Turn on thread page Beta

Arsenal are boring and West Ham are pointless watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    and as for 'top team' arsenal , LOL.

    Don't worry lads, all your talents like Walcott, Giroud, Coquelin and Chamberlain will save the day! LOL
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    You've just crushed your own argument with that link. Other than the top 5, you are next for net spend like I suggested.

    So what if Everton have spent similar? They spent the money because they recouped it by selling players, otherwise the money wouldn't be there. That's why it's called net spend. Their net spend along with Swansea and Southampton etc is one of the lowest. You've basically proved my argument right. Clubs are overperforming and you are seriously underperforming.

    I honestly don't understand your defence. Ok Sakho was 5 million. You've still spent exactly what I said, over 100 million.

    So I really don't understand my 'fluff'. You guys are the biggest money wasters and are underperforming compared to many other clubs as proven by your link.
    You aren't understanding my defence because you do not take in the context behind the statistics. Edit: Also you are the one changing your tune, because you said 'do Everton, Southampton and Swansea have 60 million? No' Well clearly they do lol.

    If our net spend is high, all that suggests is that we are buying and retaining our assets, compared to other clubs who spend and sell. If we buy Payet, then sell him and replace him with another player, that's worse than buying payet, retaining Payet and buying another good player. We may be slightly underperforming, but mid table is the same as all the other clubs you suggest are miles ahead of us.

    You had a list of ten or so players. I told you how much we paid for them, roughly 60 million which was correct.

    Your reply to that added in several new players and took away others that you miscalculated the cost of like Nolan and Reid, and the overall cost came to a lot more. Well no ****, you changed the list of players lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrostyLemon)
    You aren't understanding my defence because you do not take in the context behind the statistics. Edit: Also you are the one changing your tune, because you said 'do Everton, Southampton and Swansea have 60 million? No' Well clearly they do lol.

    If our net spend is high, all that suggests is that we are buying and retaining our assets, compared to other clubs who spend and sell. If we buy Payet, then sell him and replace him with another player, that's worse than buying payet, retaining Payet and buying another good player. We may be slightly underperforming, but mid table is the same as all the other clubs you suggest are miles ahead of us.

    You had a list of ten or so players. I told you how much we paid for them, roughly 60 million which was correct.

    Your reply to that added in several new players and took away others that you miscalculated the cost of like Nolan and Reid, and the overall cost came to a lot more. Well no ****, you changed the list of players lol.
    You're delusional and somewhat confused. They do NOT have the money West Ham have/have had. That's why their net spend is 1/5 of West Ham's. What about that can't you understand? They are financing their team by selling their assets at the right time to sustain themselves.

    You keep implying that West Ham chose to retain their players. That can only mean that they do have more money than others unlikes Southampton, Everton etc who have to sell to sustain. But secondly, you are also deluding yourself into thinking West Ham have assets wanted by the top clubs. Name me 5 players who are hot in demand in the last 3/4 years? I can't think of one player.

    Well 60 million was incorrect. It's also been shown not just by me, but by the link you posted.

    Jarvis was 10.75 million
    Valencia 12 million
    Carroll 17.5 million.

    That's 3 players alone who cost you £40 million alone. Do you want me to post proof of their total fee cost or something? So how can you say you spent 60 million in 4 years or so? It's clearly factually incorrect as shown by your link.

    Huh? I didn't put in Nolan or Reid at all. I said they are/were on big wages. Are you thick or something?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't been into football for a long time, but the two English clubs I've always hated were Arsenal and Liverpool.


    It always made me laugh when Arsenal fans said their brand of football was beautiful like England's answer to CF Barcelona, it's like your mama telling you, you're gonna be getting an Xbox for your birthday and come the day, she draws the letter X on an old shoebox from the cupboard and is like 'This is what you were expecting right?'


    Arsenal are the old shoebox in case this is unclear.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    You're delusional and somewhat confused.
    Let's break down your idiocy step by step because you obviously need spoon feeding.

    1.

    "They do NOT have the money West Ham have/have had."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-10295701.html

    Ooo what a suprise, hardly anything between West Ham, Southampton, Everton and Swansea.

