The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Makingtrax]

This question is based on a false assumption. As if I've ever said we should be winning the title consistently. You frame this issue as if I, and other similar minded fans, expect the club to do so.

The key issue is suitably challenging for the title, something which is well within our grasp I am sure you agree, considering we're in the sane bracket, and yet it's something we haven't properly managed to do in a decade. In fact, the 07/08 season was the last time we breached the 80 point threshold. It's funny though, you laugh and minimize the efforts of teams who punch well above their weight by saying that there's little to no point in their achievements because they haven't won anything. So in your view, Atletico reaching the CL final and losing is no better than Arsenal being bundled out at the R16 state for the umpteenth time because neither team will have won it at the end of the day, which is laughable to say the least.

I could list examples of Sp**s last season, who finished on 86 points, Leicester the season before, who won the title, and Liverpool a couple of seasons before that, who came mighty close to winning it. But once again, challenging is of little consequence, right? You completely underestimate the effect it has. Actually, I'm wrong, you are aware of it, in your own weird and contradictory way. Not long ago you praised Sp**s fans for being behind and having the utmost belief in their manager Poch and essentially used them as an example for Arsenal fans to follow. Do you know why they're like that? I'll put in the most simplest terms possible. It's because they finished on 86 points the season before. Their tally from the previous season increased by 16 points. They actually showed signs of improvement.

You know what I think though? I think you dislike acknowledging the achievements of such teams because it demonstrates the stupidity of the other side of your argument.

The prime reason you fall back on money so often is because it allows you to absolve your daddy Arséne Wenger of any blame.

You're approach is vulgar and reductionist. As if there weren't other factors, outside of money, which determined finishing position, factors which I've gone over ad nauseam.

On the topic of unanswered questions. You STILL haven't answered my question. Because Steven Fletcher cost Sunderland more than Giroud cost Arsenal, is it safe to assume that Fletcher turned out the better player?

Always the same, you never answer my question.

More waffle about Sp**s, Atletico, Champions League, Wenger being my daddy, being vulgar . . . none of which I asked you about.

When are you going to answer? I ask you again. And let's keep it simple. Forget my theory, what is your theory, if it's not to do with money, why have the richest three teams in England and the richest two teams in Spain won the league 12 out of the last 13 years in those domestic leagues. It's a simple enough question. Why won't you answer?

Without insults this time if you can manage it.

Oh and your big supporters @Deathstroke and @{reed}, feel free to help him out because he's struggling.

 

[BobP]

Always the same, you never answer my question.

More waffle about Sp**s, Atletico, Champions League, Wenger being my daddy, being vulgar . . . none of which I asked you about.

When are you going to answer? I ask you again. And let's keep it simple. Forget my theory, what is your theory, if it's not to do with money, why have the richest three teams in England and the richest two teams in Spain won the league 12 out of the last 13 years in those domestic leagues. It's a simple enough question. Why won't you answer?

Without insults this time if you can manage it.

Oh and your big supporters @Deathstroke and @{reed}, feel free to help him out because he's struggling.

Look at you being evasive.

If you had basic comprehension skills, you'd realize your 'question' had already been answered.

 

[Makingtrax]

Look at you being evasive.

If you had basic comprehension skills, you'd realize your 'question' had already been answered.

No, I'm not interested in Sp**s, Liverpool, Arsenal . . . they've won no titles. I'm asking you about Chelsea, United and City since 2004 when the first oligarch arrived, and about Barcelona and Real.

You won't answer my question. They have dominated the domestic leagues.

You constantly call my theory nonsense, so I'm asking for yours. Why have they won 12 out of the last 13 attempts? That's a 92% dominance.

This squad cost nonsense is ridiculous.

It's a simple enough question ffs, what's your theory to explain the events we see. No insults from me. I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Makingtrax]

@BobP where have you gone? I can see you're still on the forum.

 

[BobP]

No, I'm not interested in Sp**s, Liverpool, Arsenal . . . they've won no titles. I'm asking you about Chelsea, United and City since 2004 when the first oligarch arrived, and about Barcelona and Real.

