(Not hypothetical anymore) Leicester win the league!

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't have the particulars since I heard it a good few years back, but from the late 80s to early 90s I believe a number of clubs outspent Man Utd, if I recall Everton were the highest spenders over the timeframe, and the first year Man Utd had the highest net spending from when Alex Ferguson took over was... 1998/99.

Would need to double check that though, because like I said it was a few years back that I heard/saw/read/whatever it.

Anyone who thinks ManU didn't break the bank during the early years of Fergsuons reign clearly doesn't remember that time. It was just transfer after transfer, McClair, Anderson, Parker, Wallace, Parker, Dublin, Ince, Donaghy, Phelan, Webb, Hughes, Bruce, Leighton etc. etc. Everton and Liverpool spent big but didn't go for the "buy everyone in sight" approach favoured by Ferguson.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who thinks ManU didn't break the bank during the early years of Fergsuons reign clearly doesn't remember that time. It was just transfer after transfer, McClair, Anderson, Parker, Wallace, Parker, Dublin, Ince, Donaghy, Phelan, Webb, Hughes, Bruce, Leighton etc. etc. Everton and Liverpool spent big but didn't go for the "buy everyone in sight" approach favoured by Ferguson.

At work so I can't look it up now, but like I said - and I'll need to check it because it was a few years back - that other clubs had a higher net spend.


HOWEVER -- for all the transfer fee talk, people frequently ignore transfer outgoings and looking at net spend. Even less though, do people look at wages. I am pretty sure that Man Utd were right near the top on that front, and around the same time I read the above about spendings in the 80s, it also pointed out that you can almost calculate who will win the league off of who has spent the most on wages in the 2-3 seasons prior (so long as they didn't just sell key players). United dominated this in the 90s, Blackburn also lived up to it, in the United/Chelsea/City years it was true again. Even when Arsenal won, while their wage bill was not as high they had other ways of mitigating that (offshore accounts for players etc). Mind you I would have read this at least 3-4 years ago, so it would only count up to then, and Leicester have obviously completely blown that trend out of the water (or Spurs if they win it).

Korat

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who thinks ManU didn't break the bank during the early years of Fergsuons reign clearly doesn't remember that time. It was just transfer after transfer, McClair, Anderson, Parker, Wallace, Parker, Dublin, Ince, Donaghy, Phelan, Webb, Hughes, Bruce, Leighton etc. etc. Everton and Liverpool spent big but didn't go for the "buy everyone in sight" approach favoured by Ferguson.

Ahh come off it that's over 7 years.

If you're going to complain about buying in a team, even if it's funded from the club's own resources, then the Leeds Utd side of 1992 is probably the worst example.

They bought the whole team in 1990-91. Utd's team building was organic by comparison.

Korat

Korat wrote: »

They bought the whole team in 1990-91. Utd's team building was organic by comparison.

Um, Gary Speed and David Batty? You surely have heard of them?

At ManU that season afair, the only player who featured regularly who came up through the system was Clayton Blackmore, while Lee Martin got the odd run.

thebaz

Business Cat wrote: »

So Forest bought the league?

I never said that - I said Forest were a relative big cup back then , able to lure best manager and player in England (if you bothered to read my post

Dirty Dingus McGee

thebaz wrote: »

I never said that - I said Forest were a relative big cup back then , able to lure best manager and player in England (if you bothered to read my post

They were in the second division when Clough joined them.Thy were hardly that big a club.

thebaz

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

They were in the second division when Clough joined them.Thy were hardly that big a club.

well in comparison to Leicester today they were big - Leicesters spending relative to Man Utd , Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal never mind City and Chelsea is small - Forest could afford to break transfer record at time

Korat

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, Gary Speed and David Batty? You surely have heard of them?

At ManU that season afair, the only player who featured regularly who came up through the system was Clayton Blackmore, while Lee Martin got the odd run.

What's your point again?

Do you have a problem with teams buying too many players or just Man Utd?

Liam McPoyle

thebaz wrote: »

I never said that - I said Forest were a relative big cup back then , able to lure best manager and player in England (if you bothered to read my post

thebaz

Business Cat wrote: »

don't give up the day job

GreNoLi

thebaz wrote: »

don't give up the day job

'I say I say..'

Fr Tod Umptious

Just for trivia.

This time last year Leicester were still a month away from getting off the bottom of the table (18/04), and another week from getting out of the drop zone (25/04)

http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2014-2015/table/2015-04-18

Jayop

And just when you thought you couldn't possibly think less of Conor he comes into a football thread talking about "ManU" and Fergie buying the league.

K-9

Business Cat wrote: »

So Forest bought the league?

Think Francis joined the season after they won the league. IIRC the story was he hadn't been great for them but the winning goal in the EC final changed that!