    Now if Southampton, Swansea and Everton want to sell all their assets that's fine by them, personally I think selling your best players is something that should be avoided. Southampton will only be able to get away with it for so long.

    2.

    "You keep implying that West Ham chose to retain their players. That can only mean that they do have more money than others unlikes Southampton, Everton etc who have to sell to sustain."

    No it means we value our assets and want to invest in the squad. Southampton do not have to sell to sustain anything, they were spending millions down in league 1 and have a billionaire owner.

    3.

    "Name me 5 players who are hot in demand in the last 3/4 years? I can't think of one player."

    Valencia

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...target-5841569

    Song

    http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...rack-alex-song

    Sakho

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...fra-Sakho.html

    Reid

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...-backline.html

    Creswell

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/20/chelse...r-20m-5157696/

    Now go hide under a bridge you ****ing troll.

    4.

    In this quote

    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    little money? Carroll? Payet? Moses? Song? Valencia? Sakho? Winston Reid recently got a bumper contract.

    Saying West Ham have little money is a lie. They've just wasted it on crap like Downing, Jarvis, Nolan, Carroll, Kouyate, Maiga etc etc
    According to this website the following players that you mentioned are worth:
    http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team...Tabs=transfers

    Carroll: 15,000,000
    Payet: 10,700,000
    Moses: 0
    Song: 0
    Valencia: 12,000,000
    Sakho: undisclosed
    Reid: undisclosed, though to be 1,000,000
    Downing: 5,000,000
    Jarvis: 7,500,000
    Nolan: 3,00,000
    Kouyate: 7,000,000
    Maiga: 4,700,000

    I'll even calculate it for you.

    = 65,900,000

    That's just made the 10% wiggle room boundary of my guesstimation. Once again. **** of under a bridge and take your incompetence with you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrostyLemon)
    Let's break down your idiocy step by step because you obviously need spoon feeding.

    1.

    "They do NOT have the money West Ham have/have had."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-10295701.html

    Ooo what a suprise, hardly anything between West Ham, Southampton, Everton and Swansea.

    Now if Southampton, Swansea and Everton want to sell all their assets that's fine by them, personally I think selling your best players is something that should be avoided. Southampton will only be able to get away with it for so long.

    2.

    "You keep implying that West Ham chose to retain their players. That can only mean that they do have more money than others unlikes Southampton, Everton etc who have to sell to sustain."

    No it means we value our assets and want to invest in the squad. Southampton do not have to sell to sustain anything, they were spending millions down in league 1 and have a billionaire owner.

    3.

    "Name me 5 players who are hot in demand in the last 3/4 years? I can't think of one player."

    Valencia

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...target-5841569

    Song

    http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...rack-alex-song

    Sakho

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...fra-Sakho.html

    Reid

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...-backline.html

    Creswell

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/20/chelse...r-20m-5157696/

    Now go hide under a bridge you ****ing troll.

    4.

    In this quote



    According to this website the following players that you mentioned are worth:
    http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team...Tabs=transfers

    Carroll: 15,000,000
    Payet: 10,700,000
    Moses: 0
    Song: 0
    Valencia: 12,000,000
    Sakho: undisclosed
    Reid: undisclosed, though to be 1,000,000
    Downing: 5,000,000
    Jarvis: 7,500,000
    Nolan: 3,00,000
    Kouyate: 7,000,000
    Maiga: 4,700,000

    I'll even calculate it for you.

    = 65,900,000

    That's just made the 10% wiggle room boundary of my guesstimation. Once again. **** of under a bridge and take your incompetence with you.
    1. Revenue in one season? Revenue? Revenue means nothing. Revenue doesn't take into account expenses. So what good is revenue? What if Everton's PROFIT was less than West Ham's? And besides you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that as football clubs are businesses, they have their liabilities and debts. Everton's revenue is 4 million more than West Ham. What a difference! NOT. What if Everton have to repay more in liabilities and debts? You are trying to falsely suggest that you are all on an even keel in terms of purchasing power - because let's remember what the debate here was which you are drifting from, overspending on players, poor purchasing decisions and net spend on transfers. You cannot hide from net transfer spend - that says alot. Yet you pick out a clubs revenue stream ... such a terribly weak and substanceless point you have made here.