You won't answer my question. They have dominated the domestic leagues.

You constantly call my theory nonsense, so I'm asking for yours. Why have they won 12 out of the last 13 attempts? That's a 92% dominance.


It's a simple enough question ffs, what's your theory to explain the events we see. No insults from me. I'm genuinely interested.

1. Are you openly calling it a theory now? Didn't you reject my categorising it as such?

2. I'm not going to rehash arguments I've been making on here. Please read through my previous posts on the topic, as you seem to be having little trouble in finding and quoting them.

As I mentioned two posts ago, it's something I've gone over ad nauseam.

Nevertheless, I'll slowly go through it with you, as you seem intent on bludgeoning me with your idiocy.

Firstly, the premise of your question is completely off. By referring to 'dominance' you're of the view that I expect Arsenal to capture league titles season in, season. That is not true. It's a sneaky distortion on your part. What I expect is for the club to challenge, something we've been incapable of doing for exactly a decade.

My view is that tactical approach and manager or coaching ability is just as important, if not more important than money. You can have all the money you desire, but if you have a manager who is an imbecile, what use is it? On the other hand, your resources could comparatively be dwarfed by that of your competitors but if you deploy them efficiently, by scouting effectively, setting up a fruitful academy, and squeezing the utmost out of your players, a team will be able to compete, and on the rare occasion trump their wealthier competitors.

If this wasn't the case, how could you possibly explain instances where teams with lesser resources have finished above and generally performed better than their wealthy rivals?

Just last season for example, Monaco beat PSG, a team backed by a nation state, to the Ligue 1 title. In other words, despite the massive resources backing PSG, Monaco were still able to trump them. How do you explain that? Examples don't even have to be linked to title wins. I've already cited the example of Sp**s who finished on 86 points, 16 points better than their tally for the previous season and 10 points clear of Man City, a team with considerable financial clout.

How did Tottenham show such improvement? How were they able to trump their wealthy rivals? Money is obviously not the answer. In fact, their spending power is probably topped by all of Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Arsenal, and Liverpool.

If money is all important, how do you explain these anomalies? And again stop reducing success to title wins or league dominance, as I've mentioned, there are other ways of gauging this, namely their capacity to compete.

On a sidenote, it's funny how you explain Leicester's title win as a statistical anomaly. It's pretty well ridiculous to make such an argument when you consider that a league season is 38 games long. In other words, the season is long enough for such anomalies to be ironed out. It's why you often see people reduce Cup wins to luck, but you can't do that for league wins, would be embarrassing to do so.

 

[BobP]

@Makingtrax

Just an FYI, for the 2016-2017 season, the total market value of Monaco's squad was 190M. By comparison, the total market value of PSG's squad was a staggering 500M.

That's a gap of 310M!

Monaco somehow managed to bridge a seemingly insurmountable gap.

Edit:

Why aren't you replying? I can still see you're on.

 

[Makingtrax]

1. Are you openly calling it a theory now? Didn't you reject my categorising it as such?

2. I'm not going to rehash arguments I've been making on here. Please read through my previous posts on the topic, as you seem to be having little trouble in finding and quoting them.

As I mentioned two posts ago, it's something I've gone over ad nauseam.

Nevertheless, I'll slowly go through it with you, as you seem intent on bludgeoning me with your idiocy.

Firstly, the premise of your question is completely off. By referring to 'dominance' you're of the view that I expect Arsenal to capture league titles season in, season. That is not true. It's a sneaky distortion on your part. What I expect is for the club to challenge, something we've been incapable of doing for exactly a decade.

My view is that tactical approach and manager or coaching ability is just as important, if not more important than money. You can have all the money you desire, but if you have a manager who is an imbecile, what use is it? On the other hand, your resources could comparatively be dwarfed by that of your competitors but if you deploy them efficiently, by scouting effectively, setting up a fruitful academy, and squeezing the utmost out of your players, a team will be able to compete, and on the rare occasion trump their wealthier competitors.

