Home > Football > It's Manchester United and Chelsea to finish in the top two - no matter how much the rest spend
by gerald mclaughlin on 17 July 2008
Email this Article (3) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
Big savings on football products from boots to balls!
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are the four teams who have consistently spent the most amount of money during the transfer windows over the last few years. But let's not forget just how much Tottenham, Newcastle and Sunderland, Birmingham and Aston Villa splash out too.
In fact, Premier League teams in general, through sponsorship and television money, spend by far the most in the world of soccer. Even the Championship is a big spender - in fact, it is the fourth richest league in Europe. Unbelievable yes, but true. So playground-type arguments over who is going to spend the most is rather futile.
The transfer world is a bizarre place at this moment in time. Chelsea upped the ante a few years back by paying absolutely ludicrous fees for basically average players. But can we blame them for the astronomical upturn in the size of wages and transfers, or was it bound to happen sooner rather than later?
With the vast sums of money available, the market was going to become more competitive. But the thought process that foriegners were better players, plus the ridiculous Bosman ruling, has dictated that just above average players are moving around the European leagues like sporting prostitutes, selling themselves to the highest bidders.
Should we blame them? No. Most of us would do the same given the chance. Yet it has turned the whole football world into a mercenary affair and there is no sign of a let-up. Unfortunately, there is a knock-on effect.
What is happening now (with the exception of Arsenal) is that the big guns are letting other teams buy potentially good foriegners, watching their progress for a year or two and then stepping in to capture a ready-made Premier League player. It's what was common practice with potentially top-class youngsters in Britain who were farmed out on loan to find their feet in the Championship before returning.
It still happens, yet more and more British youngsters are not breaking through. There is a real dearth of English talent to look for in comparison to not that long ago. Players who are good enough are swallowed by the bigger teams, where they are unable to hold down a regular place and are then forced to move on in a year or two.
People may hit me with facts and figures about how many English players are currently performing in the top flight, but it is certainly a lot less than there used to be. To be quite honest, I don't care who spends the most money in the EPL this summer simply because not a lot is going to change at the top - Man United or Chelsea will win the league. Liverpool will flatter to decieve yet again and Arsenal will entertain as always yet finish with very little.
The EPL is becoming a mirror image of the SPL. Yes, it's bigger and there is a higher standard of player involved but, ultimately, who is going to win the league? It's a two horse race. I'm not undermining anyone else, it's just the way it is.
Arsenal and Liverpool are in a constant state of redevelopment while Man United and Chelsea have a constant core that they add to and improve on. And it's a big core - from goalkeeper right through to the strikers. Liverpool fans cannot tell me that they have a core as good as the other two.
Yes, they have Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Fernando Torres, but it's not the same as Edwin van der Sar, Nemanja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand, Paul Scholes, Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo et al. Its not the same. It's not the same as having Petr Cech, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Michael Ballack, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba.
It's not nice to admit, but even if you are a fan of Liverpool and Arsenal you must know that the basis of the other two teams' squads are better. The potential in Liverpool and Arsenal is there for all to see, but it's a matter of turning potential into the finished product. I'm not attacking these teams or criticising them, these are the reasons why neither have lifted the Premier League title recently.
Arsenal's team last year was incredible and I've touched on this before. If Cesc Fabregas had had a Paul Scholes-type player beside him all season, then perhaps it would have been different, but he didn't - and Arsenal didn't win anything. If Rafael Benitez can turn the obvious potential in the current Liverpool squad into consistent winners then great. Hopefully this time next year I'll be pointing out why Man United and Chelsea failed to win anything.
The amount of money spent this summer will be obscene by the time the window closes. But, ultimately, it will not change who finishes first or second.
