Premier League 2018-2019

[Evilo]

It's all about net spend, not spend.

They still broke two f***ing WC.

TWO.

 

[Evilo]

Well you missed the most laughable part of his post... "dirty" money. Hysterical really.

I didn't miss it.
I just don't want to school him again on how western money coming from child labor in Africa to build our phones in Taiwan, China or anywhere in Asia.
He doesn't call that dirty money.
We've had this discussion before, and some kids won't ever learn. We, westerners, surely shouldn't tell anyone what dirty money is.

 

[Live in the Now]

#	Net Spend last 5 Years		Purchased	Sold
	1	Manchester City	£740,400,000	£232,550,000	£507,850,000	£101,570,000
	2	Manchester United	£594,530,000	£194,050,000	£400,480,000	£80,096,000
	4	Chelsea	£677,550,000	£434,850,000	£242,700,000	£48,540,000
	3	Arsenal	£385,740,000	£163,750,000	£221,990,000	£44,398,000
	5	Everton	£400,000,000	£197,000,000	£203,000,000	£40,600,000
	6	Liverpool	£578,750,000	£405,080,000	£173,670,000	£34,734,000
	7	West Ham	£257,550,000	£121,760,000	£135,790,000	£27,158,000

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Apparently Liverpool should spend less than West Ham and Brighton, who weren't far behind West Ham. The third number is net.

 

[Evilo]

What's the point of using 5 year exactly?

 

[Live in the Now]

What's the point of using 5 year exactly?

It's a good point to use because the only players still on the team from that long ago are Mignolet and Henderson. The entire rest of the team was replaced at the cost of 173m net.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

I didn't miss it.
I just don't want to school him again on how western money coming from child labor in Africa to build our phones in Taiwan, China or anywhere in Asia.
He doesn't call that dirty money.
We've had this discussion before, and some kids won't ever learn. We, westerners, surely shouldn't tell anyone what dirty money is.

I didn't think liking this post was sufficient so yeah.

 

[Evilo]

It's a good point to use because the only players still on the team from that long ago are Mignolet and Henderson. The entire rest of the team was replaced at the cost of 173m net.

But you compare it to other teams who didn't have that timetable.
And you sold one player 160M who was bought before the 5 years. So again, it just doesn't work.

Fact is that Liverpool broke two transfer WC in the last 9 months. It's quite laughable to say they didn't spend much money.

 

[Live in the Now]

But you compare it to other teams who didn't have that timetable.
And you sold one player 160M who was bought before the 5 years. So again, it just doesn't work.

Fact is that Liverpool broke two transfer WC in the last 9 months. It's quite laughable to say they didn't spend much money.

Bought for 8 million. They also sold Suarez for 60 million when bought for 20, and Sterling for 50 million when bought for nothing. Nobody said they didn't spend money. But compared to other top teams, not all that bad.

 

[Cassano]

They still broke two ****ing WC.

TWO.

Ya but look at who they sold. Legitimate world class players. Sterling, Suarez and Coutinho. It's not as if they did as City/PSG where they buy without selling quality.

 

[Evilo]

Not all that bad?
Yes, it's pretty bad, just like every big team.

 

[Evilo]

Ya but look at who they sold. Legitimate world class players. Sterling, Suarez and Coutinho. It's not as if they did as City/PSG where they buy without selling quality.

City and PSG are too recent to sell.
WC players stay at PSG and City. They used to leave Liverpool (Suarez/Coutinho).
That's the difference.
If PSG had sold Verratti for 120M a year ago, they'd have a better net spend too. Which isn't exactly a positive.

EDIT : Verratti was bought 12M BTW.

EDIT 2 : Liverpool will now sell less good players because they'll be interested to stay.

EDIT 3 : Using net spend logic means Monaco is the best team in the world (investement/result). So no.

 

[Evilo]

Ya but look at who they sold. Legitimate world class players. Sterling, Suarez and Coutinho. It's not as if they did as City/PSG where they buy without selling quality.

Erh, Sterling WC player?

Low standards.

 

[Evilo]

And about Monaco, I don't remember the first poster raving about Monaco playing lights out, scoring at will and performing with young exciting players, and with a negative net spend.
OTOH, he is excited by a team that broke two transfer WC and is saying they aren't spending much.

LOL.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

The obvious foil to Sheikh money is football owners that make their fortune from African child labor and cell phone sweat shops

Are you referring to anyone specific or just throwing shit against the wall? I haven't heard of this ownership cabal before.

 

[Evilo]

Cell phones was just an example obviously. One of so many.
And example of how westerners are using slave labors in their daily life.

Of course, you don't seem to mind and like to point fingers to others.

 

[Cassano]

City and PSG are too recent to sell.
WC players stay at PSG and City. They used to leave Liverpool (Suarez/Coutinho).
That's the difference.
If PSG had sold Verratti for 120M a year ago, they'd have a better net spend too. Which isn't exactly a positive.

EDIT : Verratti was bought 12M BTW.

EDIT 2 : Liverpool will now sell less good players because they'll be interested to stay.

EDIT 3 : Using net spend logic means Monaco is the best team in the world (investement/result). So no.

And about Monaco, I don't remember the first poster raving about Monaco playing lights out, scoring at will and performing with young exciting players, and with a negative net spend.
OTOH, he is excited by a team that broke two transfer WC and is saying they aren't spending much.

LOL.

Actually, I admire the way Monaco do business. Some of the best in Europe. I wanted Arsenal to sign their CEO, manager and all their players for example. They were easily among the best managed team in Europe at one point recently.

