well obviously! but my post was a bit of fun, to see who people think on paper have made the most progress this summer. the league table will ultimately tell us the final result but that's a bit boring waiting for that
Maybe you could let the media in on the secret that a club which spends relatively little might actually be doing the best business!
but it depends on how little work they need. man utd didn't need too much - norwich did. most teams needed lots of work
I think the swans have done some good business but, with the extra games this season due to the Europa league, will struggle to improve their league performance.
Depends on whether you mean quality or quantity. Palace got in 15 - all has beens, never will be's, average Championship players or who the hell is he's - and Sunderland seem to think they play in the Italian League. I think Spurs have spent for the sake of it and neither Chelsea nor Man City have bought better players than they already had. I think Liverpool have done reasonably well without buying anyone who immediately stands out as being a major player for them and I can't see Fellaini improving Man U. Everton did quite well getting rid of a player who didn't want to know and bringing in 2 who do. They also made a profit but against that I have never liked Barry - he's a carthorse!! Arsenal bought the only World Class player - he must seriously improve their chances as they haven't had a goalscoring midfielder since Fabregas - but they could have done with another good player and a bit of height. Most others dabbled in the market without any obvious major improvement and as for us - I think Fer looks a complete and utter bargain and Redmond looks the most promising youngster we have had for many a year but I'm not over enthused about the rest although hopefully Wolfswinkel will improve on what he has shown so far. Overall I do not think anybody did spectacularly well and only time will tell who bought the worst.
That's a pretty damning indictment of the last two months - and circa £610m, 1950! Barely a single positive anywhere? I find that hard to believe.
Manchester Uniteds problems seem to be twofold They have based their ability to bring in players not purely on cash, but on guaranteed success. The change in manager has eliminated the guaranteed success and they can be easily out spent by the likes of Man City and Chelsea, who don't mind being mugged off moneywise if it means getting a player The other main problem is getting rid of Their CEO. David Gill ran the club side of things like an absolute beast all those years and was very well respected. This new chap doesn't have the contacts or clout in the football world. Makes me think of if we lost our CE.... No, I refuse to imagine the possibility.
good point about david gill. i actually think fellaini is quite a good signing for them but they haven't addressed their major issue. maybe if they gave kagawa a decent run in the team they might not need to address that problem in the transfer market...
kagawa seems to be subject to the commonly-found dissorder, the manager doesn't like him. very odd as he's a good player. he scored a hatrick against us last season if memory serves me right? also on united, i read a media report last night that they did indeed try and sign herrrara from bilbao, they (united) claimed the 3 lawyers were not acting on their behalf when they realised they didn't have enough time to structure the deal in line with Spain's complex tax issues relating to buy-out clauses. that was what it was saying.
when he was at dortmund they used him behind the striker and he was phenomenal. ferguson seemed to play him on the left wing or too deep. i cannot fathom why he doesn't get a run in the united side. he'd transform them completely and he scores loads of goals. very, very odd
Kagawa is quality and exactly what they need. Fellaini is a great buy and will do well but they already keep the ball well, fellainis main strength, what they are missing is the link between midfield and attack. Kagawa. Suppose Rooney is that link as well when he plays. Still a force to be reckoned with, they will still do well but can't see them winning it.
I'm not sure I totally agree with your post there. For instance saying that "Spurs have spent for the sake of it" is total nonsense, they have majorly improved their squad. Perhaps you think that unless its a world renowned name it's not an improvement to the squad?
Sorry Cromer but I think a lot of the money spent has been wasted. Who,apart from Arsenal, have bought a World Class player? £640m spent and only one World Class player amongst them - says a lot. I fully accept that my knowledge of anything other than English football is limited to watching La Liga on a Sunday night, Champions League matches and Internationals so I'm not qualified to comment on whether Boris Macrovinski from an equally unknown Russian Club is a good buy or not. As I said - only time will tell. Are the players Chelsea and Man City signed significantly better than what they already had? If not then all they have done is rotated their squad at great expense without any great benefit to the squad and, like Tottenham, forcing them to send out promising youngsters on loan rather than giving them squad experience with their own Clubs. Arsenal have done well with Ozil unless, like many Arsenal players, he picks up a long term injury which will put them back to where they started although I think Flamini is a better player than many that other Clubs have paid £5m or £10m for. I still think they are a bit short of numbers and height. Spurs and Liverpool have spent a lot but if I supported either I would not be so excited that I would have an orgasm before I got my trousers off. I don't think that either Club will be in the top 4 at the end of the season. All in all I think that most Clubs have positives and negatives and have spent a lot of money to stand still. It is only an opinion - I might well be wrong - but, as I have said, only time will tell.
Sorry, this makes very little sense to me in places... So you're criticising Chelsea and Man City for making sure they've got strength in depth, but then criticised Arsenal for not securing strength in depth? What?
Cannot see any contradiction - I was just answering Cromer and making observations. Did Man City and Chelsea suffer from a lack of squad depth last year? IMO - no. Are their new players any better than the ones they had? IMO - no. Did Arsenal suffer from a lack of squad depth last year? IMO - yes. Have they solved it this summer? IMO - No. Did Spurs need all those new players? - IMO - No. Did Liverpool need a squad overhaul? IMO - yes. Have they bought well? IMO - No but, as I have openly admitted, I don't know much about them so I could be hopelessly wrong. Only time will tell. 60% of the players bought were foreign so how do I know how many hidden gems there are? This is open to debate. I was only making observations about teams that I don't support. Let me now make another uncomfortable observation that you won't like. I spent the 2 weeks between Everton and Southampton visiting family and friends in London and Worthing and went to several matches including 2 in the Premier. I saw the Referee beat Villa when they played Chelsea and I also saw Arsenal. IMO Villa, Arsenal and Chelsea were a step above any team I have seen at Carrow Road this season and only Fulham appeared to be in the mix with us and many others. IMO we will do very well to finish higher than 5th from bottom this season.
man city and chelsea have new managers who are putting their own stamp on their squads - they were always going to replace their dead wood and have done pretty well in general. they've both improved their starting XI and squads. agree about arsenal not doing enough. spurs undoubtedly needed to freshen up their squad. every year they challenge and fade badly. they had to replace bale's ability but there was no single player capable of doing that so they've done the sensible thing and strengthened their entire team, and done so very well indeed. agree about liverpool but they have bought pretty well without buying superstars and they will certainly be a threat now to the champions league places, something they weren't last year, so another who have improved. i would think the 60% being foreign is wrong - i'd say it's more like 90% - so understandable if you're not familiar with some of the players. good to see you're your usual positive self though i mean, the shock of norwich not being as good as arsenal or chelsea really has put the downer on things. who'd have thought it, hey? i watched the chelsea v villa game and villa played absolutely out of their skins that night. they won't do that every week, as proven against liverpool when they were pretty abject.