    2. Sorry buddy what assets? You don't have and have never had any Lallana's, Chamberlain's, Bale's, Walcott's, Schneiderlin's, Shaw's, Chambers' etc etc for a hell of a long time. Stop dreaming - you don't have players that are wanted by bigger clubs and they could be bought in a flash if they were genuinely wanted. Your delusion in suggesting WH can retain their players if they wish, is frankly laughable. Player power, son. Educate yourself.

    3. Is this serious? You are using gossip columns and newspapers to suggest that some of your players are wanted by bigger clubs (something that newspapers do every day with tons of players) - yet you CANNOT name me one single player in the last 5 years who has elevated himself from West Ham to a bigger club. Also you are failing to consider that alot of rumours are agents haggling for better contracts for their players. The fact that you believe these rumours highlights your delusion. I mean who is proving actual evidence here? You cannot even name me a player who has gone higher than WH in recent years to a big club. Noone wants your players buddy.

    4.

    Shall I add some truth to that? Carroll was 17.5 and a quick google finds beyond his transfer fee he has cost the club about £45 million in total. But transfer fee total is 17.5 including payment for loans - something you have completely ignored for Moses. Are you that stupid to think you haven't paid a loan fee for Moses? If so, you are deluded.

    Matt Jarvis 7.5 million - A quick google search shows that was the upfront fee. 3 years later with 78 games under his belt will have paid closer to the 10.75 total amount.

    Song - Find it very hard to believe you paid nothing. He had 2 years left on Barca contract.

    So let us start again with truth -

    Payet 10.7
    Carroll 17.5
    Valencia 12
    Sakho - i will be kind to you and say 5 even though I believe it to be more
    Downing 5
    Maiga 4.7
    Moses 2
    Kouyate 7.5
    Jarvis meet midway at 9 (no way has it stayed at 7.5 and you know that too)
    Nolan 4
    Reid 1
    Cresswell 3.75 (+ clauses)
    Obiang 4.4
    Jelavic 3
    Antonio 7
    Ogbonna 8.5

    Total = £105.05 - This list doesn't include Zarate, Song, Amalfitano and other players in the last 4/5 years who are not in the squad anymore! You cannot even challenge any of those fees. They are exact other than Sakho and Moses, for which I have been very very kind with Sakho.

    So try reel yourself out of that one muppet? You are truly delusional. Other than the biggest clubs in England (Manc clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool) YOU HAVE THE BIGGEST NET SPEND IN THE LAST 5 YEARS AND HAVE ACHIEVED COMPARATIVELY LESS THAN MANY LESSER CLUBS WHO HAVE NOT HAD ANYWHERE NEAR WEST HAM'S NET SPEND. Dimwit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    1. Revenue in one season?
    "Revenue? Revenue means nothing. Revenue doesn't take into account expenses. So what good is revenue? What if Everton's PROFIT was less than West Ham's? And besides you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that as football clubs are businesses, they have their liabilities and debts. Everton's revenue is 4 million more than West Ham. What a difference! NOT. What if Everton have to repay more in liabilities and debts? You are trying to falsely suggest that you are all on an even keel in terms of purchasing power - because let's remember what the debate here was which you are drifting from, overspending on players, poor purchasing decisions and net spend on transfers. You cannot hide from net transfer spend - that says alot. Yet you pick out a clubs revenue stream ... such a terribly weak and substanceless point you have made here."

    You can make up every scenario under the sun to justify what you want it to justify, the numbers speak for themselves. All you keep saying is 'what if', look at the numbers, revenue is similar and what we spend on players is similar.

    Omg you're an idiot. So does that mean Spurs who are bottom of that table have less money than us? That was the logic you were using earlier when you said West Ham had more money than Southampton, despite them having a billionaire owner. **** off you ****.



    "2. Sorry buddy what assets? You don't have and have never had any Lallana's, Chamberlain's, Bale's, Walcott's, Schneiderlin's, Shaw's, Chambers' etc etc for a hell of a long time. Stop dreaming - you don't have players that are wanted by bigger clubs and they could be bought in a flash if they were genuinely wanted. Your delusion in suggesting WH can retain their players if they wish, is frankly laughable. Player power, son. Educate yourself."