If this wasn't the case, how could you possibly explain instances where teams with lesser resources have finished above and generally performed better than their wealthy rivals?

Just last season for example, Monaco beat PSG, a team backed by a nation state, to the Ligue 1 title. In other words, despite the massive resources backing PSG, Monaco were still able to trump them. How do you explain that? Examples don't even have to be linked to title wins. I've already cited the example of Sp**s who finished on 86 points, 16 points better than their tally for the previous season and 10 points clear of Man City, a team with considerable financial clout.

How did Tottenham show such improvement? How were they able to trump their wealthy rivals? Money is obviously not the answer. In fact, their spending power is probably topped by all of Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Arsenal, and Liverpool.

If money is all important, how do you explain these anomalies? And again stop reducing success to title wins or league dominance, as I've mentioned, there are other ways of gauging this, namely their capacity to compete.

On a sidenote, it's funny how you explain Leicester's title win as a statistical anomaly. It's pretty well ridiculous to make such an argument when you consider that a league season is 38 games long. In other words, the season is long enough for such anomalies to be ironed out. It's why you often see people reduce Cup wins to luck, but you can't do that for league wins, would be embarrassing to do so.

No, forget all these other teams. You're just evading. Not interested in Monaco, they've only won the league twice since 2004, Atletico once since 2004, Leicester once since 2004. This about dominance.

I'm asking you for your ideas to explain why the three richest teams in England, Chelsea, City and United and the two richest teams in Spain, Barcelona and Real have a 92% dominance in league titles since 2004.

There's nothing wrong with the question. What are they doing that's right, if it's not money.

Why can't you stick to the question?

 

[BobP]

No, forget all these other teams. You're just evading.

I'm asking you for your ideas to explain why the three richest teams in England, Chelsea, City and United and the two richest teams in Spain, Barcelona and Real have a 92% dominance in league titles since 2004.

There's nothing wrong with the question. What are they doing that's right, if it's not money.

Why can't you stick to the question.

You really are a remarkable poster. A childish response if there ever was one.

Are you telling me that you are the only who can refer or point to whatever example you so wish, whilst I'm not allowed to?

You're basically telling me to stop referring to examples which disprove what you're saying. That's not objective nor scientific now is it @Makingtrax

Your pathetic facade is crumbling. This 'theory' of yours has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything. As I said in a previous post, it's all about absolving Wenger of any blame.

 

[Makingtrax]

You really are a remarkable poster. A childish response if there ever was one.

Are you telling me that you are the only who can refer or point to whatever example you so wish, whilst I'm not allowed to?

You're basically telling me to stop referring to examples which disprove what you're saying. That's not objective nor scientific now is it @Makingtrax

Your pathetic facade is crumbling. This 'theory' of yours has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything. As I said in a previous post, it's all about absolving Wenger of any blame.

@BobP, just answer the question, I'll make it easy for you.

I think the richest three teams in England and the richest two teams in Spain have dominated these leagues since 2004 because . . . .

 

[BobP]

@BobP, just answer the question, I'll make it easy for you.

I think the richest three teams in England and the richest two teams in Spain have dominated these leagues since 2004 because . . . .

I've already answered your question with 2 detailed posts.

I think you're dragging this out because you genuinely have no reply.

If that is the case, I suggest you stop because we're going around in circles at this point.

Don't even think you're reading my posts at this stage.

 

[Makingtrax]

I've already answered your question with 2 detailed posts.

I think you're dragging this out because you genuinely have no reply.

If that is the case, I suggest you stop because we're going around in circles at this point.

Don't even think you're reading my posts at this stage.

No you haven't, you just refer to teams that have bucked the trend once a blue moon as if that somehow disproves the idea that the teams I mentioned haven't been dominating the league.

Your evading the question because it's slowly becoming clear that you have no idea why these teams keep winning the league so regularly, if it's not to do with money.

If you can, answer the question.

