General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

theoneeyedman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121930191#Comment_121930191

Celebrate it, of course you should, but it's not some huge achievement given the opposition. I'm not part of the celebration police, as I said earlier any competition is hard won.

West Ham should be pushing for if not consistently achieving Champions League and winning the likes of the FA or League cups now and then. They won't be able to consistently beat the so called big 6 in England, but given the recent troubles at the likes of Chelsea, United and Spurs even (last 2 years) they should be able to pick one of them off.

The mentality has to change I feel at west ham, they still see themselves as some lucky underdogs from the backstreets of East London, when on fact they are more like the flash, nuevo ruche Essex Boys who have sold up on the city and have a nice detached house in the suburbs 😅.

Thsy should be competing with the likes of Spurs on a more even footing, and not looking for small, moral victories.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121928268#Comment_121928268

No, I'm not a supporter and I don't have my back up. I'm just giving my opinion on things.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121927314#Comment_121927314

Barcelona on thin ice. Win La Liga last year and they are in the QFs of the Champions league?

Leverkusen have been great in the Bundesliga to this point but they needed two injury time goals to beat Qarabag in the Europa league.

AdamD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121928344#Comment_121928344

It's far more embarrassing to look down on West Ham fans for celebrating their first trophy in decades

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121932114#Comment_121932114

Yup, I say thin ice because they've regressed since last year. Would still include them in my 'top tier', but they're less competitive at the present moment than the Barca sides we've been used to over the past ~15 years. As I said, I'm personally looking at the here and now - Napoli won the league last year too for instance, and only just went out of the CL to Barca - but based on the present, they're not top tier, despite being up there a year ago.

And conversely, Leverkusen deserve inclusion at the top table by dint of having gone the entire season unbeaten so far in any competition, and absolutely monstering the league. Of the 38 games they've played this season, they've won 33 and drawn 5. Like, when the worst that can be said about them is that they won a game they almost lost, they're doing pretty well. But you get my point anyway - in my own personal opinion, the term 'top tier' should refer to a fairly elite group.

Hammer Archer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121930214#Comment_121930214

You said that the way we celebrated was "fcuking embarrassing", yet you're not the celebration police? We won our first trophy in nearly half a century, ensuring a third season in a row of European football for the first time in the club's history, so how should we have celebrated?

You're assertion that a team that has, historically, been mid to lower half of the top division with the odd yoyo between the top and second tier, should be regularly in and around the top four teams in the country is bizarre. As I've already said, this would mean us outperforming several teams with much more resources than us while also ensuring that we outperform other teams that may historically have almost always outperformed us (e.g. Villa and Everton). Also, you can never discount the likes of Brighton or others who can outperform expectations at times.

The last three seasons have seen us finish 6th, 7th (while reaching a European semi final) and 14th (while winning a European title). Now we're 7th, in a European quarter final. It's ridiculous that you think that this is underperforming for us.

theoneeyedman

Celebrate it as you like - my point is calling it a European Title and using it to slag off Spurs is what's mbarrassing - it's a Mickey Mouse competition in European terms, and even using is as 'qualifying for Europe' us pushing it a fair bit. Grand to enjoy it on the night for what it is, but for a club with the money behind it that West Ham now have it's no big thing in the overall scheme.

They should be in and around the top 4/top 6 regularly, of course they should. Not every year, but as I said they should be competitive and every few years, as at present when United and Chelsea in particular are at a low ebb, pick them off. The likes of Everton did it in the noughties for a few years, and if West Ham have any ambition they should be looking to do the same.

West Ham have a huge stadium, no debt to speak of due to how the stadium came about, a big catchment area outside of East London, are a big club in European terms due to the strength of the EPL relative to other leagues,and huge potential. Smallminded stuff like being satisfied with hanging and setting a ceiling at 7th or 8th in the league is no longer valid in my opinion,especially with the real potential for a fifth Champions league place for the EPL teams. Looking back to when they were in the Boleyn grounds, plucky underdogs, doesn't reflect the modern reality of where they should be.

You can call it bizzare if you want, that's my opinion of it and where the Hammers should be looking to go. You shouldn't be limiting yourselves by your history.

Fitz*

I reckon when Moyes leaves WHU, we could see a change in their style, and expectation levels may/should rise to be a club competing for EL places minimum.

That's not to say that Moyes hasn't done a good job there but WHU can do better with the resources available to them.

