This is a fantastic example of why articles like this shouldn't be attempted unless you're prepared to put in days of research.
Instead of debating whether it's been a good window for clubs or whether certain teams could have done more, people just complain about the numbers.
It seems everyone is a pedant when it comes to their own team.
For my club, I'm pretty happy with Liverpool's purchases even if that hasn't translated to performances as yet. I think Benteke is as good as we could expect to sign without CL football. You can always do more to improve a squad but very happy with Clyne, Milner, Firmino and Benteke. Gomez has been an unexpected bonus. Would have liked to see Enrique move on as he's clearly not in the managers plans.
the other point I would like to make is this. Whilst net spend is fine in the context that the club has saved cash in the transfer window, I see a lot of Arsenal fans in one hand banging on about us buying the title yet in the next breath screaming at wenger for not spending! If he spent would that not constitute buying to try & win the title. Secondly whilst City have spent a large amount trying to improve the squad & their chances of winning the title it appears their purchases have met with disdain in some quarters. All I can say to that is, "if in business", which football is these days, like it or not to be the best & to strive for the top you need to speculate, if you succeed the rewards will then help you sustain your status. That appears to be exactly what City have done, Hopefully now we can mount a big challenge to all comers in every competition we are involved in.If we manage to go deep into those competitions then the rewards will com commercially & prize wise.
I definitely don't understand the consensus that City have had a great window just because they've spent £150 million on new players, £110 of that on Sterling and the PL unproven KDB.
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
comment by Keep It Greasey (U1396)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 out of the last 6 though is pretty regular
Don't think I've seen a single article suggest that Schweinsteiger was bought for less than 15m where's 6.5m come from?
comment by °°° Say My Name °°° (U18558)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
To be fair Rodgers could spend a lot more and it still wouldn't make any difference. He'd still be the worst manager in Liverpool history having been the only one to not win a trophy in 3 seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obsessed.
As mentioned, you only have to look at the current PL standings, performances, goals scored, goals conceded and points accumulated to see whether spending money, regardless of how much, makes your team perform better.
In spite of this, after 4 games, it'd be folly to think that's how the season will pan out with regards to positions, points, individual player performances etc.
Guess we'll know more come Jan/Feb time as to who spent well and who should have bought more players.
City's spend is a reflection on what the owners are truly aiming for which is CL success. The rest of those clubs spends reflect theirs securing a top 4 place.
If people want to start putting up loan fees then Chelsea with 33 players on loan would probably have a negative net spend.
There's a limit to how precise you can get with these articles. The best people can do is make rough estimates and draw conclusions on that. What this article is trying to say is that City have spent far more than any of their competitors (which is true) on improving their first team squad. They've reaped some dividends already and it looks like they're on course for a strong season.
Other teams have made minor improvements (only City have bought 3 players for over £30m) and it looks like they'll be playing catch up.
You forgot -
Chelsea in:
Nathan - £4.5m
Hector - £4m
Chelsea out:
T. Hazard - £6m
+ Plus the other 31 on loan.
United have had a dreadful window,two NFL players seen one of them he has one trick, what will Martial bring ?not much more I suspect
Theres a retired german with his deckchair out on his holidays,a standard dogsbody from Southampton and the strange full back who pokes at peoples faces and gets booked a lot
The BBC, who I believe are British, had our net spend at £90m.
Sign in if you want to comment
Transfer window blues
Page 3 of 3
posted on 2/9/15
This is a fantastic example of why articles like this shouldn't be attempted unless you're prepared to put in days of research.
Instead of debating whether it's been a good window for clubs or whether certain teams could have done more, people just complain about the numbers.
It seems everyone is a pedant when it comes to their own team.
For my club, I'm pretty happy with Liverpool's purchases even if that hasn't translated to performances as yet. I think Benteke is as good as we could expect to sign without CL football. You can always do more to improve a squad but very happy with Clyne, Milner, Firmino and Benteke. Gomez has been an unexpected bonus. Would have liked to see Enrique move on as he's clearly not in the managers plans.
posted on 2/9/15
the other point I would like to make is this. Whilst net spend is fine in the context that the club has saved cash in the transfer window, I see a lot of Arsenal fans in one hand banging on about us buying the title yet in the next breath screaming at wenger for not spending! If he spent would that not constitute buying to try & win the title. Secondly whilst City have spent a large amount trying to improve the squad & their chances of winning the title it appears their purchases have met with disdain in some quarters. All I can say to that is, "if in business", which football is these days, like it or not to be the best & to strive for the top you need to speculate, if you succeed the rewards will then help you sustain your status. That appears to be exactly what City have done, Hopefully now we can mount a big challenge to all comers in every competition we are involved in.If we manage to go deep into those competitions then the rewards will com commercially & prize wise.
posted on 2/9/15
I definitely don't understand the consensus that City have had a great window just because they've spent £150 million on new players, £110 of that on Sterling and the PL unproven KDB.
posted on 2/9/15
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
posted on 2/9/15
comment by Keep It Greasey (U1396)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 out of the last 6 though is pretty regular
posted on 2/9/15
Don't think I've seen a single article suggest that Schweinsteiger was bought for less than 15m where's 6.5m come from?
posted on 2/9/15
comment by °°° Say My Name °°° (U18558)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
To be fair Rodgers could spend a lot more and it still wouldn't make any difference. He'd still be the worst manager in Liverpool history having been the only one to not win a trophy in 3 seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obsessed.
posted on 2/9/15
As mentioned, you only have to look at the current PL standings, performances, goals scored, goals conceded and points accumulated to see whether spending money, regardless of how much, makes your team perform better.
In spite of this, after 4 games, it'd be folly to think that's how the season will pan out with regards to positions, points, individual player performances etc.
Guess we'll know more come Jan/Feb time as to who spent well and who should have bought more players.
posted on 2/9/15
City's spend is a reflection on what the owners are truly aiming for which is CL success. The rest of those clubs spends reflect theirs securing a top 4 place.
posted on 2/9/15
If people want to start putting up loan fees then Chelsea with 33 players on loan would probably have a negative net spend.
There's a limit to how precise you can get with these articles. The best people can do is make rough estimates and draw conclusions on that. What this article is trying to say is that City have spent far more than any of their competitors (which is true) on improving their first team squad. They've reaped some dividends already and it looks like they're on course for a strong season.
Other teams have made minor improvements (only City have bought 3 players for over £30m) and it looks like they'll be playing catch up.
posted on 2/9/15
You forgot -
Chelsea in:
Nathan - £4.5m
Hector - £4m
Chelsea out:
T. Hazard - £6m
+ Plus the other 31 on loan.
posted on 2/9/15
United have had a dreadful window,two NFL players seen one of them he has one trick, what will Martial bring ?not much more I suspect
Theres a retired german with his deckchair out on his holidays,a standard dogsbody from Southampton and the strange full back who pokes at peoples faces and gets booked a lot
posted on 2/9/15
The BBC, who I believe are British, had our net spend at £90m.
Page 3 of 3