 

[BobP]

No you haven't, you just refer to teams that have bucked the trend once a blue moon as if that somehow disproves the idea that the teams I mentioned haven't been dominating the league.

Your evading the question because it's slowly becoming clear that you have no idea why these teams keep winning the league so regularly, if it's not to do with money.

If you can, answer the question.

Like I said, I can play the same game.

Who turned out the better player, the more costly Steven Fletcher or Olivier Giroud?

"If you can, answer the question".

 

[vantoure]

You really are a remarkable poster. A childish response if there ever was one.

Are you telling me that you are the only who can refer or point to whatever example you so wish, whilst I'm not allowed to?

You're basically telling me to stop referring to examples which disprove what you're saying. That's not objective nor scientific now is it @Makingtrax

Your pathetic facade is crumbling. This 'theory' of yours has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything. As I said in a previous post, it's all about absolving Wenger of any blame.

I'm an amateur at this but here goes:

I think it's obvious that makingtrax's theory isn't that there'll never be exceptions. All laws have exceptional cases now and then, and that's why the examples of athletico, Leicester, Monaco, etc. don't stand up to the argument, rather they may tend to enforce it.

Using those cases to predict or determine expectation of performance will rather be unfair which I believe is the basis for the expectation for arsenal to have challenges in that time period.

It's like using Leicester's achievement to set top 4 KPI's for subsequent managers, it's a recipe for failure.

That said, Athletico is a curious case, yes they won the league 4 years ago (once since over 20yrs, I believe) but nobody is calling for the managers neck as he's not challenged since, he's come a distant third since then (once secund, I think but that's after Real gave up the race, akin to us coming secund to Leicester as Sp**s dropped off)

Also, challenging for the title is subjective. On that subject, do we readjust Wenger's sell-by date since he"challenged" on 07-08, or is it as some have put it since 03-04? What does challenging mean, dis Sp**s effectively challenge even though they finished third, but not arsenal though we finished secund?

Essentially supporting is more emotional than logical and that's why seeing certain definitive statements can be grating when there's a lot clouding ones view on the matter...

 

[Makingtrax]

Like I said, I can play the same game.

Who turned out the better player, the more costly Steven Fletcher or Olivier Giroud?

"If you can, answer the question".

You've lost this argument Bob, good and proper. I've given you every chance to make this an educated debate, without insults.

Money is the reason these teams have dominated the league. It's the reason why Liverpool, Sp**s and Arsenal have struggled to get a foothold since the oligarchs arrived, and all the other EPL teams. And why Leicester have only ever won once.

It's the why Atletico, even having a great manager, have only won once.

You won't admit it even though you know you're wrong.

You insult me by calling me a cvnt and a coward, you mock the ideas that money means anything, but you have no counter argument. It's time for you to stop pretending you're some sort of football expert on here Bob. I'm no ****ing expert and you know less than me if your posts on money, Lukaku, Everton and what it takes to win the league are anything to go by.

 

[BobP]

I think it's obvious that makingtrax's theory isn't that there'll never be exceptions. All laws have exceptional cases now and then, and that's why the examples of athletico, Leicester, Monaco, etc. don't stand up to the argument, rather they may tend to enforce it.

They're not as exceptional as they appear. The poster in question paints them out to be complete anomalies which occur once every blue moon.

That said, Athletico is a curious case, yes they won the league 4 years ago (once since over 20yrs, I believe) but nobody is calling for the managers neck as he's not challenged since, he's come a distant third since then (once secund, I think but that's after Real gave up the race, akin to us coming secund to Leicester as Sp**s dropped off)

It's been 3 seasons since they won the league title. They finished 3 points behind Barca in the 2015-2016 season IIRC. So in 4 seasons, they've managed to win the title once and come very close to adding another. Furthermore, you forgot to mention their exceptional performances in the CL. Have played in 2 finals across 4 seasons.

Also, challenging for the title is subjective. On that subject, do we readjust Wenger's sell-by date since he"challenged" on 07-08, or is it as some have put it since 03-04? What does challenging mean, dis Sp**s effectively challenge even though they finished third, but not arsenal though we finished secund?

