y va marquer wrote:

Sounds quite bigoted to me to imply that people who are proud to be English are potential fascists.

"Rainy fascism island" is tongue in cheek of course, it's a fairly common internet joke (Australia then being "sunny fascism island").

All nationalism has a fascist element. Forcing sportspeople to salute the flag, swear oaths, sing the anthem etc and cracking down on them when they don't? Sport gets used as a tool to try to determine the allegiance of ordinary people to government authority. Meanwhile even the left side of the British Parliament is running on "tough controls on migration" etc … 

I can certainly respect an Irish republican not wanting to have a bar of the British national anthem, even if he is one of the "bad ones" or whatever …

Please bear in mind I used the word 'tendency' …

Hahahahaha! The nerve of Moron! He truly is a nasty prick.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-accuses-arsenal-manchester-united-and-city-of-trying-to-buy-the-premier-league-title-10416580.html

Bear in mind not all of them have managed for 10 years straight.

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

That's outgoings only ya big mug.

It says spendings.

Although Ferguson supposedly spent that over 9 years whereas Wenger supposedly spent it over 10 years.
Of course Ferguson has a lot more to show for it.

shrug We know Arsenal has spent a hell of a lot less nett than any side that has won the league since the Invincibles.

Ferguson's stats will always be somewhat flattered by the £65m he turned around on Ronaldo, but he was a big spender.

Here's the last five years incidentally, we're gaining on the field and spending a lot more now than during the "youth project" era:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

Thats always the qualifier isn't it, United's balance only looks better because of Ronaldo Chelsea's because of Luiz and Sp**s because of Bale, can't see how it changes the point.

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

outgoings is relevant because if you spend 400m and have to sell your best players then you're either going to at best run in place or get worse. the team that spends 400m but has a net spending of 200m should have more talent in the squad than the team that spends 400m in the same period but has a net spending of 0 or in the negative. i'm sure you know that though.

I can understand Biggus' logic. It doesn't matter what the nett transfer is if you're looking at what kind of quality you bought. However, the main flaw in that perspective is that players going out represents loss of quality from the club- and when that quality are the likes of Cesc, Nasri, RVP, Hleb etc the difference is telling.

Biggus wrote:

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

True - but let's actually spend some time to think things through.

Wenger's maximum spend has come within the past two years, post Ferguson - his total over 10 years is €428 or £303. Prior to the summer of 2013, our highest transfer fee was around 16m and we very rarely spent more than 30m a summer.

Meanwhile, over 10 years, Manchester United as a club have spent £542m or €764. Source: http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/13/liverpool-have-spent-more-transfer-money-in-last-10-years-than-manchester-united-but-are-still-lagging-behind-red-devils-4985566/ (This does not take into account the current summer)

This would make Manchester United managers/coaches the third biggest spenders on the list.

The difference between Arsenal and United is therefore around £230m/€336 which is similar to the gap between Ferguson and Pellegrini/Mancini.

The fact that van Gaal's name is in there despite spending most of his time managing the Netherlands national team and AZ Alkmaar (where is resources have been limited) sums it up.

I know you mistrust stats and numbers, and it's easy to see why if you're not willing to look at the context behind them.

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like we're up there with United.

Burnwinter wrote:

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like Arsene was, is and will continue to be a flop with no excuse at all.

Fixed for ya.

Burnwinter wrote:

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

Of course it is tabloid and simplistic and I make no claims  as to its truth.
You know my views well enough by now Burnsy- Spending like a drunken sailor never guarantees success- I reject that notion and i commend Wenger for his caution, however he has taken a virtue too far and it has hardened into a dogmatic dictum.
The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.
I believe money is a secondary issue in the ability of a club to gain success, the history of the game is built on teams who time and again punch above their weigh due to the genius of their manager.
Wenger was one such manager 10 years ago but as they say time and tide wait for no man.

Game has been all about money for the last decade at least. There won't be a Nottingham Forest in a CL final, a Southampton winning the league, or anything like that anytime soon. Money and Bosman.

Look at Southampton and the players they have produced in the last decade; they have had players coming through like Bale, Walcott, Chambo, Lallana, Schneiderlin, Clyne, Shaw and Chambers. There are more good players too actually. 15-20 years ago they would have been able to keep most of those players around, and they would have most likely have been a top PL side for it. That doesn't happen anymore. Any half decent player is bought by a bigger club as soon as he shows a bit of promise, and earning triple the amount the smaller club can offer certainly helps. Before Bosman, clubs also got a transfer fee for a player sold whose contract had run out.