 

[Live in the Now]

Everyone benefits from slave labor in some way.

But I'm not the guy with billions of dollars who can actually pay people a fair wage who decides not to do it.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Cell phones was just an example obviously. One of so many.
And example of how westerners are using slave labors in their daily life.

Of course, you don't seem to mind and like to point fingers to others.

Excuse me, do you use a cell phone?

The conversation was about football ownership and dirty money, fantastic goalpost shifting about "westerners" and their daily life.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Everyone benefits from slave labor in some way.

But I'm not the guy with billions of dollars who can actually pay people a fair wage who decides not to do it.

Again, who are we talking about here specifically? Which owners?

As far as I know, John Henry's company investment company always paid a living wage. Is this just general whining about awful business practices or is there any actual connection to the original discussion of football clubs?

 

[Live in the Now]

Again, who are we talking about here specifically? Which owners?

As far as I know, John Henry's company investment company always paid a living wage. Is this just general whining about awful business practices or is there any actual connection to the original discussion of football clubs?

I thought my point was clear but I guess it wasn't. Even though we all benefit from some form of slave labor, the reason why some teams (we know which ones) have the money to spend at the very top of those tables is by exploiting cheap labor and taking those profits to put in their football team.

Liverpool's budget is entirely based on football revenue for now. In the last year before they didn't qualify for the CL, they brought in 15m net. Last year spent 1m net. This year 150m net with 25 more coming from Ings being sold at the end of the season. What's the reason they could spend so much this year? They advanced to the CL Final and spent 0 net in the two seasons before that. Their spending is definitely normal compared to other top teams, for now. The money isn't coming from bankrupting the world by charging too much for a natural resource, one where the profits of said resource should go directly to the people in the country.

We have hundreds of millions in spending difference between some top teams and other top teams and for some reason there's an argument about it. I don't understand. Just because my clothes are made in Guatemala doesn't make the overall point any less valid. Nobody on this forum has billions of dollars who can do anything they want in the world.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

I thought my point was clear but I guess it wasn't. Even though we all benefit from some form of slave labor, the reason why some teams (we know which ones) have the money to spend at the very top of those tables is by exploiting cheap labor and taking those profits to put in their football team.

Liverpool's budget is entirely based on football revenue for now. In the last year before they didn't qualify for the CL, they brought in 15m net. Last year spent 1m net. This year 150m net with 25 more coming from Ings being sold at the end of the season. What's the reason they could spend so much this year? They advanced to the CL Final and spent 0 net in the two seasons before that. Their spending is definitely normal compared to other top teams, for now. The money isn't coming from bankrupting the world by charging too much for a natural resource, one where the profits of said resource should go directly to the people in the country.

We have hundreds of millions in spending difference between some top teams and other top teams and for some reason there's an argument about it. I don't understand. Just because my clothes are made in Guatemala doesn't make the overall point any less valid. Nobody on this forum has billions of dollars who can do anything they want in the world.

Got it. You're right, more clear where you're coming from in the flow of the discussion. Thought you were piggybacking on the other side of it.

 

[Live in the Now]

Got it. You're right, more clear where you're coming from in the flow of the discussion. Thought you were piggybacking on the other side of it.

I do also agree that a lot of the enmity towards PSG and City also comes from that they're owned by Arabs. It's definitely a factor in some criticisms, and I think part of why Evilo argues against those criticisms is because they are often race based. However, just looking at the gas pump is all I need to see to know we have a huge oil money problem. Then there's the fact that I believe in concepts like natural resource money going directly to the people in the country. Not to spend a billion on football players. Companies and individuals plundering from our land is one of the world's greatest scourges.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

I do also agree that a lot of the enmity towards PSG and City also comes from that they're owned by Arabs. It's definitely a factor in some criticisms, and I think part of why Evilo argues against those criticisms is because they are often race based. However, just looking at the gas pump is all I need to see to know we have a huge oil money problem. Then there's the fact that I believe in concepts like natural resource money going directly to the people in the country. Not to spend a billion on football players. Companies and individuals plundering from our land is one of the world's greatest scourges.

Dirty money is dirty money and people were equally vociferous about Roman Abramovich and the provenance of his fortune. Fair enough, there's a racial component there to be sensitive about (I don't necessarily agree that's the bulk of the criticism, but it's definitely there). Shadowboxing with ridiculous whataboutism about "westerners" using cell phones has nothing to do with dirty money in football ownership and the crazy sums being thrown around. Purely meant as a cudgel to use as a smokescreen.

 

[Live in the Now]

Dirty money is dirty money and people were equally vociferous about Roman Abramovich and the provenance of his fortune. Fair enough, there's a racial component there to be sensitive about (I don't necessarily agree that's the bulk of the criticism, but it's definitely there). Shadowboxing with ridiculous whataboutism about "westerners" using cell phones has nothing to do with dirty money in football ownership and the crazy sums being thrown around. Purely meant as a cudgel to use as a smokescreen.

Pretty much. Yes, we use things that people have decided to use slave labor to make. I am not the billionaire who decided to do that. You would pretty much have to kill yourself in order to not use any of those things, as even if you went to live in the forest you'd have the same problem. In this case we're talking about those who do make those decisions and they deserve immense criticism. It is also a factor in football spending because that's what they've decided to use their profits for.

Of course I don't expect this to change anything as far as this discussion goes, but I don't see why we're at fault for a football ownership group's decision to do those things.

 

[Evilo]

Everyone benefits from slave labor in some way.

But I'm not the guy with billions of dollars who can actually pay people a fair wage who decides not to do it.

Totally. Just responding to the pointing.