    So what Southampton have gone through a freak period where their academy has given them a river of money. We went through that back in the 2000s. Southampton are a tiny club, their players would rather move on to bigger and better things.


    "3. Is this serious? You are using gossip columns and newspapers to suggest that some of your players are wanted by bigger clubs (something that newspapers do every day with tons of players) - yet you CANNOT name me one single player in the last 5 years who has elevated himself from West Ham to a bigger club. Also you are failing to consider that alot of rumours are agents haggling for better contracts for their players. The fact that you believe these rumours highlights your delusion. I mean who is proving actual evidence here? You cannot even name me a player who has gone higher than WH in recent years to a big club. Noone wants your players buddy."

    Where else am I meant to show that top clubs are interested in our players? sorry I'm not a fly on the wall when agents are talking to clubs. What you are actually asking for then is impossible. How was I meant to prove that top clubs want our players other than looking at news reports of who they are interested in? ****ing mong.

    You keep changing the goalposts when you get proven wrong. But here are two Scott Parker and Demba Ba.

    "4.

    Shall I add some truth to that? Carroll was 17.5 and a quick google finds beyond his transfer fee he has cost the club about £45 million in total. proof But transfer fee total is 17.5 including payment for loans - something you have completely ignored for Moses. I can only look at the figures, you haven't provided any? Funny how you are including loans now because you are clutching at straws Are you that stupid to think you haven't paid a loan fee for Moses? If so, you are deluded.

    Matt Jarvis 7.5 million - A quick google search shows that was the upfront fee. 3 years later with 78 games under his belt will have paid closer to the 10.75 total amount. Proof. You don't know the details of that, so making it up

    Song - Find it very hard to believe you paid nothing. He had 2 years left on Barca contract. Proof once again spouting your fluff.

    So let us start again with truth - by adding more players to your original argument lol

    Payet 10.7
    Carroll 17.5
    Valencia 12
    Sakho - i will be kind to you and say 5 even though I believe lol believe it to be more
    Downing 5
    Maiga 4.7
    Moses 2 added
    Kouyate 7.5
    Jarvis meet midway at 9 (no way has it stayed at 7.5 and you know that too)
    Nolan 4
    Reid 1
    Cresswell 3.75 (+ clauses) added
    Obiang 4.4 added
    Jelavic 3 added
    Antonio 7 added
    Ogbonna 8.5 added

    Total = £105.05 - This list doesn't include Zarate, Song, Amalfitano and other players in the last 4/5 years who are not in the squad anymore! You cannot even challenge any of those fees. They are exact other than Sakho and Moses, for which I have been very very kind with Sakho.

    irrelevant because I was talking about the players you mentioned originally. You must have **** reading comprehension.


    So try reel yourself out of that one muppet? You are truly delusional. Other than the biggest clubs in England (Manc clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool) YOU HAVE THE BIGGEST NET SPEND IN THE LAST 5 YEARS AND HAVE ACHIEVED COMPARATIVELY LESS THAN MANY LESSER CLUBS WHO HAVE NOT HAD ANYWHERE NEAR WEST HAM'S NET SPEND. Dimwit.

    Why are you so obsessed with net spend? All it shows is that we spend and retain. Other comparable clubs like Everton, Southampton and Swansea spend the same amount (Southampton actually spent 75 million more) but sell their best players. We all ended up mid table. Why is this so hard for you?

    When you actually show the facts can you come back, because its all what ifs and I believes. If you don't come back with any sources then I will ignore your next post as your'e lazy and desperate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hey Vergeofinsanity I thought West Ham were dull and ****?

    Beat Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City away lol? **** off.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrostyLemon)
    "Revenue? Revenue means nothing. Revenue doesn't take into account expenses. So what good is revenue? What if Everton's PROFIT was less than West Ham's? And besides you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that as football clubs are businesses, they have their liabilities and debts. Everton's revenue is 4 million more than West Ham. What a difference! NOT. What if Everton have to repay more in liabilities and debts? You are trying to falsely suggest that you are all on an even keel in terms of purchasing power - because let's remember what the debate here was which you are drifting from, overspending on players, poor purchasing decisions and net spend on transfers. You cannot hide from net transfer spend - that says alot. Yet you pick out a clubs revenue stream ... such a terribly weak and substanceless point you have made here."

