying to use it as an excuse is now somewhat hypocritical. And what is funnier is arsenals best team was made on a small budget in comparison to say united
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
SAF - of course it makes a difference... my point is, is it worthy of criticism? It's the whole attitude of fairness which gets my goat.
Look at Man City from the other side - they bought the best players.
Before they had the best players they were an average side... then suddenly they have the best players and they are the best side.
Do you criticise a team for having the best players? Or for playing its best players?
I haven't ever heard people moaning that they shouldn't be able to play player X because he is better than our player Y...
It would sound ridiculous if a manager came out and complained that it's 'not fair' that they have better players.
So yes it does make a difference having a lot of money, but it is how you use it. Fairness doesn't come into it... it is accepted that you use your resources to ensure you win the game... that's why I think the focus on money is an excuse.
Yeah that's why I picked City, you can really see the difference.
Chelsea were surprisingly big spenders pre RA as well though, can't remember quite where they came but they were one of 3 clubs to spend (net) more than United between 92 - 00 (Newcastle and Liverpool were the other 2)
Think they may have been 2nd biggest spenders behind Newcastle.
City shows the difference between not having money and having it though, the difference has been huge!
They did have a takeover just before their sugar daddy takeover where they spent a little though. Pretty sure they bought Jo for £18M prior to the Sheikh.
SAF, would you now say Utd with there spending are Buying the league or is it the right to invest to compete ?
Mr Mortimer I am not sure it is to do with fairness. The topic is regarding money being a good excuse...
Given what a huge difference money can make (eg City) I think it is a fairly good excuse.
It isn't the only reason why things happen in football, it is a pretty damn big one though!!
OP
It is Atletico there is no H.
You wouldn't like it if they kept spelling Chelsea wrong would you?
SAF
Do you remember the first share issue Utd had that raised 200m and then coincidentally Utd broke the transfer record again and again.
Did that not have an effect on where Utd are today?
comment by ifarka,BOYCOTT QATAR22/8-STARDBLATTER (U8182)
posted 1 minute ago
SAF, would you now say Utd with there spending are Buying the league or is it the right to invest to compete ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could probàbly call it trying to buy the league, or overspending. I think our spending has been a little crazy if that's what your getting at.
I think us spending so much makes it very difficult for teams like Arsenal to compete with us for sure...
Well they will this season but if we were to keep that kind of spending up and Arsenal didn't match it, we would pull away from them through no fault if their own.
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 26 seconds ago
SAF
Do you remember the first share issue Utd had that raised 200m and then coincidentally Utd broke the transfer record again and again.
Did that not have an effect on where Utd are today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were decent sized spenders but in the 90's we were only the 4th highest spenders...
Our spending probably meant we were a secure premiership club even with bad management. From our spending position we needed good management and to do well bringing players through to be the best...
Just wrote all that, we are on about the recent share issue aren't we?
Tbh that was to clear debts, we've been spending out of the mountains of money we make each year.
Although if you get 10p from a friend and 10p from your mum and spend 10p in sweets and 10p on matches then arguing you spent your mums money on this or your friends money on this it starts to get a little silly... You have money from various sources and you spend it in various ways...
SAF - yes you can see the difference with City - but is it the money that made them champions or having the players?
Yes the bank balance meant they could sign the players- but they players won the league on the pitch... because the competition is to be the best team (and they were).
Is the finance a contributory factor, of course... I think it becomes an excuse though when people say it is the reason for defeat.
Arsenal lost the game yesterday on the pitch. The players didn't play well enough... or aren't good enough... or luck wasn't with them... whatever it was, it was on the pitch the game took place. I think the reference to money is an excuse and looks to justify the loss without losing face.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
Of course its all about the money at the very top level.
But along side the Money there needs to be wise management of the resources .
With out wise management Money cannot guarantee long term success, yes there will be the odd freak achievement, Liverpool winning the C/l against AC, Atletico beating Real & Barce, Dortmund beating Bayern, and so on in recent times.
The issue which most annoys me is that the clubs with established financial bases are allowed spend , but clubs which are prepared to invest to reach a new level and compete with the established clubs are accused of buying success.
Lets take Everton, a very decent club, but unattractive for a overseas buyer.
