I agree with the sentiment, there's too much emphasis placed on who has spent more than the others to justify / excuse the results. Leicester showed last season that it's not all about money. That said, everybody knows that Chelsea would still ****e if it wasn't for Roman's rubles. And City would still be languishing in mid table without the Sheikh
Yeah I mean, its a viable tactic to make money I suppose. Keep a player on the books, let him go out on loan elsewhere to drive his value up, then flog him when you feel he has hit his peak value. Though I often wonder why some of these youngsters allow themselves to take part in it, they must know they are being used as cash cows.....never mind
We weren't ****e before Roman's rubles mate. Still in the CL. Which is your managers yardstick for success
On the flip side, if they get loaned to the right clubs they will get a higher level of football than U21s so should develop quicker.
You had a period of success when the Italian contingent came along, but overall Chelsea were very average until uncle Roman juiced you.
every agent make money from every deal ?!! are we gonna start count that? Ozil agent fee for example was 4m euro paid by Arsenal on top of his transfer money
The Arsenal board does not agree. They believe qualifying for the Champions League is the height of achievement Seriously though, we were a top 6 team. Finished 6th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 4th in the 7 years before Abramovich came. Qualifying for the CL twice (Would be 3 times these days, but 4th place didnt get CL in 1998.) I would hardly say thats ****. I mean, the current Spurs team has a similar record in the last few years, would you call them ****? Actually dont answer that
Exactly, where does it end? Do we count the cost of the players airplane ticket? What about the hotel where they put him up for the night while negotiations took place? His lunch fee?
Another stat that proves my theory about Mourinho. (great tactician but completely incapable of building a squad without waisting ontold resources) According to the BBC.. "Rashford is the first teenager to score a Premier League goal for a team managed by Jose Mourinho". That is a sad stat.
Plenty mate. (Rasford, Jordan Ibe, Bellerin, Iwobi, Lukaku, Martial, Kelechi Iheanacho, Barkley etc..etc..) If Rashford hadn't of got games under LVG and scored goals last Season there would be little to no chance of him getting time under Mourinho. That's for sure. Mourinho doesn't use young players because it doesn't benefit him in any way. He won't be hanging around to see them 'develop'.
So several managers have had 1 teenager score a PL goal for them in the last 5 years (Wenger 2) why is it so shocking that Maureen has the same statistic?
