Del Boca Vista wrote:barcax3 makes a good point. the champions league was not a "win for england" like some enjoy pretending, it was a win for dirty jewish-russian money, it was a win for corruption, it was the death of football in england, the birth of the end of times. nobody wants to see chelsea win anything, it's like fremantle in the AFL, people are like "wouldn't it be cool if they won it poor guys" but really everyone just wants them to suffer.
Knight15 wrote:I looked at this and went - worst wind up ever, and although you've get it going yourself to a degree, you still got a few - well played
Even the spl was won by a team from the British Isles.
Good article about the net spend of all Prem. clubs over the last 5 years.
Dixie Dean was hailed by another Mersey legend, Liverpool’s Bill Shankly, as “belonging in the company of the supremely great, like Beethoven, Rembrandt and Shakespeare.”
Man Utd's net spend is surprisingly small over the last 5 seasons, mainly because of the Ronaldo cash.
Their debt payments have gone through the roof though. Where are all the Norwich scarves now?
Oh, and with that picture above, the absolute figures mean very little. You need to Amortize and take into account inflation for the figures if you want a proper comparison. Also, you have teams that have been relegated that aren't in there. Portsmouth/West Ham would be pretty high up if you take it on a per year basis.
pernunz wrote:Man Utd's net spend is surprisingly small over the last 5 seasons, mainly because of the Ronaldo cash.
And for the 5 years before that?
pernunz wrote:Their debt payments have gone through the roof though. Where are all the Norwich scarves now?.
What has this got to do with this discussion?
pernunz wrote:Oh, and with that picture above, the absolute figures mean very little. You need to Amortize and take into account inflation for the figures if you want a proper comparison. Also, you have teams that have been relegated that aren't in there. Portsmouth/West Ham would be pretty high up if you take it on a per year basis.
These figures mean very little? Are you trying to tell us that inflation over the last 5-10 years is skewing these figures so much that they are not real?
pernunz wrote:You need to Amortize and take into account inflation for the figures if you want a proper comparison.
Are you for real? Inflation has been around 3% in England for the last few years. The most it has hit in that time is just over the 5% mark which was 5 years ago.
This amount of this period of time is not great enough to have had any dramatic effect over this time period.
I hope you never studied economics! Actually, I hope you did as it would prove my point about the schooling levels in this country.
This is the prime example of someone trying to sound clever but coming unstuck.
Unless of course you want to solely pick out the transfer fees, in which case you have a good point BUT you are trying to sound clever and have come unstuck due to your own economical wording.
Last edited by God is an Englishman on Wed May 23, 2012 10:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Those tables don't tell you that though. Back then players were alot cheaper.. Hell Cantona cost you 1.2 mill. Nowadays you'd get barely any change from 7 for anyone half decent.
You can't compare buying success by simply looking at a table of spending over so many years, without looking at the different factors.
Contrary to popular belief, Manchester United have never 'bought' the league in the same way that Chelsea, Man City and Blackburn have.
well bearing in mind people consider finishing 4th to be good enough, as I stated you're "thereabouts".
Those figures go back to 1992, what about the 92/93 premiership winning team, a team you bought. Just from memory a record fee for a defender in Gary Pallister. A British record fee for any player in Bryan Robson. Add in Cantona and you start to get the picture.
Litmanen wrote:Those tables don't tell you that though. Back then players were alot cheaper.. Hell Cantona cost you 1.2 mill. Nowadays you'd get barely any change from 7 for anyone half decent.
You can't compare buying success by simply looking at a table of spending over so many years, without looking at the different factors.
I believe that is the point that the west ham/man city/chelsea fan was "trying" to make.
Litmanen wrote:Those tables don't tell you that though. Back then players were alot cheaper.. Hell Cantona cost you 1.2 mill. Nowadays you'd get barely any change from 7 for anyone half decent.
You can't compare buying success by simply looking at a table of spending over so many years, without looking at the different factors.
I believe that is the point that the west ham/man city/chelsea fan was "trying" to make.
Why is it not a legitimate argument? Players cost more, therefore they spend more.
I know it's simplistic, but why don't you think it's valid?
Litmanen wrote:Those tables don't tell you that though. Back then players were alot cheaper.. Hell Cantona cost you 1.2 mill. Nowadays you'd get barely any change from 7 for anyone half decent.
You can't compare buying success by simply looking at a table of spending over so many years, without looking at the different factors.
I believe that is the point that the west ham/man city/chelsea fan was "trying" to make.
Why is it not a legitimate argument? Players cost more, therefore they spend more.
I know it's simplistic, but why don't you think it's valid?
It is completely valid, it's his wording of it that isn't. Let's see if my schoolboy economics doesn't let me down. Inflation is the change in level of price of goods in an economy over a period of time.
Happy for someone to come in and argue against this one if their economic understanding is greater but my understanding is that inflation cannot be attributed to a single good. eg. Bananas would not not a guide to "inflation" but fruit and vegetables would be. The market is too small to limit to a single good., in this case the single good is footballers.
So basically, I'm enjoying being pedantic to the scum "supporter".
pernunz wrote:You need to Amortize and take into account inflation for the figures if you want a proper comparison.
Are you for real? Inflation has been around 3% in England for the last few years. The most it has hit in that time is just over the 5% mark which was 5 years ago.
This amount of this period of time is not great enough to have had any dramatic effect over this time period.
I hope you never studied economics! Actually, I hope you did as it would prove my point about the schooling levels in this country.
This is the prime example of someone trying to sound clever but coming unstuck.
Unless of course you want to solely pick out the transfer fees, in which case you have a good point BUT you are trying to sound clever and have come unstuck due to your own economical wording.
Yes, because inflation only relates to a single figure that encapsulates the entire economy.
I was in fact relating to football inflation, both transfer fees and wages, which we all know is way more than the 3% per year. Have you ever bothered to look at any hedonic pricing models that try to explain transfer fees?
How about you get off your self-righteous high horse for once, stop trying to overanalyse everything in a vain attempt to prove me wrong, simply because you don't like me? We're trying to have an intelligent discussion (which might be a bit of a stretch for you) and you wreck it by picking up on some semantics.
Last edited by pernunz on Wed May 23, 2012 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
