Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Alan Pardew

Mike

by Mike
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. :lol:

 

We spent the utter minimum we can.

 

Of course it does ffs, are you daft?

 

Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example.

 

You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid.

 

Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context.

 

To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual.

 

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many.

 

Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads.  They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spudil

Spudil

Posted
Posted

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point"

 

Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid.

 

Funnily: Were 8th.

 

So even by your own conditions you are still wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted

Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. :lol:

 

We spent the utter minimum we can.

 

Of course it does ffs, are you daft?

 

Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example.

 

You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid.

 

Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context.

 

To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual.

 

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many.

 

Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads.  They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap.

 

I'm not really talking about where we are placed in any given week, I'm thinking more about where we should expect to finish come the end of the season. We are talking about the relative merits of our squad compared to the rest of the division. So again, the question is: how many teams outside the top six have a better squad than us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point"

 

Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid.

 

Funnily: Were 8th.

 

So even by your own conditions you are still wrong.

 

In that table the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th) is just £72m.

 

The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m.

 

Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest are all very much in similar boats.

 

http://i42.tinypic.com/w811yx.jpg

 

There's a valid argument that 7th to 12th should form a group in the middle of the table distinct from the bottom 8, and Newcastle should be in that group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. :lol:

 

We spent the utter minimum we can.

 

Of course it does ffs, are you daft?

 

Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example.

 

You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid.

 

Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context.

 

To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual.

 

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many.

 

Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads.  They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap.

 

I'm not really talking about where we are placed in any given week, I'm thinking more about where we should expect to finish come the end of the season. We are talking about the relative merits of our squad compared to the rest of the division. So again, the question is: how many teams outside the top six have a better squad than us?

 

The league table as it stands is all we have to judge whether our squad is performing at the level you would expect though. 

 

Clearly last season it wasn't.  The season before it excelled.  This season, so far, we're as you'd expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spudil

Spudil

Posted
Posted

some stuff and a graph

 

That's all well and good, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I was having with Haris Vuckic so I'm not sure why you quoted what you did.

 

Btw the difference in the amount of spending used to justify describing

the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th)

 

as "just 72m"

 

and

 

The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m.

as "Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest"

 

Is "just" 17 million. Seems like you are putting some (unjustified) spin on your argument here, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

some stuff and a graph

 

That's all well and good, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I was having with Haris Vuckic so I'm not sure why you quoted what you did.

 

Btw the difference in the amount of spend used to describe

the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th)
AS   just £72m.

 

and

 

The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m.
AS Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest are all very much in similar boats.

 

Is "just" 17 million. Seems like you are putting some (unjustified) spin on your argument here, as usual.

 

eh?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AyeDubbleYoo

AyeDubbleYoo

Posted
Posted

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point"

 

Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid.

 

Funnily: Were 8th.

 

So even by your own conditions you are still wrong.

 

In that table the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th) is just £72m.

 

The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m.

 

Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest are all very much in similar boats.

 

http://i42.tinypic.com/w811yx.jpg

 

There's a valid argument that 7th to 12th should form a group in the middle of the table distinct from the bottom 8, and Newcastle should be in that group.

 

I think that illustrates quite well how hard it is to break the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face

Posted
Posted

Try again. It was quite difficult to format, tbf.

 

"Just" refers to the fact that £72m separates 12 places.  An average of "just" £6m per place.

 

That's much smaller than the £89m that separates Arsenal from the next most expensive squad which is Villa.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Haris Vuckic

Guest Haris Vuckic

Posted
Posted

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point"

 

Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid.

 

Funnily: Were 8th.

 

So even by your own conditions you are still wrong.

 

Looks legit :anguish:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spudil

Spudil

Posted
Posted

 

Calm Down Petal  :lol:

 

You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct.

 

There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench.

 

and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second.

 

There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country.

 

(I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!)

 

Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point"

 

Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid.

 

Funnily: Were 8th.

 

So even by your own conditions you are still wrong.

 

Looks legit :anguish:

 

Ehh yeah.

 

Oh look: transfermarkt rates our squad as the 8th most valuable too.

http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/premier-league/gruendungsdaten/wettbewerb_GB1.html

 

A whole 50 million ahead of Sunderland in 9th.

 

What's an acceptable source to you, just HappyFace?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...