The recruitment there in the last few years has been great. Kudus & Pacqueta have been great, Bowen is a top player. Alvarez was a smart signing and for where WHU are at the moment, JWP was too. With a more attacking minded manager, and a better striker, we could see WHU push on another level.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121934478#Comment_121934478

Every time they’ve tried that - with some pretty good more progressive managers - it fails. They’re in 7th right now… I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect any more than that. On balance, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea, Spurs and most likely Saudi Newcastle will all be pushing and spending for those spots too (and that’s without mentioning Villa in a very similar situation). The odd year where one or two collapse there might be a little window to sneak up a bit, but in reality 7th is fairly brilliant as is, and an overachievement.

theoneeyedman

In any year, probably 2 of the teams mentioned will be performing below where they ought to be, this year it's Chelsea, Newcastle and arguably United.

Lauras Law

Taken from Reddit, the 2023 football payroll according to UEFA

No surprise really to see so many PL clubs in the top 20. But it does show what a great job Arsenal are doing that they're challenging for the title for 2 years in a row with wages much lower than their rivals.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936300#Comment_121936300

That's because of all the young players. If they keep hold of Saliba, Gabriel, Odegaard, Martinelli and biggest of all Saka theiir wage bill will balloon.

Fitz*

I'd expect those figures to look a bit different (for the current season) in the next report. You have to remember that this is a point in time of last June 2023 and not the current squads & wage bills.

ronjo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936342#Comment_121936342

Arteta too but tt would need to balloon a hell of a lot to get into the top 8 there in fairness. I am surprised how high Pools is if this is accurate.

AdamD

Its similar to early Liverpool Klopp, it'll just up massively next season with new contracts for Saka, Odegaard, White, Martinelli, Saliba, plus Rice and Havertz.

golfball37

Arsenal have the third highest wage bill after the two Manchester clubs on this seasons figures published last month.

TitianGerm

It's also probably not a true reflection of player payroll costs because some clubs might include all staff at the club under one salary heading where others might have separate headings for players, coaches, executives and all other staff etc.

Or some clubs may have deals in place where a staff member gets 1m from the club and 4m for promoting tourism or providing consultancy in another country.

Fitz*

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936389#Comment_121936389

Liverpool's would have been high in 2022/2023 alright as it would have included the pay out of a lot of the 21/22 bonuses where the won the 2 cups and reached the CL final & qualified for the 2022/2023 CL. it was also the end of a period of a settled squad where numerous players would have been on renewed contracts at the end of their careers which are generally higher in base wages.

In theory, the 23/24 report would be a lot lower as there was no CL in 22/23 and a lot of the older players on higher base-wage contracts would have left (Fabinho, Hendo, Milner, Firmino, Keita, Ox) with their replacements starting at the lower rung in terms of base wages. The incentivized contracts are still there as far as I am aware so we don't know how much bonuses will be paid out this season but there is already one cup win and you would expect CL qualification too with potential for more.

I remember back around 2018-2020 ish period Liverpool were a good bit lower than a lot of clubs in these type of lists and thinking that it was mad how they were doing it but over time that salary number increases as the contracts get renewed and players want more guaranteed wages instead of bonuses. Arsenal will see this now soon and have started the big jump in wages for some of their players. Saka was on a 'low' salary for this report above (around £40k a week) but has jumped up massively to a new contract of £200k a week rising to £290k a week with bonuses (Athletic/Telegraph). Odegaard also signed a new contract and there was some big additions such as Rice & Havertz, so you would assume that they would be on similar money.

NITRO95

Jesus christ the amount of hoops that have to be jumped through because some official figures show Liverpool aren't this little engine that could up against the evil empire

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936646#Comment_121936646

I don't read that, more explaining why arsenal are low on the report.

golfball37

Arsenal have spent a lot of money under Arteta. This idea of them being like Liverpool or Tottenham is inaccurate. Of course they are not the Manchester clubs but the consensus that they are little old arsenal is for the birds. 590m in four years is not chump change

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121938117#Comment_121938117

What have Spurs spent over that time? Would it be miles off the 590m?

Edit: I wouldn't think Liverpool are far away from it either.

Fitz*

Arteta took over Arsenal in 2019. This is the 'big 6' & Newcastle spending since 2019/2020 season onwards. Permanent transfers incoming to the club only, for players over the age of 18 (transfermarkt).

From season 2020/2021 onwards (so Arteta's first full season onwards), this is how that table looks.

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939122#Comment_121939122

You love to see how **** Chelsea are doing after spending that sort of money.

machiavellianme

It really is staggering just how much Chelsea spent. 1.5 billion. And for what?

It'd almost make you feel sorry for Forest and Everton!

