Football 2015/16

[The Nal]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

who have? City or Liverpool? That's passed me by entirely.

City have. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34972478

17 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

 

Not comparitively they don't. Hence my question. 

Wouldn't surprise me if Liverpool have/are attempting to bring in cash from outside in a similar move to the one City have just announced. 

Comparatively they do. They've consistently spend money.  

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-1992-to-date/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-1992-to-date

They love an agent fee aswell. As do Utd. WTF?!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34968159

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Weren't you saying a few months ago that mignolet is one of the better keepers in the league?

I still go with that.

But he's also one of the weaker points in the squad (or at least, the first 11), because the squad is not as bad as some want to suggest.

If they want to be in the top 4 every season they need to be aiming to have one of the best four or five players in the Prem in any position, and Mignolet isn't one of the 4 or 5 best goalies.

Edited December 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

25 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

I don't think you grasp how mediocre a lot of that league is.

Worst standard in the Premier League for a long time alright. If Klopp gets some momentum going and keeps Sturridge fit I fear what could happen.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, The Nal said:

City have. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34972478

ahh, thanks ... it's only just happened, which is why I wasn't aware of it, I guess.

 

 

[TheGayTent]

22 minutes ago, The Nal said:

City have. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34972478

Comparatively they do. They've consistently spend money.  

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-1992-to-date/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-1992-to-date

They love an agent fee aswell. As do Utd. WTF?!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34968159

Man City have outspent Liverpool by £200m according to that table despite spending 5 of those seasons in 1 or 2 leagues below the top flight. 

Liverpool aren't currently as good as Man City because Man City spend more than Liverpool on both transfers and wages. 

All clubs spend money, Liverpool consistently spend money, Liverpool consistently spend less than the real elite and have done for a number of years. 

[TheGayTent]

Should be in the things that annoy you thread but what is it with these stats and records that solely take into account the premier league? 

Did football not fucking exist pre 1992?? 

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Should be in the things that annoy you thread but what is it with these stats and records that solely take into account the premier league? 

Did football not fucking exist pre 1992?? 

Premier League and Champions League records! The only thing that matters!

Fucking sky.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Man City have outspent Liverpool by £200m according to that table despite spending 5 of those seasons in 1 or 2 leagues below the top flight. 

Liverpool aren't currently as good as Man City because Man City spend more than Liverpool on both transfers and wages. 

All clubs spend money, Liverpool consistently spend money, Liverpool consistently spend less than the real elite and have done for a number of years. 

the problem with a table like that is that, because of ever-increasing player prices & wages, the table is distorted towards those who've spent money in recent seasons.

I can remember a similar table being posted a few years ago where Spurs were bigger average spenders than Liverpool, but Levy getting tight in the last few years while Liverpool have started to spend more sees Liverpool at about double the Spurs number.

 

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Should be in the things that annoy you thread but what is it with these stats and records that solely take into account the premier league? 

Did football not fucking exist pre 1992?? 

I know its poor yeah. But Id wager Liverpool were big spenders in the 70s and 80s aswell.

Heres a better one.

Edited December 1, 2015 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

PS ... the clubs that show themselves as doing fantastically well for their spend in that table are Arsenal and Everton.

[ThomThomDrum]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Should be in the things that annoy you thread but what is it with these stats and records that solely take into account the premier league? 

Did football not fucking exist pre 1992?? 

Something that grinds my gears a lot.

A very recent example................who's record did Vardy "break"? Sky would have you believe it was Van Knee Still Sores, but Aldridge scored in 10 consecutive league games before the Dutch man was in the PL and before the PL existed back in 87. Also Jimmy Dunne scored 18 goals in 12 consecutive matches back in 1931 for Sheffield Utd..........the racist aint number 1 in my books

[DomDom1984]

So he has equalled your record then?

[ThomThomDrum]

14 minutes ago, DomDom1984 said:

So he has equalled your record then?

Huh?

[DomDom1984]

That's him on the 12 game run now, no?

[DomDom1984]

Ah right. I thought the record was 11 before Vardy got to it. Still, if he can score against shitfest masters like United, he can score against Swansea.

[pink_triangle]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 And then again last season it was said that they were nothing without Suarez, and then they went and put in (only for a while, admittedly) the best play of any team last season.

You make that statement as if it's a fact. I don't even think it's a commonly accepted opinion.

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

You make that statement as if it's a fact. I don't even think it's a commonly accepted opinion.

It was accepted enough for it to go uncommented about for ten hours.

They were playing plenty well enough for Utd fans to start shitting themselves about Liverpool's form and momentum at the time.

But I'm happy to admit i over-stated it, because their bubble had burst before that run of wins (and perhaps draws & losses in there too, I forget) came to an end with defeat by Utd, which made that run look better than it really was ... but for a short while there they were damned hot again, just as they were with Sturridge.

[Wooderson]

LFC flattered to deceive in that run Neil, mate. They were a shadow of the swashbuckling side the year previous.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It was accepted enough for it to go uncommented about for ten hours.

 

You can thank my works version of internet explorer and my dodgy phone for it taking that long!

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Wooderson said:

LFC flattered to deceive in that run Neil, mate. They were a shadow of the swashbuckling side the year previous.

They weren't the same force - but they couldn't be, without the two prime players in that force. - but they went waaaay beyond what their detractors had said was possible for them.

I'm not trying to claim them as world beaters, I'm merely pointing out that they're not as shabby a bunch of players as some like to say.

---

I see Klopp has come out and said they're not after a new goalie, and word today is that Mignolet is about to get a new contract.

If Klopp keeps killing the journo's fun like that they're not going to keep praising him for long.

[pink_triangle]

Im not convinced I would prioritize a new keeper.  The "sure things" are at clubs lie chelsea, city, man utd who wouldnt sell to liverpool.  Mignolet isnt in the top 3 or 4 keepers in the league, but he is in that group of about 10 who are pretty similar in my view.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Im not convinced I would prioritize a new keeper.  The "sure things" are at clubs lie chelsea, city, man utd who wouldnt sell to liverpool.  Mignolet isnt in the top 3 or 4 keepers in the league, but he is in that group of about 10 who are pretty similar in my view.

I agree that the 'sure things' are out of their reach, but Butland would be likely to be an improvement, I think. There's also likely to be others in other leagues too.

I'd defo prioritise a new goalie, because it's the one easy-fix they're able to make. If you go for outfield players instead, too much of a success or not is too dependent on how that new player fits with other players, making an improvement to the team overall less certain (unless you're able to buy a superstar, which is out of Liverpool's reach).

 

[TheGayTent]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(unless you're able to buy a superstar, which is out of Liverpool's reach).

 

Is it? 

They have Klopp. If they look in January like they will have Champions (sic) League football next season then the only thing preventing Liverpool attracting a "superstar" is cash. 

My only question remains do they have the money to fund the necessary fee/wages. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, TheGayTent said:

Is it? 

They have Klopp. If they look in January like they will have Champions (sic) League football next season then the only thing preventing Liverpool attracting a "superstar" is cash. 

My only question remains do they have the money to fund the necessary fee/wages. 

it's possible to do, but it takes stupid money to do it, much in the way City did.

I'm sure Klopp makes Liverpool a better proposition for players than Rodgers, tho I'm far from sure they'd be many queuing up on a possibility. Any 'top' player who might be considering Liverpool is likely to have more-instantly attractive offers - unless they're specifically a Klopp fan.

[mrtourette]

Wait, was Gary Neville just appointed manager of Valencia?