Who Will Be A Flop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Who Will Flop?

  • Lacazette

  • Lukaku

  • Morata

Results are only viewable after voting.
PISKIE said:
Good to see you finally admit that Chelsea only got success because they were handed a bucket load of cash :)
Click to expand...
I never denied that.
But any team that has won anything in the PL era, won it because they spent a lot of cash.
And no, it makes zero difference if the money was given to them by a Russian guy, or a ten year old girl in exchange for a teddy bear in the gift shop.

Ideally, revenue would be dictated directly to on field success, but it doesnt.
 
The RDBD said:
It is for Man Utd.
They can spend what they have because they were recently the empire,
with sustained on-pitch success left right and centre.
Click to expand...
Bollocks,
Even in the 80's when they were **** they were still better off than most other teams.
Money earnt by a club is down to all sorts of crap, geography, marketing, plus United were the first to sell their souls to the stock market I believe.
United had the fortune of being successful just as English football became broadcast worldwide too, (ie when the PL was formed), its complete luck.
That first PL win was worth more than ALL 18 of Liverpool's previous league wins.
 
Bodinki said:
Bollocks,
Even in the 80's when they were **** they were still better off than most other teams.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that the sums of money they are
currently spending is only possible due to the sustained on-pitch
success they achieved during the Fergie era (and all the revenues
that brought in) .

As with the Poool before them, being the empire creates the
financial "virtuous circle" that keeps your rivals in check.


"plus United were the first to sell their souls to the stock market I believe."

Before Spurs (1984) ??
 
The RDBD said:
That doesn't change the fact that the sums of money they are
currently spending is only possible due to the sustained on-pitch
success they achieved during the Fergie era (and all the revenues
that brought in) .

As with the Poool before them, being the empire creates the
financial "virtuous circle" that keeps your rivals in check.


"plus United were the first to sell their souls to the stock market I believe."

Before Spurs (1984) ??
Click to expand...

Yes, but Unlike Liverpool, United's empire will never fall, they will always earn that money now.
Because the PL is worldwide, and the money earnt has become ridiculous.
Sure their revenue will drop if they don't win a lot, but I doubt United will ever go 20 years without winning a league title.

Note: Yeah I wasn't entirely sure on the whole Plc thing, but again, United did it when the world was watching.
Football in general was at it's lowest point in the 80's.
 
Bodinki said:
I never denied that.
But any team that has won anything in the PL era, won it because they spent a lot of cash.
And no, it makes zero difference if the money was given to them by a Russian guy, or a ten year old girl in exchange for a teddy bear in the gift shop.

Ideally, revenue would be dictated directly to on field success, but it doesnt.
Click to expand...

Leicester City ?

Also Arsenal's double winning side of 2002 was a fraction of the cost of our competitors at the time (namely Utd). Our record signing at the time was Wiltord who cost something like £11m.

But since Ambramovich, Pandora's box is open and those early days of Wenger's success on a shoestring isn't likely to be repeated.
 
PISKIE said:
Leicester City ?

Also Arsenal's double winning side of 2002 was a fraction of the cost of our competitors at the time (namely Utd). Our record signing at the time was Wiltord who cost something like £11m.

But since Ambramovich, Pandora's box is open and those early days of Wenger's success on a shoestring isn't likely to be repeated.
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINKIE
Bodinki said:
Yes, but Unlike Liverpool, United's empire will never fall, they will always earn that money now.
Because the PL is worldwide, and the money earnt has become ridiculous.
Sure their revenue will drop if they don't win a lot, but I doubt United will ever go 20 years without winning a league title.
Click to expand...

Time will tell on both (they are already 20% of the way there on the first) .
 
Morata in his first ever season, playing for the champions with all the pressure - has exceeded Lukaku.

Lacazette, playing for a Europey league team with fraction of Lukaku's transfer fees almost equals Lukaku's record.

Early days - but Lukaku is trailing already and he will be considered a flop given the money paid & the experience he already has in the league.
 
StanDMan said:
Morata in his first ever season, playing for the champions with all the pressure - has exceeded Lukaku.

Lacazette, playing for a Europey league team with fraction of Lukaku's transfer fees almost equals Lukaku's record.

Early days - but Lukaku is trailing already and he will be considered a flop given the money paid & the experience he already has in the league.
Click to expand...

Morata is on 6 for the season for club and country and Lukaku is on 9 so please do explain how Lukaku is trailing.

You're chatting as if Morata has come from Shrewsbury, he's joined the champions from a club who just won La Liga and The Champions League. Lukaku joined from Everton ffs.
 
They're both doing what they've been bought to do.

Will Lukaku ever be more than a flat track bully? If not, does it really matter if he gets 25 goals against Stoke, Swansea and Gibraltar. That's the one big flaw in his game but he's not had a chance yet against a top side.
 
Bodinki said:
I never denied that.
But any team that has won anything in the PL era, won it because they spent a lot of cash.
And no, it makes zero difference if the money was given to them by a Russian guy, or a ten year old girl in exchange for a teddy bear in the gift shop.

Ideally, revenue would be dictated directly to on field success, but it doesnt.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... I might beg to differ <laugh>

Morata looks very good in the air ... better than the other two in that department.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanDMan
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back