Essentially supporting is more emotional than logical and that's why seeing certain definitive statements can be grating when there's a lot clouding ones view on the matter...

Is it really though? In my view, most title winners breach the 80 point threshold. The breaching of that threshold constitutes a challenge for the title in most cases, in the English context at least.

On Wenger: It's difficult to set down a precise date. It'd be unfair to go as far back as 2003-2004 because in the years after the club was restricted in its actions in relation to transfers. I'm the first to acknowledge that he made a good go of things during that period, with a CL final, a title challenge in 2007-2008, and a CL SF in 2008-2009. IMO, it's best to judge him once we were able to flex our financial muscles a bit more, so from around 2013-2014.

On Sp**s, I presume you're referring to the 2015-2016 season? If so, that doesn't constitute a challenge, they didn't even beat point tally's set during the time AVB was there.

 

[BobP]

You've lost this argument Bob, good and proper. I've given you every chance to make this an educated debate, without insults.

Money is the reason these teams have dominated the league. It's the reason why Liverpool, Sp**s and Arsenal have struggled to get a foothold since the oligarchs arrived, and all the other EPL teams. And why Leicester have only ever won once.

It's the why Atletico, even having a great manager, have only won once.

You won't admit it even though you know you're wrong.

You insult me by calling me a cvnt and a coward, you mock the ideas that money means anything, but you have no counter argument. It's time for you to stop pretending you're some sort of football expert on here Bob. I'm no ****ing expert and you know less than me if your posts on money, Lukaku, Everton and what it takes to win the league are anything to go by.

Yes, congratulations @Makingtrax, you have won.

I'm certain you haven't read my essay long responses to your question, but I concede, you are the best.

I'm not even sure if you've actually read even that short post on Lukaku properly. Maybe you're too stupid to realise but I'm not the only one to say Lukaku is a poor footballer, heck some posters made the same point after you quoted my post whilst making the point that his physical attributes make him more than a handful for defenders.

 

[Makingtrax]

Yes, congratulations @Makingtrax, you have won.

I'm certain you haven't read my essay long responses to your question, but I concede, you are the best.

I'm not even sure if you've actually read even that short post on Lukaku properly. Maybe you're too stupid to realise but I'm not the only one to say Lukaku is a poor footballer, heck some posters made the same point after you quoted my post whilst making the point that his physical attributes make him more than a handful for defenders.

I read all your replies carefully and nowhere did you address the question I asked you.

 

[BobP]

I read all your replies carefully and nowhere did you address the question I asked you.

You should probably read them a few more times.

Needs to sink in.

 

[Makingtrax]

You should probably read them a few more times.

Needs to sink in.

No, this was not about who nearly won the league or who won it once in 13 years which is what you kept addressing. It was about who wins the league 92% of the time.

Forget it BobP, I know you're avoiding the only possible, logical answer.

 

[BobP]

No, this was not about who nearly won the league or who won it once in 13 years which is what you kept addressing. It was about who wins the league 92% of the time.

Forget it BobP, I know you're avoiding the only possible, logical answer.

It took you a little while but you've finally got to the key point which I made across multiple posts.

I have no idea why your question was even posed to me. It would make sense if I made a claim like that but I never have.

Your question was based on a false assumption

I'm not a disgruntled Arsenal fan because we don't win league titles every year, it's difficult to expect that when the likes of City and United are able to drop vast sums of money, I concede to you on that point. However, there's a big difference between demanding that we win titles every year and demanding that we maximise the resources that we have available to us to do the best we can, something we absolutely haven't been doing. I, and many others, are disgruntled precisely because we show minimal signs of improvement.

I struggle to understand how you are of the view that we have absolutely reached our ceiling as a club, with no way of moving forward. I think there is room for growth and improvement, which is where you and I differ. You seem to think that Wenger has been doing a fine job with the resources he has had available to him, whilst I think we are deficient in a variety of areas, both on-field and off field.