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939190#Comment_121939190

It really is just wild... and sure, they've had a lot of injuries this season, but even when you look through their full squad with that sort of figure in mind, it's hard to see how they spent that much. So many potentially decent - but as yet still fairly unproven - players, that they seemed to just throw finished-article money at. And short of being able to sell off a few homegrown prospects for big big money, they're gonna be really limited in the coming years in the market. They really need these kids like Madueke and Jackson to come good before long. I could see one last big splurge on Osimhen though - he just feels a very 'chelsea' addition.

CSF

Wage bill really is probably a better metric than transfer outlay though.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939348#Comment_121939348

It's all the things really, you ideally need to be looking at both - especially when you've got such a massive fee-spending outlier like Chelsea in there.

CSF

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939388#Comment_121939388

Of course, but you’ll get far more room for outliers and misleading stats in terms of recent transfer net spend, than you will stats of the overall wage bill.

The team who has spent 200 million in the last transfer window, who still has 60% of the highest wage bill in the league (just random figures being used here) doesn’t ’need’ to justify that outlay with a major trophy.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121938117#Comment_121938117

Liverpool have spent lots of money too. They spent £170 million on transfers this season.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939348#Comment_121939348

Here is this year's, Only £30 million between Arsenal.in third and Liverpool in fifth. All those over £100m are there.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939898#Comment_121939898

Those figures look a lil weird right off the bat, like seeing Man Utd's wages even higher than Man Citys, even after City just winning the treble, thus kicking in whatever wage bonus's that would've undoubtedly triggered? I wonder what figures are they using for each club... playing staff alone, or the entire wages of the company? Or different ones from club to club? And does it use someone like Haaland's base figure of 350k, or the reported very-easy-to-meet on a weekly basis bonus structure that gets him more like a million a week, to get around the wage matching clause in De Bruyne's contract?

Possibly nitpicking here, but it's generally hard to have much faith in specific wage figures until the company accounts are published a year later really.

theoneeyedman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939122#Comment_121939122

Do these figures for Arsenal include the goalie Reya, still technically on loan from Brentford but a permanent deal in all but name, for accounting purposes.

It's hard to to take any of those financial tables seriously when City are "allegedy" involved in financial doping.

It reminds me of Lance Armstrong in his last few tour de Frances. It's obvious to almost everyone what is going on, but all are waiting for the silver bullet to end the facade.

Fitz*

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121940459#Comment_121940459

At the moment, no. But both the loan fee & permanent fee will be included when the transfer is officially done like in the case of Kulu & Porro etc at Spurs. Loans like Joao Felix & Amrabat with high loan fees are also not included.

rob316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939898#Comment_121939898

Those figures arent correct, I know Liverpool has a wage bill of north of 300m

eh i dunno

Liverpool wage bill is 373m according to the athletic article from February this year.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121940919#Comment_121940919

Have you something to back that up? I checked loads of places and the wage bills are pretty similar on all of them.

I'd be guessing they are all basic wage bills not including bonuses.

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121939898#Comment_121939898

Where are you pulling those figures from?

noodler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936646#Comment_121936646

Toxic nonsense.

rob316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941202#Comment_121941202

From the company accounts

Liverpool's wage bill continued to rise — up from £366m to £373m

Infoseeker1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941221#Comment_121941221

That wage bill covers all employees and I think there is just under 3,000 employees. Unless specified in the accounts, it is very hard to know what amount covers the playing staff whose numbers are likely to be under 100.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Utd, City, Chelsea and Spurs all have enough money to spend to give them a decent chance of winning trophies.

Liverpool have a cleaning lady on 90k a week

NITRO95

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941219#Comment_121941219

In what way is it toxic nonsense? Somebody posted official UEFA figures that show Liverpool have the second largest wage bill and then we get numerous Liverpool fans claiming the figures are wrong. It happens everytime there is any information or stats used to show Liverpool aren't the underdogs that so many of their fans like to claim they are

Fitz*

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941640#Comment_121941640

I don't think that anybody said they were wrong?

happyoutscan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941640#Comment_121941640

Your obsession is toxic. Focus more on your own teams failings.

Infoseeker1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941558#Comment_121941558

Sadly it is more likely minimum wage and even more likely in the real world rather than the 'boards' world:) that work is contracted out and there are no employees who are cleaners.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121941936#Comment_121941936

Well I do t support any Premier league team and I think he's right about Liverpool fans always moaning and then talking about how great they are without having the money the other big clubs do.

noodler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121943751#Comment_121943751

But what has your own subconscious bias got to do with it this time?

This was a couple of posts about wages figures and people pointing out Arsenal's wage bill will likely increase. before the anti-Liverpool bomb was random chucked in.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121944350#Comment_121944350

There is no bias. I just responded to a post which suggested the guy making these claims was wrong.