    You can make up every scenario under the sun to justify what you want it to justify, the numbers speak for themselves. All you keep saying is 'what if', look at the numbers, revenue is similar and what we spend on players is similar.

    Omg you're an idiot. So does that mean Spurs who are bottom of that table have less money than us? That was the logic you were using earlier when you said West Ham had more money than Southampton, despite them having a billionaire owner. **** off you ****.



    "2. Sorry buddy what assets? You don't have and have never had any Lallana's, Chamberlain's, Bale's, Walcott's, Schneiderlin's, Shaw's, Chambers' etc etc for a hell of a long time. Stop dreaming - you don't have players that are wanted by bigger clubs and they could be bought in a flash if they were genuinely wanted. Your delusion in suggesting WH can retain their players if they wish, is frankly laughable. Player power, son. Educate yourself."

    So what Southampton have gone through a freak period where their academy has given them a river of money. We went through that back in the 2000s. Southampton are a tiny club, their players would rather move on to bigger and better things.


    "3. Is this serious? You are using gossip columns and newspapers to suggest that some of your players are wanted by bigger clubs (something that newspapers do every day with tons of players) - yet you CANNOT name me one single player in the last 5 years who has elevated himself from West Ham to a bigger club. Also you are failing to consider that alot of rumours are agents haggling for better contracts for their players. The fact that you believe these rumours highlights your delusion. I mean who is proving actual evidence here? You cannot even name me a player who has gone higher than WH in recent years to a big club. Noone wants your players buddy."

    Where else am I meant to show that top clubs are interested in our players? sorry I'm not a fly on the wall when agents are talking to clubs. What you are actually asking for then is impossible. How was I meant to prove that top clubs want our players other than looking at news reports of who they are interested in? ****ing mong.

    You keep changing the goalposts when you get proven wrong. But here are two Scott Parker and Demba Ba.

    "4.

    Shall I add some truth to that? Carroll was 17.5 and a quick google finds beyond his transfer fee he has cost the club about £45 million in total. proof But transfer fee total is 17.5 including payment for loans - something you have completely ignored for Moses. I can only look at the figures, you haven't provided any? Funny how you are including loans now because you are clutching at straws Are you that stupid to think you haven't paid a loan fee for Moses? If so, you are deluded.

    Matt Jarvis 7.5 million - A quick google search shows that was the upfront fee. 3 years later with 78 games under his belt will have paid closer to the 10.75 total amount. Proof. You don't know the details of that, so making it up

    Song - Find it very hard to believe you paid nothing. He had 2 years left on Barca contract. Proof once again spouting your fluff.

    So let us start again with truth - by adding more players to your original argument lol

    Payet 10.7
    Carroll 17.5
    Valencia 12
    Sakho - i will be kind to you and say 5 even though I believe lol believe it to be more
    Downing 5
    Maiga 4.7
    Moses 2 added
    Kouyate 7.5
    Jarvis meet midway at 9 (no way has it stayed at 7.5 and you know that too)
    Nolan 4
    Reid 1
    Cresswell 3.75 (+ clauses) added
    Obiang 4.4 added
    Jelavic 3 added
    Antonio 7 added
    Ogbonna 8.5 added

    Total = £105.05 - This list doesn't include Zarate, Song, Amalfitano and other players in the last 4/5 years who are not in the squad anymore! You cannot even challenge any of those fees. They are exact other than Sakho and Moses, for which I have been very very kind with Sakho.

    irrelevant because I was talking about the players you mentioned originally. You must have **** reading comprehension.

    So try reel yourself out of that one muppet? You are truly delusional. Other than the biggest clubs in England (Manc clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool) YOU HAVE THE BIGGEST NET SPEND IN THE LAST 5 YEARS AND HAVE ACHIEVED COMPARATIVELY LESS THAN MANY LESSER CLUBS WHO HAVE NOT HAD ANYWHERE NEAR WEST HAM'S NET SPEND. Dimwit.

    Why are you so obsessed with net spend? All it shows is that we spend and retain. Other comparable clubs like Everton, Southampton and Swansea spend the same amount (Southampton actually spent 75 million more) but sell their best players. We all ended up mid table. Why is this so hard for you?

