People, District Line has no idea what hes talking about. Its best to ridicule his posts for what they are. Nonsense. Somehow, someway he manages to convince himself that Chelsea spending tonnes of money isnt a bad thing and that in some way all other clubs did it first. I definitely recall the oil barons at United and Arsenal spending £150million a summer on players who more often than not were terrible. remember it well Oh and lets ask him about how Chelsea regularly outspent everyone in the years preceding Roman. At the time Chelsea didnt have 2p to their name yet in 6 of the seasons we won the title pre 2003........... guess who spent more on players..... Chelsea. they average a final position of 6th in that time.
You are too myopic to actually learn about the history of football to refute the facts on display. Typical Sky era football fan
Interesting. Lets see what others have to say. i feel considering the many many times you are corrected, made to look a fool or just generally embarrassed by fans of various clubs ranging from QPR to United and everyone in between it wont reflect well on you.
I don't think you should just look at positions Piskie, but points also. In the year before Arsenal were awful, as were Chelsea. This season Chelsea spent fortunes and overtook us, and Arsenal pulled their socks up. Spurs still outperformed themselves based on Net spend and Wages, and actualy improved on the season before despite signing such "average" players and getting a new manager. I don't think you can really argue that selling VDV and Modric has given the team more depth when it meant we could buy: GK, CB, 2x CM, AM + Striker to replace one retirement and two sales. If Dempsey or Ade had been even 1% more effective between them we would have been top 4.
This has to be the worst argument ever, if gould or podolski had been 1% better then you would not have finished 4th even if dempsey of ade had been 1% better, why not go the whole hog, if you scored 1 more goal that you opponent every game you would be champions. Its completely pointless, and every other team can counter the argument with something of their own, such as mine with gould and podolski. The simple fact is they were not 1% better.
The point was to highlight the slim margins between what Piskie was aluding to as being Success and Failure in our market dealings. Not sure who this Gould player is you refer too though, but the general concensus is that Ade and Dempsey were basically carried this season whereas "Gould?" and Podolski did a decent job. Therefor there is far more scope for them to be able to make up that 1% (given that Ade scored aprox 5goals this year)then to expect Giroud (I asume this is who you were refering too) or Podolski to be better imo. Either way, I was not griping about our performance, just that I don't think Piskie was evaluating our seasons successes with all things considered.
Not lost 6-1 at home in a while. Don't think we've lost 5-0 at Stamford Bridge in St James' either, or 4-1 at home to Liverpool
I agree fella that points total comes into it. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in PNPs arguments around the very real assumptions he makes (1) That I 'have trouble understanding' net spend, then claiming he didn't say I don't understand, but I was 'confused' (2) Saying that 'everybody else disagrees', then watering it down to 'nobody has offered an agreement' (3) Saying I was moaning about you not spending and moaning about you spending, when in fact I wasn't moaning at all. If he claims he's not making assumptions then I can only presume that he must have trouble understanding as he seems to do a lot of backtracking when it's pointed out to him I also agree that Chelsea have pretty much spent their way back into contention, but the point I was making, the salient one is that regardless of your net spend, your manager and board still saw fit to spend £60m in the transfer window, that is a lot of money, especially for a club like Spurs. Lloris, Vertonghen and Dembele were pretty much the only players that were any good out of that bunch. Adebayor, Dempsey, Holtby and Siggurdsen have been largely inneffective, so whilst you can say 'we sold VDV and Modric and bought a GK, CB, 2xCM, AM and striker' The majority of those players haven't really lived up to expectation. Add to this the Bale effect (he won you 22 points - and without him you would have finished behind Liverpool and 1 point ahead of West Brom) then it compounds further that the money spent didn't really strengthen the squad.
I haven't backtracked once Piskie and you've failed to show a single case where I have. 1) You know what a net spend is, yet you've clearly got great difficulty understanding why it's a far more important figure than gross spend. 2) Pointing out that everyone that's offered an opinion on the subject has disagreed with you isn't different to saying that everyone disagrees with you. 3) You clearly moaned about our "huge" spending and suggested that we didn't get value for money. You then suggested that we should've spent more and that our profit was pointless. You've illustrated my point about your inability to comprehend what a net spend is again with your last post. Claiming that we've spent a lot of money when we've made a profit is just lunacy. I'll lay it out in an easy format for you. Here are 4 clubs with their financial figures for the season: Club A: Wage bill: £143m. Net transfer spend: £8.6m. Club B: Wage bill: £94m. Net transfer spend: -£1.3m. Club C: Wage bill: £261m. Net transfer spend: £72m. Club D: Wage bill: £169m. Net transfer spend: £40.8m. Now these questions should be really easy for you to answer: What order do you think that each of those clubs should expect to finish in and which should see the most improvement from their last campaign?
Having said that, our wage bill is likely to drop significantly this year and you will not see a single change to the line-up. Not entirely relevant from a financial point of view, but if we are going to talk about players ability, we should be talking about how much the first team alone are paid. We have already discovered that both Spurs and Arsenal include marketing executives on their wage reports, their performance is hardly a factor in how well the team plays.
'Moaning' disproved -------- 'Everyone else' disproved -------- 'Trouble understanding net spend' disproved -------- Condescending whilst making inaccurate assumptions - very much in effect
Again, if you try to read my comments properly instead of making incorrect assumptions, you will realise that I have been talking about 'value' rather than simple net figures. It makes not one jot of difference to your team whether you made £60m or £160m, it is how you have invested your money that counts. The simple fact is that you spent £60m, the third highest in the league to achieve 5th, one place lower than the season before - and that isn't taking into effect the number of points Bale alone won you, further illustrating that the players you bought with that £60m didn't really represent good 'value'.
Again, you're not grasping the concept of value. You can make a profit, spend 'a lot' of it and still end up with poor value for money. I sell my Porsche for £50,000, but I still need a car, so I go out and buy a Ford Fiesta for £45,000. I have just made £5000 profit. Do you think that I have spent a lot of money or not ? and do you think that represents good value ?
That's a fair point and something I have mentioned in the past, but to be fair, value is subjective and price isn't.
I'd say value is relative rather than subjective. A player who costs £5m but scores 20 goals for his team has more value than one that cost £20m but only scores 5, even though his price is less. Spurs making £60m and spending £60m to finish a place lower is a relative example of less value for their £60m spent than they made.
By quoting from a comment that you not only made after I'd already said that you were moaning, but that actually mentions that point? By simply quoting me and in no way addressing the point? By quoting the definition and in no way displaying an understanding of what it means and it's relevance? Nice try Piskie, but an utter failure all round, I'm afraid. Pretty poor, frankly. Yet again you've made this accusation of assumptions and yet again you've utterly failed to demonstrate that I've made a single one. Gross spend is utterly irrelevant and ignores virtually all of the facts at hand. You could easily make exactly the same points about Arsenal and it would be equally invalid. You also spent £50m+ to finish one place lower in the division. That another utterly ludicrous comparison though, I'm afraid. If you bought a car that performed slightly better than your Porsche (picked up more points), but was outperformed by your neighbour's new car which cost a hell of a lot more and which costs twice as much to run, then it might be more accurate. You've completely avoided answering my point about the spending of other sides again, too. I'm sure that you're well aware that you're wrong about this though, but feel free to keep proving it.