I suppose it was a case of splashing the cash when they'd won the league, not so much actually winning it in the first place.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

And just when you thought you couldn't possibly think less of Conor he comes into a football thread talking about "ManU" and Fergie buying the league.

Jayop, whatever your issue with me is, and I think it's from a time you were arguing about poor Tyrone on a GAA thread, but you're gonna have to let the personal stuff go. All it says is that you're still rattled. That was months ago.

I find the suggestion that ManU are the standard bearers for not buying success laughable. I have pointed to all the times they broke the transfer records as evidence. You may disagree and say I have no right to be on a football thread...but it's not a great point.

Canadel

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the suggestion that ManU are the standard bearers for not buying success laughable. I have pointed to all the times they broke the transfer records as evidence. You may disagree and say I have no right to be on a football thread...but it's not a great point.

Utd are the standard bearers for buying failure for the last few years.

Korat

Korat wrote: »

What's your point again?

Do you have a problem with teams buying too many players or just Man Utd?

You suggested that Leeds had bought the entire team in 1990-91.

I pointed to Speed and Batty. Both of them were internationals. You must have heard of them.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

Jayop, whatever your issue with me is, and I think it's from a time you were arguing about poor Tyrone on a GAA thread, but you're gonna have to let the personal stuff go. All it says is that you're still rattled. That was months ago.

I find the suggestion that ManU are the standard bearers for not buying success laughable. I have pointed to all the times they broke the transfer records as evidence. You may disagree and say I have no right to be on a football thread...but it's not a great point.

I think it's fairly clear what my issue with you is and what I think of you so there's no point in me repeating it here and getting needlessly in trouble with the staff.

Edit: Where did I suggest you shouldn't be in a football forum?

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

I think it's fairly clear what my issue with you is and what I think of you so there's no point in me repeating it here and getting needlessly in trouble with the staff.

Edit: Where did I suggest you shouldn't be in a football forum?

It's not clear to me at all.

The topic is Leicester City. The suggestion was made that ManU were one club that didn't buy the league. I disagree with that. That is all. I have no opinion whatsoever about you, I may agree or disagree with your stance on individual issues but I have no thoughts about you other than that.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not clear to me at all.

The topic is Leicester City. The suggestion was made that ManU were one club that didn't buy the league. I disagree with that. That is all. I have no opinion whatsoever about you, I may agree or disagree with your stance on individual issues but I have no thoughts about you other than that.

I'll ask again. You said...

You may disagree and say I have no right to be on a football thread.

Where did I say or suggest that?


Also, why do you continue to refer to United as "ManU" when you are surely aware it's a term that is hugely unpopular with United fans?

Omackeral

Jayop wrote: »

Also, why do you continue to refer to United as "ManU" when you are surely aware it's a term that is hugely unpopular with United fans?

It is? Why? I've heard them called that plenty of times. What's wrong with it? It's just shorthand.

Jayop

Omackeral wrote: »

It is? Why? I've heard them called that plenty of times. What's wrong with it? It's just shorthand.

It's generally hated by United fans. It stems back to songs from rival fans about Munich and one about Edwards in particular. There's loads about it on the internet, but even a look in the Liverpool thread will show they don't even use ManU despite knowing it winds a load of people up.

Generally people who say it do so to get a reaction or because they're 6 year olds who know no different.

Have a look online. Loads of sources but that's the essence of it.

K-9

ManU was the abbreviation used in papers for the league table so carried over. Why I'm pointing that out on a Leicester thread I'm not quite sure!

Shame Wimbledon never won it, would have been some story.

Boskowski

Well in fairness to United their golden generation was nursed from pretty early on. They may not exactly be local fellas but at least they were with United since they were teenagers. They really built a spine that identified with United and vice versa.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

It is? Why? I've heard them called that plenty of times. What's wrong with it? It's just shorthand.

K-9 wrote: »

ManU was the abbreviation used in papers for the league table so carried over.

If you Google ManU, Manchester United comes up.

I guess me and Google are just part of some conspiracy!

Anyway, either way, the reason I brought up ManU was to laugh at the suggestion that the club that broke (or "smashed", another word Jayop has issues with) the transfer record repeatedly did not buy success.

They did.

Jayop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you Google ManU, Manchester United comes up.

I guess me and Google are just part of some conspiracy!

Anyway, either way, the reason I brought up ManU was to laugh at the suggestion that the club that broke (or "smashed", another word Jayop has issues with) the transfer record repeatedly did not buy success.

They did.

You're not much good at googling if can't find what I just told you.

And I'll ask again when did I say you shouldn't be posting in here?