    When you actually show the facts can you come back, because its all what ifs and I believes. If you don't come back with any sources then I will ignore your next post as your'e lazy and desperate.
    I've other things to do than waste a long time writing a huge response. But what was was my argument with West Ham? I was saying that they buy 2nd rate players, overspend and I estimated that they must have one of the higher net spends. Your link, proved me to be exactly right.

    I can't understand why you bring revenue into the discussion? What has revenue got to do with anything? My argument never centred on how much money the clubs bring in. My argument was that CONSIDERING the transfer activities of West Ham - they are underperforming. What part of that is so hard to understand? You highlight Everton's revenue as being 4 million more. Apart from the fact that the figure is so utterly small and irrelevant, why do you think this has any significance when Everton's net spend on transfers was 1/5th of West Ham's? What does that tell you on a simple business level? It tells you that Everton have other prioritisations for which their revenue must go to first - whatever they may be. Furthermore, what if some chairmans can bankroll a club more than another? You are not thinking things through properly.Yes some club owner may be richer than Sullivan and Gold but if they are not releasing money that doesn't mean those clubs are underachieving. It means they are overachieving considering that their net spend is low. So what is your point exactly about that?

    What kind of an illogical saying is that 'what the clubs spend is similar' without considering what Everton made in transfer sales? You're not thinking with any balance or any consideration that these clubs are businesses. You are blindly saying illogical things that make no sense. It's quite obvious that you have to take into consideration the sales as well as the purchases. If you spent similar but Everton sold almost just as much then why did they not spend double what they spent? That's because they didn't have the money for it! Going back to the importance of their sales and how that facilitates purchase. You either cannot see this (which would be worrying) or choosing to ignore it because it completely crushes your argument.

    You really are a laugh, that's laughing at you. Demba BA and Scott Parker HAHA. Ye real big shots.

    I pity how utterly stupid you are. You provide me a link crushing your own argument! Then you twist the argument into how much revenue these clubs made when I am talking about their transfer dealings. You tell me the top clubs want your players but in 5 years you name me Scott Parker and Demba Ba. You tell me your club spent 60 million even though the link that YOU provided says you spent £100 million odd, which I have further evidenced. Then you have the cheek to suggest I am clutching at straws with some players, ignoring the fact that removing these players just to be kind to you, your spend is still 90 mill +. You must be a real laugh on a night out with the ****e you talk.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    I've other things to do than waste a long time writing a huge response. But what was was my argument with West Ham? I was saying that they buy 2nd rate players, overspend and I estimated that they must have one of the higher net spends. Your link, proved me to be exactly right.

    I can't understand why you bring revenue into the discussion? What has revenue got to do with anything? My argument never centred on how much money the clubs bring in. My argument was that CONSIDERING the transfer activities of West Ham - they are underperforming. What part of that is so hard to understand? You highlight Everton's revenue as being 4 million more. Apart from the fact that the figure is so utterly small and irrelevant, why do you think this has any significance when Everton's net spend on transfers was 1/5th of West Ham's? What does that tell you on a simple business level? It tells you that Everton have other prioritisations for which their revenue must go to first - whatever they may be. Furthermore, what if some chairmans can bankroll a club more than another? You are not thinking things through properly.Yes some club owner may be richer than Sullivan and Gold but if they are not releasing money that doesn't mean those clubs are underachieving. It means they are overachieving considering that their net spend is low. So what is your point exactly about that?

    What kind of an illogical saying is that 'what the clubs spend is similar' without considering what Everton made in transfer sales? You're not thinking with any balance or any consideration that these clubs are businesses. You are blindly saying illogical things that make no sense. It's quite obvious that you have to take into consideration the sales as well as the purchases. If you spent similar but Everton sold almost just as much then why did they not spend double what they spent? That's because they didn't have the money for it! Going back to the importance of their sales and how that facilitates purchase. You either cannot see this (which would be worrying) or choosing to ignore it because it completely crushes your argument.

    You really are a laugh, that's laughing at you. Demba BA and Scott Parker HAHA. Ye real big shots.