This club needs a new stadium 250m, a new squad investment of at least 300m, and funds to establish the club as a global brand from a marketing perspective as a starter to become a long term elite club, so would the new owners be buying success or investing in a business/ club giving it the tools to compete ?
ifarka - completely agree. The FFP is a joke which just serves to keep the top clubs at the top.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is it really all about money?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 6/10/14
We have two players valued at £77M in the team yesterday
It has nothing to do with the money
Wenger lack of tactical nounce, formation is the major weakness
posted on 6/10/14
Blue mvp ,you have it in a nutshell.I think it's about time they had a change around in they're management to be honest.They're supporters are becoming a standing joke ,feel sorry for the genuine ones,but we don't hear many of those !
posted on 6/10/14
Atletico Madrid winning isn't a good example - there is so much third party ownership involved at that club that they have a huge financial leg-up from companies like the one owned by Jorge Mendes, so it is not the small-budget victory that is portrayed by some.
posted on 6/10/14
Athletico's achievement was all the more impressive because of the smaller resources available to them.
That is why everyone is so impressed with it and why so many people were cheering them on, people love supporting the underdog.
They are the underdog because of the huge difference in resources...
So yes huge resources do make a big difference.
I think Arsenal would have won much much more if they had the same spending as Chelsea over the past 12 years, would anyone really disagree with that?
posted on 6/10/14
Wenger is running out of excuses.
Ozil and Sanchez alone cost about £75 million. How many clubs in world football can spend that kind of money on two players ?
Very very few.
posted on 6/10/14
SAF, why cant a teams like Everton, Southampton,Villa compete with City, CFC, UTD, Afc.
posted on 6/10/14
They're embarrassing idiots with Wenger's loser mentality.
posted on 6/10/14
Ifarka money I would say...
Arsenal are somewhat off a halfway house, between the super rich clubs and the normal ones...
They are slowly catching up with the super rich, it is not an instant thing though, how long were Man City getting millions and millions thrown at them before they even managed top 4?!
Chelsea didn't have Chelsea standing in their way, obviously City didn't have City in their way, they both had a low spending Arsenal in ther way which was easier to overhaul with big money.
posted on 6/10/14
Hate the whole money debate - it is usually only brought in as an excuse when teams lose.
On winning the FA cup did Arsenal fans not celebrate it, or feel it was a hollow victory because they only played teams who had less of a budget than them en route to the trophy?
The aim is to win... if you have lots of money and can use it then that's great - use it. (I don't think any big teams would really like a salary cap where they could only pay the same wages as much smaller clubs - so it would be hypocritical to reap the rewards of a big bank balance and dominate smaller teams - and then moan about inequality with other large sides)
To me it is similar to playing style... when fans/managers/players moan about a team that plays defensively it is ridiculous. They played to their strengths and did what they could to try and win the game - ultimately it is about winning!
posted on 6/10/14
Surely it's a valid excuse though Mr Mortimer, look at City before and after the money...
Can you really say that wasnt almost exclusively due to the money?
Money alone took them from an average (or even worse) prem team to one of the best in the league!
posted on 6/10/14
Yes money can make a difference but I think the point now is arsenal have money and have been spending it, so trying to use it as an excuse is now somewhat hypocritical. And what is funnier is arsenals best team was made on a small budget in comparison to say united
posted on 6/10/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/14
SAF - of course it makes a difference... my point is, is it worthy of criticism? It's the whole attitude of fairness which gets my goat.
Look at Man City from the other side - they bought the best players.
Before they had the best players they were an average side... then suddenly they have the best players and they are the best side.
Do you criticise a team for having the best players? Or for playing its best players?
I haven't ever heard people moaning that they shouldn't be able to play player X because he is better than our player Y...
It would sound ridiculous if a manager came out and complained that it's 'not fair' that they have better players.
So yes it does make a difference having a lot of money, but it is how you use it. Fairness doesn't come into it... it is accepted that you use your resources to ensure you win the game... that's why I think the focus on money is an excuse.
posted on 6/10/14
Yeah that's why I picked City, you can really see the difference.
Chelsea were surprisingly big spenders pre RA as well though, can't remember quite where they came but they were one of 3 clubs to spend (net) more than United between 92 - 00 (Newcastle and Liverpool were the other 2)
Think they may have been 2nd biggest spenders behind Newcastle.
