People have been blinded by Barca and Spain's (Barca II) success. They never claimed La Liga was better 3-4 years ago. All they are doing is basing it on "Barca are the best - so their league is the best"
With the exception of Barcelona English teams have progressed further in the Champions League over the past 5 or so seasons than their Spanish opponents. Real Madrid beat the 5th best team in England, a team with no Champions League experience and who had to play 80 minutes of the 1st leg with 10 men, and Barcelona have beaten Man Utd and Arsenal. What have the other Spanish teams done recently? Again you're using Barcelona to show that La Liga is better, but Barcelona are just ONE TEAM!
I think that the disparity in Spain is shocking. Anyone who thinks that Real and Barca are a good barometer for the league as a whole should have a look at how Vilarreal performed against Porto.
Even Real Madrid aren't that great. People overrated them because they have a lot of big name players but as a team they are nothing special.
Exactly my point. Big names but as a team they are nothing special and they have done little to show that they are an exceptional side like some make out.
The last team cost them about the price of a small nation aswell. As I have said many times. La Liga is very much like the SPL. 2 teams dominate it and over the coming years the standards will drop to a level that is bordering on amateur much like the SPL unless the big wigs in Spain address the issues.
Yet it cost far less than citys and is dwarfed by how much the chelsea cost. Maybe when iol barrons start buying clubs in la liga they can all afford to spend such obscene sums.
Look down the forum, there is a thread for you. Once you have seen the thread and realised your maths skills are terrible we can talk sums. Why do you use City and Chelsea all the time. It would make more sense to use United and Chelsea surely?
My enemies got money, so y'all should watch how I play it They never know we enemies until they hear me say it Til they kid's on the phone sayin, "Please daddy pay it" Til they brain's on the floor, mixed on the pavement High-class elegance, you respect or you hiss You go against you'd rather piss on an electrical fence It's strategic, how these niggaz want you to think You'd be surprised, who'd be the one to put you to sleep Why you stink?
Ok not entirely sure what your Point was tbh, as was made clear I was going by the ones I could remmeber, Ie those in the squad plus Ibra. And why ignore net spend? You keep waffling on about he two big clubs spending a whole lot money in spain, so i pointed out how rubbish this league would be without them 2 (city and chelsea) having spen that money. In the past seven years having spen well over a billion pounds. Anyway dont know what your problem with clubs spending money is. Its what by and large makes clubs succesful these days anywayIts only really us that doesnt. However we use to. Were would we be this year without rooney, rio, berbatov, nani? Over a 100 million in personel right there. Anyway way your point real had outspent city was garbage, which was the main thing I was picking up one. They havent. Neither have barca.
Only one person talks garbage between us to and they have the word 'end' in their username. I have shown you Barcelonas spending. Its about the smae as chelseas and less than citys. real Madrids spending is about 400million in the same period though its hard to check. Lets say we take the biggest spenders out of each league. Which is now better. The PL without City and Chelsea La Liga without Barcelona & Real Madrid. that fair enough for you. Without the massive spenders the Premier League pisses all over La Liga. Debate/
In the last 8 years chelsea have spent about 600 million on playing squad personel. Barca were picking up free transfers 5 or so years ago. Its nothing like the same. More utter garbage. And then theres the conversion rate aswell. Put chelseas spend in euros and see the results. I would bank good money our starting eleven cost more to essemble than barca's did. Anyway the only thing you rpoint proves is that the top spanish clubs can spend less than englands and attract better players. and still come up with superior teams. Hence why barca have dominated europe since 06.
Actually, over the last decade Real and Barca have both outspent Chelsea and City, although Chelsea may now be marginally ahead of Barca after the Torres and Luiz signings: http://www.goal.com/en/news/12/spai...id-top-transfer-spenders-over-the-last-decade Barca have shown how to spend a lot of money and get a lot of success, but over the same period Real Madrid have one Champions League to show for it. That's worse than United and Liverpool, who have won it and also finished as runners up despite spending less than half as much as Real over the same period. I'd imagine if United has spent an extra half a billion quid over the past ten years, and had it wiped out by the City of Manchester effectively buying the Cliff off us for £480 million, we'd have another couple of CL trophies to show for it.
Goal dot.com? Wasnt going back as back as 01 tbh, was only thinking that far but it could be true, would probably have to look at that myself, which I will. As fore the extra 480 million, wonder where wecould of got the from <erm>