    I pity how utterly stupid you are. You provide me a link crushing your own argument! Then you twist the argument into how much revenue these clubs made when I am talking about their transfer dealings. You tell me the top clubs want your players but in 5 years you name me Scott Parker and Demba Ba. You tell me your club spent 60 million even though the link that YOU provided says you spent £100 million odd, which I have further evidenced. Then you have the cheek to suggest I am clutching at straws with some players, ignoring the fact that removing these players just to be kind to you, your spend is still 90 mill +. You must be a real laugh on a night out with the ****e you talk.
    I have edited this:

    You don't want to waste your time with big responses lol? You don't want to waste your time finding references because your argument will implode.No sources, nothing to back up your opinion. You ignore the points I put forward that you're too scared to deal with and change the goal posts. What on earth could be more important to Everton than buying players and paying their wages lol? The tea ladies bonus? Why you put so much importance on net transfer spend I'll never know, as if this is a clubs only means of income and poor old Everton and Southampton have to sell before they can buy. Forgetting Sky money, owners investment, income from sponsers and merch. None of that is taken into account in transfer net spend and your whole argument is based around those clubs having to sell players to buy more, what rubbish. All it shows is player ins and outs, it provides no indicator of a clubs financial health. Does that mean Spurs are on their knees and constantly having to sell to buy? You're a waste of time debating with. It is actually worrying how poor your reading comprehension is. That's the last you're getting from me. I suppose you'll ignore our win at Man City? I suppose we are still 'dull'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Revenue pays for many things. First you subtract the expenses to find your profit. From your profit you allocate money to different things and some things naturally come first. Paying to shareholders/dividends, payng staff wages, paying off current liabilities or maybe long term liabilities, perhaps staidum improvement or investment etc etc and then transfer dealings. Transfer budget is a small portion of the profit made, after expenses are subtracted from revenue.

    Of the transfer budget it is clear to see how West Ham in the last 5 years have had a bigger budget to buy players than most other clubs. That is essentially what net spend is.

    Example - last 5 years

    West Ham
    Purchases - £109 million
    Sales - £16.5 million

    Everton
    Purchases - £101 million
    Sales - £80.8 million

    In other words, Everton received £64.3 million extra in sales than West Ham. In other words Everton would need to spend £165 million to have the same total expenditure as West Ham in transfers. Clearly, West Ham's budget is far higher. Now why don't you give Everton back those players they sold for £64.3 million or even give them an extra £64.3 million to even things up and see how they fare? And now you should see why they are overperforming in the last few years and you have been underperforming.

    'None of that is taken into account in transfer net spend and your whole argument is based around those clubs having to sell players to buy more, what rubbish.'

    So if it is rubbish then why is it rubbish? I don't know ,you tell me. Maybe the chairman is lining his pockets. That still means Everton are overachieving with the budget given for transfers. Can you not see that? Yes it might mean Bill Kenwright is a selfish ******* who Everton want out. Yet, given their transfer budget they are doing very well.

    You keep talking about the finances of the club as a whole, I never ever made that the subject of my argument so why you keep returning to it, only you know. My argument centres around 1 aspect of the profits retained, the transfers and the budget given for it.

    Congrats on your win at Man City, but yes you are still a dull side but I suspect maybe improving with Moses and Payet. Remove those 2 players though and it's same dull WH for sure.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)
    Revenue pays for many things. First you subtract the expenses to find your profit. From your profit you allocate money to different things and some things naturally come first. Paying to shareholders/dividends, payng staff wages, paying off current liabilities or maybe long term liabilities, perhaps staidum improvement or investment etc etc and then transfer dealings. Transfer budget is a small portion of the profit made, after expenses are subtracted from revenue.

    Of the transfer budget it is clear to see how West Ham in the last 5 years have had a bigger budget to buy players than most other clubs. That is essentially what net spend is.

    You can't assume what the budget is, all you can say is what we have spent. Everton's budget may have been significantly higher than what they've actually spent on players. There's no way of knowing that. The only information we have is that West Ham spent £109 million on players and Everton spent £101 million.


    Example - last 5 years

    West Ham
    Purchases - £109 million
    Sales - £16.5 million

    Everton
    Purchases - £101 million
    Sales - £80.8 million

    In other words, Everton received £64.3 million extra in sales than West Ham. In other words Everton would need to spend £165 million to have the same total expenditure as West Ham in transfers.