Biggus wrote:

The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.

Twisting it nicely. 

Wenger has spent "so much" (ie significantly less than our rivals) because that's the requirement to achieve the results we've achieved. In the post-Abramovich era our league position, and every other top club's has been closely consistent with expenditure. We've been over this dozens of times so I'm not going to cite chapter and verse, just look it up. 

It's true a fraction of our overall outgoings could be reasonably traced back to "project" players. Perhaps a greater fraction than that of our rivals, since after all the difference has been that they've been spending more money on the same size squad and have consequently signed older, more expensive and more established players.

To win the title you absolutely have to buy it, the only question is how efficiently you can do so. 

I've had it with this by the way, the above will be my last post on that stupid infographic. Apologies for the grouchiness, it's all just so very old hat.

Biggus wrote:

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

Fergie didn't manage for all 10 years of it though.

Mourinho just accused us of trying to buying the title as well.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jose-mourinho-jabs-arsene-wenger-6148895

It seems that it really irks him that Wenger is well respected and generally liked by many, he must doubt himself on some level given this constant need of his to highlight Arsene's failings.

No matter what he wins himself he just can't stop worrying about Wenger. He really is the voyeur.

Courtesy of Geoff Arsenal, the tale of José's calculator...
Could it be that Mou's a little on the remedial side when it comes to simple maths?
Maybe that's why he so hates Wenger? 

[size=medium]That's assuming of course that Geoff got the figures right... [/size]

ESPN had a piece on Moron's math, and they too used transfermarkt as the source. Was prettier than that chart, only for the last 3 years instead of 4, but the end result is the same - Chelsea has spent more than us. Manc clubs are top, then Brentan's Liverpool, Chelsea, then us. Didn't bother posting it because we already know Moron is wrong and a massive idiot.

Mourinho's just playing the underdog card. It's his trademark, along with spending vast sums of money at every club he's been at since he left Portugal. He's the first to portray him and his team as the victim, even when he managed Real fucking Madrid.

In the past week alone he's had a go at United and Arsenal - two clubs that, even if they did decide to spend more than Chelsea, have done so in a reasonable and self-sustaining manner.

The best manager around but there's no one I'd like to see get headbutted more than him.

He really is a ridiculously petty man.

y va marquer wrote:

It seems that it really irks him that Wenger is well respected and generally liked by many, he must doubt himself on some level given this constant need of his to highlight Arsene's failings.

pretty much. wenger's job security and the sensible way arsenal are run really tweak his little man syndrome. credit to him and cesc for making me despise chelsea again after i'd stopped caring for a while there. look at this comment about benitez

“And for her also to think about me and to speak about me, I think she needs to occupy her time, and if she takes care of her husband’s diet she will have less time to speak about me.”

Meow.

lagos wrote:

Finally can we drop this idea that Manu and Arsenal are the only ones who are self sustaining,   We've been spending money of late because we have the money to spend, so clearly if we had a sugar daddy during the drought we would have spent too.  Chelsea spent because they had to spend to get to where they are but for the last few seasons they have been spending within their means.  You require more effort to get to speed than to maintain speed, if we had simply maintained speed when we were at the top, we wouldn't need to spend so much now to catch up.

Why? Chelsea and Man City's whole existence at the top flight is based on winning the sugar daddy lottery. Sure they're net spend is better now but only because they've already invested millions of pounds into the squad already, it's a far cry from what United and Arsenal do.

And we've deliberately turned down the offers of sugar daddy's during drought so I don't think it's clear that we would actively spend someone else's money

What on earth are you on about?

Love the club- Hate those who presently run it.
Can you make the distinction and work out what people are on about?

I don't see an expression of hate for anyone in lagos' post, Biggus

He's actually advising that we don't hate anyone and that we hate financial doping instead.

Biggus wrote:

Love the club- Hate those who presently run it.
Can you make the distinction and work out what people are on about?

Seems more like love Mourinho to me.

Or hate Wenger so much as to make ridiculous excuses for shit Chelsea do and try to dismiss everything good Arsene is doing.

We were "holier than thou" in relation to Chelsea and Man City's spending.
We're not now as they have reined in their spending.

It seems like he's both annoyed the fact that people don't recognise Chelsea as self sustaining just like us and United, and at the same time suggesting that we are all financially doping, before finally topping it off with a 'you're just jealous'.