Football 2023 - 2024

[Nearly Sane]

Arsenal must be missing an angel


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66681775

[jeremyp]

Seems like a good deal for Bayern


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66677935

And Harry Kane has also scored in both of his first two league matches

[Nearly Sane]

Liverpool turn down £150M for Salah. Can't see how they could accept on the closing day for EPL transfers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66683099

[jeremyp]

Liverpool turn down £150M for Salah. Can't see how they could accept on the closing day for EPL transfers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66683099

£150 million is used to be a lot of money. If they had a viable replacement, they probably should have sold. He's 31 and therefore doesn't have too many years left.

[ad_orientem]

£150 million is used to be a lot of money. If they had a viable replacement, they probably should have sold. He's 31 and therefore doesn't have too many years left.

Beginning of the transfer window, that's a done deal. Never going be offered that much for him again. No time for a replacement now.

[Nearly Sane]

Beginning of the transfer window, that's a done deal. Never going be offered that much for him again. No time for a replacement now.

Which makes you wonder if they actually knew it wouldn't be accepted

[Nearly Sane]

2.36 Billion!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66688894

[ProfessorDavey]

2.36 Billion!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66688894

What is more important is the net spend rather than the total spend. From the Times this morning total net spend was £1.074m, slightly down on £1,166m last year.

And in terms of clubs net spend ranges from an eyewatering £174m for Chelsea through to Brighton who received £73m more than they spent (one of just four clubs who received more than they spent).

[ad_orientem]

What is more important is the net spend rather than the total spend. From the Times this morning total net spend was £1.074m, slightly down on £1,166m last year.

And in terms of clubs net spend ranges from an eyewatering £174m for Chelsea through to Brighton who received £73m more than they spent (one of just four clubs who received more than they spent).

I think focusing transfer fees is a bit misleading. Yes, the amounts are silly but it's wages what does clubs in.

[Nearly Sane]

Impressive start for Bellingham


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66696278

[Nearly Sane]

Henderson said:
"I've gone above and beyond to help [the LGBTQ+ community]. I've worn the laces. I've worn the armband."
Who could ask for anything more!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66714875

[ad_orientem]

Henderson said:
"I've gone above and beyond to help [the LGBTQ+ community]. I've worn the laces. I've worn the armband."
Who could ask for anything more!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66714875

Henderson: How to say I'm thick without saying I'm thick.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting stuff on net transfer spend over the past 10 years with (perhaps unsurprisingly) Man U and Chelsea at the top.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66726456

For details scroll down to section 5:

https://football-observatory.com/MonthlyReport87

What is perhaps interesting is picking out the clubs that have punched above their weight (done pretty well on the field with relatively low levels of new transfer spend) and those that have punched below their weight.

In English terms Liverpool are ranked 9th in net transfer terms, below West Ham, Aston Villa and Newcastle (remember this is over 2014-2023). And their net spend is less than half of Man U and Chelsea. Also their net spend at -£461 isn't that far off Everton's (-£392) and Everton have been woeful over those years.

But perhaps the biggest standout is Real Madrid (-£325), ranked 19th on the list, with net transfer spend over those 10 years less than Bournemouth, Crystal Palace and only a smidge above Nottm Forest!

[jeremyp]

What is perhaps interesting is picking out the clubs that have punched above their weight (done pretty well on the field with relatively low levels of new transfer spend) and those that have punched below their weight.

Manchester City is a massive outlier in that respect. Their success relative to their spending is absolutely outstanding.

Of course, they are looking at a lot of charges of cooking the books and may get into some trouble.

[ProfessorDavey]

Manchester City is a massive outlier in that respect. Their success relative to their spending is absolutely outstanding.

Nothing like as much an outlier as Real Madrid. Net spending less than half of Man City and ranked only 19th in the list, yet they've won five Champions League titles in that period.

Of course, they are looking at a lot of charges of cooking the books and may get into some trouble.

Possibly true, although I'm just basing things on the data in the article.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with Rodgers' take is surely that Henderson and other players had set themself up for this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66732863

[jeremyp]

Nothing like as much an outlier as Real Madrid. Net spending less than half of Man City and ranked only 19th in the list, yet they've won five Champions League titles in that period.

So? Does that make Man City not an outlier? Nope. Does that mean Man City were not cooking the books? Nope.

[ProfessorDavey]

So? Does that make Man City not an outlier? Nope.

There are levels of 'outlier-ness' surely.

It is hard to argue against Real Madrid being the most successful club side in Europe over the past 10 years. Man City have dominated domestically, but not when they have been up against the best across Europe.

But Real Madrid are ranked just 19th in spend terms. Man City are ranked 5th in terms of overall spend, which probably fits with their overall record (domestic and european). Of course the weird thing is that three of the clubs above them are also English clubs.

So I'd conclude that Man City punch above their weight domestically, but not really when you take account of european competitions. Real Madrid just massively punch above their weight.

[ad_orientem]

Transfer fees are deceptive. It contracts what you need to look at.

[ProfessorDavey]

Transfer fees are deceptive. It contracts what you need to look at.

True - the best way to determine 'spend' is a combination of net transfer fee and wages costs.

There was some info on this some while back - memory suggests I included this in a thread many moons ago to somewhat refute the notion that you can definitely just 'buy' success. Certainly you need to spend big to have a chance of success in England, but spending big does not guarantee success. So I think on that particular measure over a number of years Everton had spent more than Liverpool, yet were typically mid table to skirting with relegation compared to their rivals across Stanley Park's success both in the Premier League and Champions League.

[Nearly Sane]

29 degrees in Glasgow in September and Scotland with 5 wins out of first five matches in qualifying. Strange times!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66757340

[Nearly Sane]

A friendly to celebrate the 150th and 9 month and a few days  anniversary of the oldest international match.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66729198

[ProfessorDavey]

A friendly to celebrate the 150th and 9 month and a few days  anniversary of the oldest international match.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66729198

Let's hope for more goals than the original fixture!

[jeremyp]

Let's hope for more goals than the original fixture!

Paul Gascoigne's goal in 1996 where he chipped the ball over Colin Hendry's head before drilling it into the net is the only goal in football that I can remember in detail.

Scottish members, look away now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evnXFu744uY

[Nearly Sane]

I'd happily take a defeat against England if there was a draw between Norway and Georgia.