theHotHead wrote:EK, throughout your entire post one word stands out that you are missing, that applies to pretty much everything you wrote. The word "relative".
I said "exciting young talent that is affordable", you ask where this talent is, well to give you one example very close to home, our very own Guendouzi is one ! So if we have to, lets look further afield. You claim all the top talent is in EPL academies, I say England is not the only place we have to look !
I'm not going to scour the internet looking for names but it is clear they exist so we can buy them.
You say Hoddle managed during a time there was no Man City, no PSG and no TV Money. This is where the word relative really comes in, because it is all relative, for 2 reasons. The first, all clubs that play in the EPL get a share of the TV money so all are able to buy good players, but the richer clubs are able to spend more because they have more to spend. That means it is no different than how it was before, the rich will always spend the most and spending goes down on a sliding scale.
Secondly, its relative because just because we have Man City now there were other challengers before. Man City do not have the monopoly on talent. If you look at recent modern football history 4 clubs stand out from the rest, Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea and Liverpool. Since I got into football in the 70s Arsenal have won 19 major trophies, Liverpool have won 36 major trophies and Man U have won 32 major trophies, Chelsea have won 21major trophies.
In 1993 when Hoddle joined Chelsea the top 5 was Man U, Blackburn, Newcastle, Arsenal and Leeds. Blackburn were the equivalent then of Man City, more money than everyone else to spend. 1994 the top 5 were Blackburn, Man U, Notts Forest, Liverpool Leeds. in 1995 it was Man U, Newcastle, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Arsenal. You claim Man U were dominant but they were not. They had to battle Blackburn and Newcastle, they may have won but it certainly was not a case of Man U Walking to titles. In the 1990s Arsenal, Leeds, Man U and Blackburn won. in the 2000s it was Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea - so I can argue that the 1990s was more competitive than the 2000s. Its all relative. You dismiss teams and disrespect them because they are not big clubs now, but at the time they were very competitive, Man U didn't get all of the top talent, Blackburn were paying silly wages, Kevin Keegan made Newcastle an attractive proposition and Liverpool were still the biggest club in England.
And for your final bit, its all relative. You cannot talk about what Spurs have spent without looking at what they have sold ! Its a totally kack handed view to do so, because player sales are what have helped them to buy players. They have made £547m on player sales. - versus your £531m they spent.
Cheap players DO exist, everything is more expensive because of inflation, you can't compare £5m then to £5m now, relatively speaking its probably around £20-25m on a player. Wenger used to spend around £20m per season, probably the equivalent of about £80m per season now.
That word relative again.
Good post ... nice to have a response that's not all aggression, nonsense or just abuse ....
Guendozi is a good example ... but to use your term 'relative' he cost 7m rising to 15m-20m depending on which rag you read, unquestionable a good deal, his salary is between 70-110k again depending on what you read so over five years that's another 20m ... so probably a 30m+ contract which as you say represents a very good deal ... it's the '
hen's teeth' that everyone is seeking ....
Against that are Leno, Sokratis, Mkhi, Xhaka, Mustafi, Perez sure not all youngsters but none of whom represent great deals, it's just not that easy, I'm not knocking Arsenal's scouts, with the amount of money around every club is making more bad deals than good ones.
You missed my point on academies, they are off course all around Europe now, what's changed is that the days of Arsenal taking young players from Barca, Real, South America almost at will have gone ... now every club in the EPL is in opposition when it comes to signing youngsters, it's all got a whole lot harder.
again I think you missed my point on Utd dominance, whilst 7-10 titles is a sign off dominance on the pitch, I was talking more about off the pitch. For the best part of twenty years Utd had vastly more income (
almost double) any other club in the league, the challenging clubs, Blackburn, Leeds, even us had seasons where we either spent a whole load of cash, or just had
'one of those years' allowing for a brief challenge, but none of Utd's rivals could sustain that challenge through the 90's, with many clubs nearly bankrupting themselves trying. That's just not the same today Utd, City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and now Spurs are all in the top ten revenue clubs in Europe, none of them are dropping far out of that list anytime soon. The top four (
now six) have filled 90% of the top four places for the last decade, and few would argue that it's going to change.
Whilst "Net Spend" is obviously key you can talk and should talk about the purchasing of players, at the end of the day whether a club gets it's money from having a great business model, selling players at exorbitant prices, massive sponsorship, influx off director's cash, what difference does that make?
The reason the top six are the top six is because over the last twenty years they've had the ability to spend consistently more than any of their rivals, even the new kids Spuds are now well established in this group.
You are off course correct on 'relativity' the 2010's are very different from the 1990's however, and it's sad to reflect, the days when every club started the season dreaming of title challenges and a place in Europe are gone. The top four will 9/10 seasons be made up off four from six, everyone knows that before a ball is even kicked that's just how it is.
So back on topic, the only way the other teams can compete is via youth players, so whilst the big clubs will always get first dibs on emerging talent that talent has little or no chance of a first team place with them ... young players will get churned out, they already are, from massive academies by City, Chelsea, Utd, Spuds at an ever growing rate, far from becoming
'cheap' opportunities these young players will in reality receive ridiculous deals from clubs who can't attract, or can't afford the likes of Lacca, Son, Hazard etc. this has seen a massive increase in the price of young players ....
Guendozi was a great find, it's still a 30m contract for a 19 year old so not that cheap ... but then in football today nothing is .....