Comments (3) by Joel Cairo on July 20, 2008 Face it -- ManU didn't win last year so much as Arsenal lost. For all the spending done last summer, about 80 million on Nani, Anderson, Hargeaves, and Tevez, ManU improved by 2 point, far less than Liverpool and Arsenal, who also spent far less. Its a wide open race this year. by gerald mclaughlin on July 21, 2008 Ridiculous comment. Will that be written in the history books that Arsenal lost it? No. If you have money then you spend it to improve your team. These comments of improving by a certain number of points each season are plain stupid. Progression? Is that the new buzz word for failure in football? by Ivailo Avramov on July 22, 2008 In particular, the argument added by Joel Cairo is a valid one but it doesn't capture the essence of the problem. The focal point is what the major goals of the gratest clubs are [i.e. - get even greater by winning trophies and accumulating more glorry] and how successful those clubs are in acheiving their goals. <br> I also agree that the dynamics matters - and for instance if there is a tendency for Arsenal to have improved by more than United and Chelsea - then good for Arsenal - even trophyless their season is not lost. But by stopping it here we'll be shifting the focus in a "wrong" direction. Because if the big 2007 spending has helped United to retain the title (for 5-th time in the EPL!) and to make EPL-CL golden double - why should this accomplishment be underestimated or neglected by merely stating the club's smaller annual improvement rate (compared fairly to Arsenal's one) via merely stating a single stat-fact of "+2 poitns betterment only"? <br> My conclusion is that here there is a "stock vs. flow variables" conflict. If the particular giant club has an "impressive stock" (team squad depth and breath; traditions and winning mentality; brand name and economic goodwill) they can afford it to make progress by smaller "flow" margins as long as they retain their leading position and keep accomplishing their goals! How about the latter conclusion? :-) \nMy conclusion is that here there is a \\"stock vs. flow variables\\" conflict. If the particular giant club has an \\"impressive stock\\" (team squad depth and breath; traditions and winning mentality; brand name and economic goodwill) they can afford it to make progress by smaller \\"flow\\" margins as long as they retain their leading position and keep accomplishing their goals! How about the latter conclusion? :-) '))" id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_ctl08_CommentFormCtrl1_ctl00_ctl02_aQuote"> Please enter E-mail accountPlease enter CommentThe text you have entered from the picture is not correct. Please try again. Add your comment here PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED First Name Last Name Email Show my email on site Heading Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment. Sport Select sport... All Sports American Football Aquatics Archery Athletics Australian Football Badminton Baseball Basketball Boxing Canoe/Kayak Cricket Cycling Darts Equestrian Extreme sports Fencing Field Hockey Football Golf Gymnastics Handball Horse Racing Ice Hockey Ice Skating Judo Mixed Martial Arts Motorsport Netball Pentathlon Rowing Rugby Rugby League Rugby Union Sailing Shooting Softball Table Tennis Taekwondo Tennis Triathlon Volleyball Weightlifting Wrestling League Choose league... Team Choose team... Comment * Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Comments (3)
by Joel Cairo on July 20, 2008
Face it -- ManU didn't win last year so much as Arsenal lost. For all the spending done last summer, about 80 million on Nani, Anderson, Hargeaves, and Tevez, ManU improved by 2 point, far less than Liverpool and Arsenal, who also spent far less. Its a wide open race this year.
by gerald mclaughlin on July 21, 2008
Ridiculous comment. Will that be written in the history books that Arsenal lost it? No. If you have money then you spend it to improve your team. These comments of improving by a certain number of points each season are plain stupid. Progression? Is that the new buzz word for failure in football?
by Ivailo Avramov on July 22, 2008
In particular, the argument added by Joel Cairo is a valid one but it doesn't capture the essence of the problem. The focal point is what the major goals of the gratest clubs are [i.e. - get even greater by winning trophies and accumulating more glorry] and how successful those clubs are in acheiving their goals. <br> I also agree that the dynamics matters - and for instance if there is a tendency for Arsenal to have improved by more than United and Chelsea - then good for Arsenal - even trophyless their season is not lost. But by stopping it here we'll be shifting the focus in a "wrong" direction. Because if the big 2007 spending has helped United to retain the title (for 5-th time in the EPL!) and to make EPL-CL golden double - why should this accomplishment be underestimated or neglected by merely stating the club's smaller annual improvement rate (compared fairly to Arsenal's one) via merely stating a single stat-fact of "+2 poitns betterment only"? <br> My conclusion is that here there is a "stock vs. flow variables" conflict. If the particular giant club has an "impressive stock" (team squad depth and breath; traditions and winning mentality; brand name and economic goodwill) they can afford it to make progress by smaller "flow" margins as long as they retain their leading position and keep accomplishing their goals! How about the latter conclusion? :-)
\nMy conclusion is that here there is a \\"stock vs. flow variables\\" conflict. If the particular giant club has an \\"impressive stock\\" (team squad depth and breath; traditions and winning mentality; brand name and economic goodwill) they can afford it to make progress by smaller \\"flow\\" margins as long as they retain their leading position and keep accomplishing their goals! How about the latter conclusion? :-) '))" id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_ctl08_CommentFormCtrl1_ctl00_ctl02_aQuote">
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Is Manchester City's mega-money revolution really so bad for the Premier League?
Tackling violence - the biggest stain on Italian football
The SEVEN secrets that turned Usain Bolt into a world-beater
Arsenal Aston Villa Barcelona Chelsea Everton Football Liverpool Manchester City Manchester United Newcastle United Portsmouth Real Madrid Sunderland Tottenham Hotspur West Ham United
© SportBuzz All rights reserved 2008 Sportingo- Sports News & Sports Articles site. Sportingo delivers fresh sports news and analysis by fans-Football News, Tennis News, Rugby Union News, Rugby League, Cricket News, Cycling News, Basketball News and other Sports TV. XML Sitemap 2008.