Country: England
Player:Saliba
How that pile of tripe got likes is beyond me.He claimed there was a 70% or so correlation to where you finish in the table and how much you spend on transfer fees. That was debunked when I actually listed the previous seasons league tables with how much they spent, with only one club representing their "squad cost" position. Then any mention of Leicester doesn't count, and examples of pre-title-winning Manchester City outspending everyone don't count either.
There is a link between money being spent, and how well you can do in the table, but that doesn't account for match day revenue, coaching, geographical reach etc etc. A club like Arsenal is always going to do better than Barnet FC because it has a lot of groundwork and foundations.
Using his argument suggests that Barcelona's world class midfield a few years ago was free, which clearly isn't the case. It also suggests a league 2 club spending 50m on Armand Traore will automatically win them the league because they have spent the most money.
There is also countless examples of teams in this league dominating on a limited budget spending less than championship clubs. Football is about ability, coaching and 11 players actually outscoring the opposition. Dropping 100m on Iwobi isn't going to change that, or make him any better. If you want to talk about actual "squad cost" you should be talking about wages considering businesses primarily pay employee wages based on their ability to perform.
Can't be bothered with this anymore, it's boring.
You keep claiming you've debunked the correlation between wealth and winning but it's all in your head. The three richest teams have won the league what is going to be 13 out of 14 times but you're still claiming Leicester disproves the correlation.
And these countless teams that have dominated the league spending less than Championship teams exist only in your imagination. Unless you're talking about other leagues, which is another confusion you've introduced. Leagues in different countries work in completely different ways to ours concerning ownership, so what a team in one league spends, doesn't translate to another.
You still don't even understand that the relationship between wealth and winning holds good even if none the teams finish exactly in the squad cost positions. It's just a rough trend based on probability.
And then you introduce wages, as if you've thought of something better than squad cost. Wages and squad cost are fairly parallel. The ideas are virtually identical.
The bottom line here is that you're just another frustrated poster trying to nitpick because you have a narrative about Wenger, and squad cost gets in the way. Denying that money breeds success is irrefutable but I'm sure it won't stop you pretending you've debunked it.