Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Arsenal ruining the Premiership / England team
- Thread starter Del Boy
- Start date
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,200
Yes but teams like Fulham ,Reading and Portsmouth are only averaging 2/3.Its hardly much better is it?
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
english players are overpriced, if i was a football manager i wouldn't touch any of them when you can get foreign players who are just as good for less money
darren bent cos what? £16m?! madness
darren bent cos what? £16m?! madness
- Thread starter
- #5
Yes they are much better, about 7 TIMES better.
Football players are in a competitive market. Foreign players are cheaper for a given level of ability. Wenger HAD tight funds when they were at highbury and so bought cheap players. Top work from him I'd say, to become that successful.
After all, if you had the choice of buying two cars, both giving you the same degree of satisfaction, but one was cheaper, which one would you buy?
After all, if you had the choice of buying two cars, both giving you the same degree of satisfaction, but one was cheaper, which one would you buy?
Simon Morgan
New member
Arsenal are NOT ruining the premiership. They don't spend half as much as Chelsea and Man U. Although the players aren't necessarily English, I still respect Arsenal's policy of investing in potential talent.
Withdean Wanderer
Banned
Hang on, hang on.
Are you suggesting Man U/Chelsea ARE ruining the premiership, for investing in potential talent AND English players, and as a result spending more?
Last edited:
Simon Morgan
New member
Hang on, hang on.
Are you suggestin Man U/Chelsea ARE ruining the premiership, for investing in potential talent AND English players, and as a result spending more?
Hang on hang on, I don't think I actually said that anywhere. Although Man U and Chelsea buy more English players, I have more respect for Arsenal, as they tend to buy more unknown players who inevitably carry a greater risk with them. Of course Utd and Chelsea's purchase of English players helps the national team, but their inability to play as a team makes that all a bit irrelevant.
Withdean Wanderer
Banned
Fair enough. It sounds like United are taking a lead out of Arsenals book and signing up young 16-19 year olds from all over the globe, obviously impressed by Arsenal's success.
Looks like Chelsea will just continue to spend big on anyone they fancy though!
Simon Morgan
New member
Indeed, United are the better of the two in terms of investing in talent. Sorry for my confrontational tone, I am rather drunk!
Which is what I personally think is ruining the Premiership (amongst other things!)
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
wenger has ALWAYS been the best investor in talent as he simply hasn't had the funding at his disposal in comparison to firstly united, and later chelsea
look at the profit he made on the likes of vieira and anelka
he hasn't done it with english players because he can get better players elsewhere for cheaper- SIMPLE
what has to be asked is, however, why ARE english players so overpriced?!
look at the profit he made on the likes of vieira and anelka
he hasn't done it with english players because he can get better players elsewhere for cheaper- SIMPLE
what has to be asked is, however, why ARE english players so overpriced?!
Simon Morgan
New member
It is quite amazing. The fact that D Bent cost about 6m MORE than Berbatov tells a story in itself! He'd only had a couple of good premiership seasons! I also think the £15m price tags being put on Bentley and Barry are crazy
Much how it pains me to say it thats spot on.
Would you rather spend 500k on a baca youngster or 1 million on a Luton player?
The money smaller clubs ask for for some players is silly, like someone said 16million on bent or less that a 1/4 of that on santa cruz?
Plus when Wenger has spent money on English players they turn out to be pretty average.
drew
Drew
Easy to pick Bent as an example but ask yourself how much Charlton made on the deal. Now see how much Spurs will make when they sell Berbatov on. What's the difference.
Also, with regard to Man Utd and Chelsea, which English talent have they brought on in the last 3/4 years. Can't think of any. They may buy English but they don't seem to be the ones developing the kids.
Peppermint Tea
Well-known member
- Aug 31, 2007
- 1,182
It's all down to Jimmy Hill and his wage-cap breaking strike...
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Indeed. Not only has this boom lead to an influx of the worlds best, pushing out the English players that do not stand a chance in academies etc.
One might consider the issue of young players such as Nathan Dyer or Bradley Wright-Phillips are on £8k+ a week then there is something desperately wrong with football. Where is the incentive to improve oneself or reach for the stars when they have more than enough money already?
Obviously Dyer and Wright-Phillips are just two examples and presumably not good enough to make the England team, but the ideal stands.
There was a very good article by David James on how the game has changed. He said more often than not you get youngsters with the attitude that they have made it. They buy fast cars, flashy earrings and lead a celebrity lifestyle instead of getting their head down and really working on their talent.