That's where this fella feels being well run comes into it (feel free to disagree), the infrastructure also has to be in place and with Utd, City and Arsenal it is as the stadiums are in place along with the facilities, not so sure on Chelsea though where there has been a focus on players more than the growth of the club. This of course makes it even more difficult as these clubs are well run and rich. Utd also have a huge fan base and global appeal which is a big advantage.
"I'd disagree. The top clubs when I was young - of which we were one - are no longer the the top clubs. In today's game, yes a big club can have an off season. Utd had a real shocker, Chavs are having one this. But, they'll buy their way out of it, just as Utd did." The point is not only to seize the opportunity when it comes, but also to twist the knife long and hard. Which is why it only becomes "an off season" for the big clubs rather than something more serious.
Yes, of course. With billions at your disposal, you can buy your way out of trouble - which Utd had to do, and Chelsea look like they will have to too. If you're Leeds, for example, and you **** up, you're dead without the resources to revive yourself.
Utd, City, and Chelsea are the three mega rich clubs of the premiership. Arsenal have done well, but I don't see them making that big step up on a regular basis, they either lack, or won't spend what's necessary. But yes, you're right, all you can do is put the right structure in place according to the resources you have at your disposal, and if the opportunity arises, grab it. But again, without a constant injection of cash, it's hard to maintain any consistent challenge for the top honours.
I think wisely is a subjective term in this case, but yeah, he seems a bit more thrifty nowadays. Their defense is a disaster area and needs major surgery. It's almost a repeat of what happened to Utd after Fergie's last season, players in key positions coming to the very end of their sell by date and not being replaced.
Or if you're incompetent you can blow £300m and still end up mid-table like Liverpool. There's plenty of money around in the prem. It's about how you spend it, and stability within the club. Liverpool and Spurs have been the worst example of that.
No doubt we spent badly in some cases, and overpaid too. We're paying for those mistakes now by having a much more frugal transfer policy and working with bringing on the youngsters ( probably not a bad policy long term- because as you know, you'll never win anything with kids!). However, we don't have anywhere near the resources available to £ity, Chelsea, or Utd - or even Liverpool, come to that. You have spent an absolute fortune to try and dig yourselves out of the hole you were in a couple of years ago, you can afford that. Most can't!
I dont disagree you need to spend... and spend big to achieve. But Liverpool have spent fcking loads and wasted it. It's not as if Spurs and Liverpool havent spent a lot though. And the measure of that is relative to your starting point and ambitions. If United or City or Chelsea spunk £250m then the aim should be a title challenge. But if Livpl or Spurs spend £150m to £250m then top 4 should be the minimum. It's also why Arsenal tread water in terms of spending and top 4 finish bcos their ambitions are pretty much where they are. The league is pretty competitive tbf. Depending on each club's spending, they should all be able to spend and build. But poor management and player purchases is, in the end, what separates success from failure.
No doubt poor management and player selection are important factors in the fortunes of any club. However,it also helps greatly if you are an already wealthy club. You can then rectify your mistakes by opening your large chequebook book. As I say, most of us can't do that. In that season, We only spent pretty much what we derived from the sale of Bale. In fact, our net spend over the last few seasons, according to Transfer League is minus £7mill.!..
Not a subscriber to net spend tbh. You have to factor in how much you brought in and that determines the amount you spend. Imagine you sell a player for 5m. Then buy a player for 12m. Net spend -7m Then compare to selling player for 60m and then bringing in player(s) for 67m. Net spend still -7m. But surely you'd expect to see better players, better squad and more success with the latter. It's a piss poor excuse the likes of Tomkins used to justify the failures of Rafa. Good point about rectifying mistakes though. Also one other thing to factor in is player wages. But then I go back to relative ambitions. I still think Spurs and Liverpool have spent funds to compete for top 4 places. I think we lack something that you dont have in Italy, Spain or Germany. And I dont mean, the lack of competition at the very top. Those teams like Spurs or Liverpool in those leagues, that are able top break into CL qualification, do so without spending big BUT ALSO look the real deal and do it convincingly.
The CL is a whole different kettle of fish. Whatever an English side spends currently seems to make little difference to their poor performance in the CL. so, that's clearly down to other factors - the amount of football English teams play, but also tactical naivety. The game in Europe has moved on, we haven't. I think net spend is important. Most Prem clubs do not have bottomless pockets and the books must be balanced. Yes, player selection is important and it's something that all clubs screw up on from time to time. Liverpool have just made a better job of it than most. You have to remember that most clubs are run as businesses, by businessmen. They're not in this for recreational or philanthropic reasons, they're in it to make money. The advantage that £ity and Chelsea have had has been massive injections of cash to get them to a prime position that it would have taken many years to try to attain otherwise. Another problem is that when you sell a Bale or a Suarez, the whole world is aware that you've got this money and are looking to buy players. The inevitable happens.
Treble, your argument is a non-starter, because no matter how much money Spurs spends on players, we are, at best, only the 5th largest club in the Prem, meaning that there are at least 4 teams above us who can afford to spend more than us on wages. It ought to come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that Spurs tend to finish 5th, most seasons. A couple of seasons we've finished 4th, and in others, we've finished outside the top 5, these things have tended to have evened themselves out.
That's a bit of a defeatist mentality mate. I think the instability within the club has been your biggest problem. How come teams outside the big clubs on the continent can still shine through? And before you say it, no I dont believe it's all bcos of the lack of competition at the top of those leagues; those teams who perform do so convincingly and with a modest budget. Roma, Fiorentina, Atletico Madrid, Sevilla, Dortmund, Wolfsburg to name a few dont always win stuff but they run those at the top very close, and they'll compete for those CL places. There are 3 clubs who spend big in the PL but there are 17 other clubs who dont. Achieving top 4 usually depends on how you fare against them. THAT is where the mentality is different in other leagues and why they compete convincingly. You cant use spending as a reason for why you lost or drew half your league games last season HIAG. Those are the fine margins and the likes of Atletico, Dortmund, Roma etc just appreciate that a bit better.
Don't most of those clubs have amongst the highest wage bills in their leagues? Roma are 2nd to Juve in Serie A, Atletico are 3rd in La Liga and Sevilla are 5th and Dortmund are 2nd in the Bundesliga. Wolfsburg and Fiorentina are normally in the top 8 spenders and have had some success, but not consistently. There are 5 clubs that consistently outspend Spurs in the Premier League and some of them do it by a mile. Man Utd's wage bill was more than double that of Spurs, for example. The same simply isn't true of most of the clubs that you've mentioned.
In all honesty I dont know about their wage bills but I dont think wages are necessarily the problem. Who's to say the reason for those European clubs wages being relatively high is bcos they are able to afford it after getting themselves in the top 2/3/4? But anyway, your wages are more than the vast majority of prem teams. As I said earlier, your ability to get top 4 will be dependent on how you do against them not the likes of Chelsea or City.
Clubs that spend the most on wages tend to do the best in their leagues, regardless of which league that happens to be. It clearly is the dividing factor. Doing well against most of the teams in the league isn't the issue. It's doing better against them than virtually every side in the division, including those that are outspending us.
I dont think so. Stability within the club and management structure, youth development, a team unity and dedication to the cause, are all built into these clubs. Wages are a small part of it. You're putting the cart before the horse imo. You cant talk about out-doing the higher spenders until you at least do your bit. Losing or drawing large numbers of games you should be winning, is well within your own hands. That's what those continental sides are so good at.