    How did you get that figure? West Ham's expenditure on transfers is £109 million...


    Clearly, West Ham's budget is far higher. Now why don't you give Everton back those players they sold for £64.3 million or even give them an extra £64.3 million to even things up and see how they fare? And now you should see why they are overperforming in the last few years and you have been underperforming.


    Until you answer the above, I will wait to address this.


    So if it is rubbish then why is it rubbish? I don't know ,you tell me. Maybe the chairman is lining his pockets. That still means Everton are overachieving with the budget given for transfers. Can you not see that? Yes it might mean Bill Kenwright is a selfish ******* who Everton want out. Yet, given their transfer budget they are doing very well.


    It is rubbish because you can't assume you know what the budget for transfers is. It seems like this is being made overly complicated for no reason.

    West ham bought £109 million worth of players and sold players for £18 million. That tells me West Ham have bought and held onto their players for whatever reason, they might be rubbish, they might be good at holding onto their players, who knows it's all conjecture.

    Everton bought £101 million worth of players and sold players for £80 million. That tells me that Everton bought a lot of players and sold quite a lot of their players for whatever reason, they might be amazing, maybe Everton are bad at holding onto their players, we can only speculate what they did with the money.

    Everton and West Ham both finished on 47 points last year. What that tells me is that despite selling a lot of their players, Everton were able to perform to the same standard as West Ham despite selling £80 million pounds of players, compared to West Ham's £18 million.

    That doesn't take into account the fact that Everton have been in the Premier League for decades and have been relatively settled. This could have helped them accumulate a squad that has a higher overall worth than West Ham's. We on the other hand have had to essentially start from scratch with a poor squad and invest in order to finish in the league at a similar standard to Everton.



    You keep talking about the finances of the club as a whole, I never ever made that the subject of my argument so why you keep returning to it, only you know. My argument centres around 1 aspect of the profits retained, the transfers and the budget given for it.

    Previously you stated that teams like Everton had to sell players in order to buy, whereas West Ham had enough funds to buy without selling. I want to see your proof for this statement, because net spend on transfers doesn't cut it. Transfers aren't the only means of income for clubs, so you can draw nothing from that grid about the financial muscle of either club.


    Congrats on your win at Man City, but yes you are still a dull side but I suspect maybe improving with Moses and Payet. Remove those 2 players though and it's same dull WH for sure.
    Still haven't told me who you support.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrostyLemon)
    Still haven't told me who you support.
    You are a very very stubborn person. Gosh. Don't worry pal, you win.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Well well well football clubs being analysed on their net spend as a benchmark for overperformance/underperformance!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34325667

    Who would have thought eh! Perhaps now you understand the importance of net spend...then again, perhaps not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    #itsaboutnetspend
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Don't talk about spend

    Still not even the biggest load of *******s to come out of his mouth.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VergeofInsanity)

    As for West Ham, they are surely the dullest football club to be gracing the Premier League in recent times. They appear to have no purpose or strategy other than sign second rate African footballers and journeymen English players who are past it or on the way down. Granted it might change with Moses an potentially Payet now on the scene, but they are so dull and have no personality. Terrible football club in terms of their business also with a fantastically bad track record of overpaying for crap and inflated wage packets. Only second best to QPR.

    Thoughts?
    What a mug...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the arsenal one :rofl:
    Just ******* shoot the ball dont try and walk it in the net
    With West Ham i actually admire them they have had a good season
    Beating teams like Arsenal,Tottenham,Liverpool,Chel sea,Man City and Man United :eek:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Let me reiterate: nobody cares about Upton Park. The media is hyping West Ham leaving because such a large proportion of journalists are Londoners, and West Ham fans.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mackay)
    Let me reiterate: nobody cares about Upton Park. The media is hyping West Ham leaving because such a large proportion of journalists are Londoners, and West Ham fans.
    So true. I feel as though every West Game home game this season has started with "only X games left at this cathedral of football"...

    No-one gives a **** that your little dump is closing down. Be grateful that you're getting a new taxpayer funded stadium and stop expecting everyone to join you in revering your old one.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.