Boskowski

Boskowski wrote: »

Well in fairness to United their golden generation was nursed from pretty early on. They may not exactly be local fellas but at least they were with United since they were teenagers. They really built a spine that identified with United and vice versa.

That is a valid point. They certainly did bring through a lot of talent at a certain stage in the mid 90s. But they were brought in to play beside those from the very expensive end of the market.

And all very different to the players Leicester brought in and brought through.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

And I'll ask again when did I say you shouldn't be posting in here?

Jayop wrote: »

And just when you thought you couldn't possibly think less of Conor he comes into a football thread...

Why did you raise the issue of me posting on a football thread?

Pawwed Rig

Will Leicester be able to keep the team together for next season? Already rumours about Mahrez going to Barca and Raneiri getting a big club.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Already rumours about Mahrez going to Barca...

Any figure mentioned?

For my money, the best thing Leicester have shown this season is the power of belief allied with a manager who knows how to get the most out of his players. It annoys me when people bang on about the Irish team, we have no players, they're all lower Premier league or championship standard, blah blah blah. Utter nonsense. As Iceland and NI showed at international level, you get competent players playing with enough belief and a semi decent manager, then you can punch above your weight.

Jayop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did you raise the issue of me posting on a football thread?

OK so I didn't say you shouldn't. Thanks

Dirty Dingus McGee

Deleted User wrote: »

Any figure mentioned?

For my money, the best thing Leicester have shown this season is the power of belief allied with a manager who knows how to get the most out of his players. It annoys me when people bang on about the Irish team, we have no players, they're all lower Premier league or championship standard, blah blah blah. Utter nonsense. As Iceland and NI showed at international level, you get competent players playing with enough belief and a semi decent manager, then you can punch above your weight.

Ireland have beaten the world champions in the last 6 months and have achieved as much than those 2 national teams you mentioned above.We have been punching above our weight so far.

I think some people get annoyed when certain people turn their noses up at effective but not necessarily the most attractive style of play and give the impression we should be playing like Barcelona do.

Also what Leicester are doing is being helped by a lot of teams under performing in the premier league and they're taking advantage of it.

Korat

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Also what Leicester are doing is being helped by a lot of teams under performing in the premier league and they're taking advantage of it.

When the underdogs succeeds it's as much to do with the opposition not performing as anything they do but, as you say, they have to put themselves in the position to take advantage if the unlikely opportunity presents itself.

Well done Leicester this season regardless of what happens next.

chopperbyrne

Regardless of who wins the league, Ranieri is nailed on for Manager of the Season.

ronjo

Deleted User wrote: »

You suggested that Leeds had bought the entire team in 1990-91.

I pointed to Speed and Batty. Both of them were internationals. You must have heard of them.

Arsenal won the league that year by the way.

bucketybuck

So if United buy some players over 5/6 years they have bought the league, but if Leeds had two homegrown players to start with they didn't buy the league?

Sound logic as usual.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

So if United buy some players over 5/6 years they have bought the league, but if Leeds had two homegrown players to start with they didn't buy the league?

Sound logic as usual.

One of those clubs repeatedly broke record after record in the 80s, their spending during Fergusons earlier years was massive.

The attempt by ManU fans play the poor mouth and point to Leeds as big spenders is hilarious. And also demonstrably nonsense by simply looking at transfer lists from the time.

Korat

You have to be careful trying to buy the league if you don't have an oligarch or arab sheikh to bail you out. Leeds tried to spend money they didn't have and look what happened to them.

Liverpool and Arsenal have spent big without success too but they were more responsible and didn't overextend themselves. Even Man Utd with their huge fanbase and commercial appeal are at risk of going the way of Leeds Utd if they try spend money they don't have but the oil money at Chelsea and Man City has perverted the natural risk in trying to buy success.

Billy86

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Regardless of who wins the league, Ranieri is nailed on for Manager of the Season.

Paddy were still giving 1/6 odds on him getting the award only a few days ago. It's the type of bet I always try to avoid, but if someone has a massive bankroll I would not at all blame them for putting a huge amount on it. So long as they finish top four I can't see it possibly going to anyone else, and they'd probably only need a small handful of points from their remaining games to achieve that, even if all the other teams hit a run of form.

mansize

Billy86 wrote: »

Paddy were still giving 1/6 odds on him getting the award only a few days ago. It's the type of bet I always try to avoid, but if someone has a massive bankroll I would not at all blame them for putting a huge amount on it. So long as they finish top four I can't see it possibly going to anyone else, and they'd probably only need a small handful of points from their remaining games to achieve that, even if all the other teams hit a run of form.

If Spurs win surely Potechino (so) deserves it?

astonaidan

mansize wrote: »

If Spurs win surely Potechino (so) deserves it?

