Who Will Be A Flop?

I never denied that.
But any team that has won anything in the PL era, won it because they spent a lot of cash.
And no, it makes zero difference if the money was given to them by a Russian guy, or a ten year old girl in exchange for a teddy bear in the gift shop.

Ideally, revenue would be dictated directly to on field success, but it doesnt.

 

It is for Man Utd.
They can spend what they have because they were recently the empire,
with sustained on-pitch success left right and centre.

 

Bollocks,
Even in the 80's when they were **** they were still better off than most other teams.
Money earnt by a club is down to all sorts of crap, geography, marketing, plus United were the first to sell their souls to the stock market I believe.
United had the fortune of being successful just as English football became broadcast worldwide too, (ie when the PL was formed), its complete luck.
That first PL win was worth more than ALL 18 of Liverpool's previous league wins.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the sums of money they are
currently spending is only possible due to the sustained on-pitch
success they achieved during the Fergie era (and all the revenues
that brought in) .

As with the Poool before them, being the empire creates the
financial "virtuous circle" that keeps your rivals in check.


"plus United were the first to sell their souls to the stock market I believe."

Before Spurs (1984) ??

 

Yes, but Unlike Liverpool, United's empire will never fall, they will always earn that money now.
Because the PL is worldwide, and the money earnt has become ridiculous.
Sure their revenue will drop if they don't win a lot, but I doubt United will ever go 20 years without winning a league title.

Note: Yeah I wasn't entirely sure on the whole Plc thing, but again, United did it when the world was watching.
Football in general was at it's lowest point in the 80's.

 

Leicester City ?

Also Arsenal's double winning side of 2002 was a fraction of the cost of our competitors at the time (namely Utd). Our record signing at the time was Wiltord who cost something like £11m.

But since Ambramovich, Pandora's box is open and those early days of Wenger's success on a shoestring isn't likely to be repeated.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Time will tell on both (they are already 20% of the way there on the first) .

 

Lacazette scores twice in pre-season friendlies and confirms HIAG's **** up, by his own logic

 

Plenty of opportunity for people to change their minds...

 

Morata in his first ever season, playing for the champions with all the pressure - has exceeded Lukaku.

Lacazette, playing for a Europey league team with fraction of Lukaku's transfer fees almost equals Lukaku's record.

Early days - but Lukaku is trailing already and he will be considered a flop given the money paid & the experience he already has in the league.

 

Morata is on 6 for the season for club and country and Lukaku is on 9 so please do explain how Lukaku is trailing.

You're chatting as if Morata has come from Shrewsbury, he's joined the champions from a club who just won La Liga and The Champions League. Lukaku joined from Everton ffs.

 

They're both doing what they've been bought to do.

Will Lukaku ever be more than a flat track bully? If not, does it really matter if he gets 25 goals against Stoke, Swansea and Gibraltar. That's the one big flaw in his game but he's not had a chance yet against a top side.

 

Hmmmm... I might beg to differ

Morata looks very good in the air ... better than the other two in that department.