The Barclays Premier League Thread 2014/2015

[stokeriño]

Apart from this season, I don't remember Man Utd ever spending more than £100m in one season.

A bit of a silly thing to measure though, since the rate of inflation in transfer prices mean that you can only go back so many years before £100m is unattainable.

Plus if you're already on top (having spent 'only' £40m or £50m per year back when the top players went for £20m rather than £60m), it's easier and cheaper to maintain your position than it is for those trying to muscle in.

[Rich]

Also you can't include Blackburn, they were the original club to fling money at the team to win the league. Shearer and Sutton were record transfers at the time. Its just the scales of spending in Football changed so quickly between 1995 and 2015

[Sam]

It's weird to see United being put in the same category as City, Chelsea and Blackburn when we earn our own money and have been one of the world's richest clubs for the past two decades, thus why we've spent quite a bit of money just like Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool.

Surely the squad Fergie built with Giggs, Scholes etc. is more organic than Arsenal's French imports TCO?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sam

[Szumi]

Manchester City completely robbed by the referee today. Only reason for the loss.

Except for the piss poor performance for about 2/3rds of the game?

I was being sarcastic/Hughes,

I'm a Liverpool supporter. Our excuse is always if hitting the post counted as goals, not the referee!

Edited April 12, 2015 by Szumi

[Gazz]

Our excuse is the players, the manager, the coaching staff, the managing director and the chairman.

[Cheeky Hughes]

Our excuse is the players, the manager, the coaching staff, the managing director and the chairman.

What a shit excuse

[Sam]

Our excuse is the players, the manager, the coaching staff, the managing director and the chairman.

What about the tea lady?

[Gazz]

They sacked her.

I'm honestly not even sure if that's a joke or reality.

[stokeriño]

Blackburn, they were the original club to fling money at the team to win the league.

There have always been rich club owners and money being spent to catapult teams into title contention or to maintain league success. It's not a weird and new thing that only counts because football didn't exist before the Premier League.

Clubs like Arsenal and Man United did it in pre-war years. Liverpool's success was bankrolled by Littlewoods Pools money for decades. Chelsea spent money when they won trophies in the 60s and 70s. Other clubs too. We'll skip over the parts when certain clubs in red tried to buy success as literally as offering bribes.

It's weird to see United being put in the same category as City, Chelsea and Blackburn when we earn our own money and have been one of the world's richest clubs for the past two decades, thus why we've spent quite a bit of money just like Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool.

I continue to be flummoxed that the spending by Jack Walker of his own money on the club he loved is somehow viewed as a less natural/correct way of funding a club than United's commercial empire built on selling merchandise and advertising rights in far-flung continents.

[brenchill]

Man Utd earn their money and always have. No way are they like Chelsea, Blackburn or City.

[stokeriño]

Man Utd earn their money and always have. No way are they like Chelsea, Blackburn or City.

Does having cash injections from wealthy owners to save the club from bankruptcy count as money 'earned'? I'm going back as far as John H. Davies and James W. Gibson when I ask this.

I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to run a football club - hell, it's the only way 95% (98%? 99%?) of all clubs survive - but the sanctimony about 'earned' money is weird and contrary.

[Rich]

Blackburn, they were the original club to fling money at the team to win the league.

There have always been rich club owners and money being spent to catapult teams into title contention or to maintain league success. It's not a weird and new thing that only counts because football didn't exist before the Premier League.

Clubs like Arsenal and Man United did it in pre-war years. Liverpool's success was bankrolled by Littlewoods Pools money for decades. Chelsea spent money when they won trophies in the 60s and 70s. Other clubs too. We'll skip over the parts when certain clubs in red tried to buy success as literally as offering bribes.

I was asserting about the Premier league, I know more bout that, should have been more clear :/

[stokeriño]

Fair enough.

[The Lusophone]

Besides, we all know football was invented in 1992 anyway... >_>

[9 to 5]

Man Utd earn their money and always have. No way are they like Chelsea, Blackburn or City.

[TCO]

Surely the squad Fergie built with Giggs, Scholes etc. is more organic than Arsenal's French imports TCO?

Organic in one sense yes, but I was more talking about Arsenal's overall spending relative to the other Premier League winners. Spending within their means etc. From the early Premier League era, nobody had the means to consistently compete with United. Only they had the power to go out and get the best players in the league for big money whenever they felt like it.

United have spent the money they've earned but they've only been in that position from being in the right place at the right time when the Premier League money started flowing and they've have had cash injections down the years too.

It's all a moot point now with FPP. It's just going to be the top 6 competing with one another indefinitely with the occasional blip team that sneaks in for a season, like Southampton this year.

[The Lusophone]

It's all a moot point now with FPP. It's just going to be the top 6 competing with one another indefinitely with the occasional blip team that sneaks in for a season, like Southampton this year.

Wasn't it like that pre-FFP anyway?

[TCO]

It's all a moot point now with FPP. It's just going to be the top 6 competing with one another indefinitely with the occasional blip team that sneaks in for a season, like Southampton this year.

Wasn't it like that pre-FFP anyway?

Not exactly. You had Everton and Newcastle breach the top 4! For the most part it was the same, but there was always he opportunity for a club to get a cash injection ala City, Chelsea etc. Now that's impossible.

[Sam]

Theoretically Newcastle should benefit from FFP as they have a bigger stadium than most premier league teams which should go some way to giving then decent revenue.

Also only in the last season or so have United become this galatico buying team. Players like Ronaldo, Vidic, Evra weren't big names or prices before we signed them. We've spent more than Arsenal but we've always had a bigger income and stadium than them. On total money out Chelsea and City have spent more than us in the premier league era.

I don't buy into this right time, right place stuff. They were a big club before the premier league albeit a sleeping giant.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sam

[TCO]

Man United paid £12mil for an 18 year old Ronaldo in 2003. That was huge money back then for a player that raw and that age, I doube many other teams could've competed with that.