I like him, but their is no way its going to anyone but Claudio. Spurs jump was what 4 places, Leicester like 17

mansize

If Spurs win the league- he deserves it

chopperbyrne

mansize wrote: »

If Spurs win the league- he deserves it

I don't think so.

Spurs winning the league if the clubs normally at the top under performed was conceivable at the start of the season, based on their progression anyway.

Leicester doing so, was not.

Billy86

mansize wrote: »

If Spurs win surely Potechino (so) deserves it?

Nah, I reckon finishing 1st with Spurs on 70-something points is not even that close to as big an accomplishment as finishing 2nd with Leicester on 70-something points.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

One of those clubs repeatedly broke record after record in the 80s, their spending during Fergusons earlier years was massive.

The attempt by ManU fans play the poor mouth and point to Leeds as big spenders is hilarious. And also demonstrably nonsense by simply looking at transfer lists from the time.

You seem absolutely fixated on this, so let's talk facts (fahcts?) Conor. Here are the net spendings for Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and Everton from 1985 - 2001, year-by-year and broken into four year periods.




So what this shows us is that over these 16 years, Man Utd were top of the league in net spend a maximum of 4 times (could be less since I only really looked at four other teams) and during none of those four year periods did they lead the league in spending.

What it does show us is that from 1986 (when Ferguson took over) to 1993, that Man Utd had the largest net spend in the league. However, if you want to call this buying the league, then Liverpool and Everton should have dominated the mid 90s, and Spurs should have dominated the late 90s/turn of the century. But they didn't, because you can't 'buy the league' without good management, good scouting, infrastructure, and without being a well run club from the top down.

Over the full 16 year period, Arsenal spent by far the least on 14.85mn net. Everton spent the next least on 41.75mn net. Man United were in third on 55.55mn net. Meanwhile, almost 20 million pounds ahead were Spurs on 73.8mn net, and just a little shy of spending 30mn more than Man United were Liverpool, with the highest net spend in the entire league across that period.

Fact (fahct?) is, if you are trying to use transfers to prove Man United 'bought the league' then you just showed us that using the same logic, Liverpool (and Spurs) attempted the same... and failed. This would ring true again when Benitez was outspending Ferguson in the market, but consistently finishing behind in the league.

A_Sober_Paddy

Blackburn most diffently brought the league title, spend a fortune on that side, beforehand they were a small club and still are.

Chelsea and city have just invested stupid levels of money to become big "clubs" with not much organic growth...

As much as it pains me to sat Liverpool are still a bigger club than city and Chelsea combined.

sabat

Net spend arguments backdated to 1985? This thread just got interesting...

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

What it does show us is that from 1986 (when Ferguson took over) to 1993, that Man Utd had the largest net spend in the league...
...
Fact (fahct?) is, if you are trying to use transfers to prove Man United 'bought the league' then you just showed us that using the same logic, Liverpool (and Spurs) attempted the same... and failed. This would ring true again when Benitez was outspending Ferguson in the market, but consistently finishing behind in the league.

Thanks for that.

Precisely what I said.

The idea that ManU did not buy the league because of "the Class of 92" simply ignores the fact that...they did!

I certainly take your point that they were not alone, others such as Liverpool may have tried to do the same. I don't think I argued otherwise.

And, incidentally, I see ManU outspending Leeds on that list by over 50% bet 1989 and 1993. Again, the sheer nonsense of a couple of ManU fans pointing to Leeds as big spenders in that time!

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Precisely what I said.

The idea that ManU did not buy the league because of "the Class of 92" simply ignores the fact that...they did!

I certainly take your point that they were not alone, others such as Liverpool may have tried to do the same. I don't think I argued otherwise.

And, incidentally, I see ManU outspending Leeds on that list by over 50% bet 1989 and 1993. Again, the sheer nonsense of a couple of ManU fans pointing to Leeds as big spenders in that time!

You seem to have missed the point, actually. Going by transfers Man United could not have 'bought the league' in that period as Blackburn outspent them by about 18%.

Man United spent 43% more than Leeds in that period by the way, not over 50% more. If the fact they were outspent in that time means they were not big spenders, then by your own logic, Man United were never big spenders over a full from 1985 - 2001 and so you are arguing against yourself?

It's a strange logical gap... Man United outspent Leeds and this Leeds could not have been big spenders as a result. Yet Man United 'bought the league' despite being outspent by Blackburn... in the same time period.

Liam McPoyle

Leeds United are a club that bankrupted themselves by spending big but not backing up the spend with results. Their hated neighbours spent big (as well as bringing youth players through the ranks it has to be said) and had massive success.

So United bought the PL.

Leeds tried and failed to buy the PL and ended up having to sell all their players and got relegated a couple of times to boot.

Id prolly be as salty as poor Conor if I was a Leeds fan too tbh.