CODE FOR: I've made myself look a right **** here and I've got nowhere to go, so I'll claim a faux victory and wander off so I will.
You pair just keep posting and I know it is because you just can't swallow that bitter "I was wrong wrong wrong" pill. Drink some water Tobes might help you swallow it easier
This is why stats can be confusing for some and the right definition is crucial. If we are talking PL competitiveness I.e the ability to win the premiership, then looking at the winners over the period of time can be misleading. Since it's inception, United have won it most. 13 times I think. If we compare it to say the SPL, Celtic and rangers would have won it probably about the same number of times. So can we say that because United have won it 10 times more than Chelsea or Arsenal, the PL less competitive than the SPL. No. Because in that period we had several clubs with the ABILITY or realistic POSSIBILITY of winning the title: United, Chelsea, Blackburn, arsenal, Liverpool. That United dominated the titles was probably due to one man and that surely would not happen again. Scotland at the time had only 2 teams able to win it. And they would have their own private battles. No one had a look in. But realistically it was a 2 team league for the title now a one team one as rangers are in a lower division. Past Stats are deceptive. I would go with the ability of a 6th place team for example to beat the leaders. Or the 7th team to beat the second placed etc. that would give you a better picture IMO.
Yep, Tobes is having a complete #meltdown He seems to think that calling them the "big 2" lets him get away with pretending they are just the equivalent of Man Utd (which is just 1 team BTW)
Pretty much it, the stink of desperation is strong. Real and barca between them have only 4 more titles than United do since 1992. And they say La Liga is less competitive If for the sake of parity, La Liga had a Chelse and City investment thing of two la liga clubs, the spread would be even bigger. The real question is, why those two chaps can never accept they are wrong like, I don't get it. #unwarrantedegos
Tobesesque paraphrasing, anyone reading knows I never said that, now tell me, who in La Liga has had sugar daddies that invested billions into clubs since 1992? It's funny tho, you talk like you've proved a point, yet it's there for all to see, that you are an eejit like, as in ****ing stupid. You tried to argue that penos were 5050 chance to score like, and it took serious ridicule for you to eventually get how ****ing stupid you are If you never accept you are wrong you will never learn anything new, same goes for your backup Blueshite
Feel free to show I was wrong on the penalty thing. I am still waiting. You do know several sides have had Chelsea/City type investment. Others have pulled a Leeds/Pompey. You are aware that a lot of La Liga clubs are in administration or on the verge of. You do know that La Liga clubs often strike over the lack of equality in la liga. You didn't know any of that did you? if you did, you wouldn't look such a tit right now.
More side stepping from you. HOW MANY LA LIGA CLUBS HAVE HAD INVESTMENT LIKE CHELSEA AND CITY? Clubs of City and Chelsea's stature, not Barca or Real The answer is 0, no matter how much you ramble on about Leeds and Pompey you dope
Actually I may be wrong there, Malaga had a sugar daddy I think. It turned out to be a disaster tho. See, one can be wrong and totally accept it, give it a try
Also, I think La Liga has had 7 different runners up since 1992, the PL 6 different runners up. Could be 7 in the PL can't remember
You're getting it now - a 2 horse race - between them they've won 77% of the titles in the PL timeframe,WITH ONLY 23% going to those outside of the big 2. Compared to United winning 59% and the OTHER 41% being shared amongst 4 others. THEREFORE THE SPREAD IN THE PL HAS BEEN GREATER YOU ****ING SPANNER
Valencia, Deportivo, Atletico Madrid, Villareal, Malaga. All had investment from outside the club. Maybe not billions but still more than the clubs could ever make themselves. When the investment stopped, all ended up ****ed, some were relegated.
You're even arguing against your own point now ffs. The Sugar Daddy investors in the EPL have brought about increased competition and a broader span of winners and potential winners you ****tard
Hes not getting it. Hes trying to change the discussion to a 'PL only has that many winners because of sugar daddies' one. That despite La Liga having many clubs bankrolled by outside investment and overspending. Wonder what it will be next?
So the PL is a one horse race is it? Really? As I could have sworn the horse in question finished 7th last season and has only won the thing twice in 5 years - soon to be 6... Oh dear, talk about hoisted by your own petard
So are you saying before Rangers administration, Spl was more competitive than the PL? Or will you twist your terrible logic again?