City shows the difference between not having money and having it though, the difference has been huge!
They did have a takeover just before their sugar daddy takeover where they spent a little though. Pretty sure they bought Jo for £18M prior to the Sheikh.
posted on 6/10/14
SAF, would you now say Utd with there spending are Buying the league or is it the right to invest to compete ?
posted on 6/10/14
Mr Mortimer I am not sure it is to do with fairness. The topic is regarding money being a good excuse...
Given what a huge difference money can make (eg City) I think it is a fairly good excuse.
It isn't the only reason why things happen in football, it is a pretty damn big one though!!
posted on 6/10/14
OP
It is Atletico there is no H.
You wouldn't like it if they kept spelling Chelsea wrong would you?
posted on 6/10/14
SAF
Do you remember the first share issue Utd had that raised 200m and then coincidentally Utd broke the transfer record again and again.
Did that not have an effect on where Utd are today?
posted on 6/10/14
comment by ifarka,BOYCOTT QATAR22/8-STARDBLATTER (U8182)
posted 1 minute ago
SAF, would you now say Utd with there spending are Buying the league or is it the right to invest to compete ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could probàbly call it trying to buy the league, or overspending. I think our spending has been a little crazy if that's what your getting at.
I think us spending so much makes it very difficult for teams like Arsenal to compete with us for sure...
Well they will this season but if we were to keep that kind of spending up and Arsenal didn't match it, we would pull away from them through no fault if their own.
posted on 6/10/14
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
posted on 6/10/14
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 26 seconds ago
SAF
Do you remember the first share issue Utd had that raised 200m and then coincidentally Utd broke the transfer record again and again.
Did that not have an effect on where Utd are today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were decent sized spenders but in the 90's we were only the 4th highest spenders...
Our spending probably meant we were a secure premiership club even with bad management. From our spending position we needed good management and to do well bringing players through to be the best...
Just wrote all that, we are on about the recent share issue aren't we?
Tbh that was to clear debts, we've been spending out of the mountains of money we make each year.
Although if you get 10p from a friend and 10p from your mum and spend 10p in sweets and 10p on matches then arguing you spent your mums money on this or your friends money on this it starts to get a little silly... You have money from various sources and you spend it in various ways...
posted on 6/10/14
SAF - yes you can see the difference with City - but is it the money that made them champions or having the players?
Yes the bank balance meant they could sign the players- but they players won the league on the pitch... because the competition is to be the best team (and they were).
Is the finance a contributory factor, of course... I think it becomes an excuse though when people say it is the reason for defeat.
Arsenal lost the game yesterday on the pitch. The players didn't play well enough... or aren't good enough... or luck wasn't with them... whatever it was, it was on the pitch the game took place. I think the reference to money is an excuse and looks to justify the loss without losing face.
posted on 6/10/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF but the point is that Wenger is insinuating that he can't afford players like Costa while at the same time paying more for the likes of Ozil and Sanchez.
It's like me saying that I can't afford to shop at Selfridge's after I've just bought a few expensive things in Harrods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends what exactly he means...
If he's stating he couldn't have bought just one individual then that is wrong...
If he's stating he couldn't have afforded to buy them all but just the odd one then he's right.
posted on 6/10/14
Of course its all about the money at the very top level.
But along side the Money there needs to be wise management of the resources .
With out wise management Money cannot guarantee long term success, yes there will be the odd freak achievement, Liverpool winning the C/l against AC, Atletico beating Real & Barce, Dortmund beating Bayern, and so on in recent times.
The issue which most annoys me is that the clubs with established financial bases are allowed spend , but clubs which are prepared to invest to reach a new level and compete with the established clubs are accused of buying success.
Lets take Everton, a very decent club, but unattractive for a overseas buyer.
This club needs a new stadium 250m, a new squad investment of at least 300m, and funds to establish the club as a global brand from a marketing perspective as a starter to become a long term elite club, so would the new owners be buying success or investing in a business/ club giving it the tools to compete ?
posted on 6/10/14
ifarka - completely agree. The FFP is a joke which just serves to keep the top clubs at the top.
Page 1 of 3