-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Arsenal vs Blackburn [R]
- Thread starter Dreath
- Start date
PaPaGeorGeo
Fan Favourite
Its 137 million pounds spent and £106.5 Million made from transfers so in another words hes spend £30.85 million
Which is just over 50 million US and under 60 million US
Which is just over 50 million US and under 60 million US
But you can't really look at it like that. There teams that could sell players at their peak for a high price and those that sell players after their peak for a lower price. You guys also couldn't spend the money because of the stadium.PaPaGeorGeo said:Its 137 million pounds spent and £106.5 Million made from transfers so in another words hes spend £30.85 million
Which is just over 50 million US and under 60 million US
Nobody is taking anything away from you though, spending so much in 8 seasons compared to Chelsea's spending of more than that in 2-3 seasons before winning the EPL is pretty good
.TheBlueBalla
Starting XI
Ahh some lacklustre banter and all these ruffled feathers. Still, didnt mean to leave Rob hanging like that.
The amount of money you have spent, or that you spend, is completely independent of the amount of money you intake. On anything.
Wrongogsimon said:
...againogsimon said:
Ahh, there it is. My comment was a braindead example of smacktalking. I knew this response would surely be waiting for me eventually, but I went with that nickname anyway. I was just starting to get over Kanu, tooDreath said:"Kanu II"? Kanu was good, even only for one game... I think he scored a hattrick in... what 10 minutes? Can't remember the team it was against though...
Worst example of logic I have ever seen. So essentially transfer income magically negates what you have managed to spend? By the same token, shirt sales from a big name player have to be counted as well, as well as every bit of money pulled into a club? Its not like your revenue from selling someone like Vieira sits in a little jar in Wenger's desk drawer along with the bag of sweets and toys he brings to the park every afternoon. That money gets disseminated into the club for a multitude of purposes. It doesnt just sit there until you decide to buy someone else. Thus how can you regard transfer finances as an entity all on their own?PaPaGeorGeo said:Its 137 million pounds spent and £106.5 Million made from transfers so in another words hes spend £30.85 million
Which is just over 50 million US and under 60 million US
The amount of money you have spent, or that you spend, is completely independent of the amount of money you intake. On anything.
face the facts people. Has chelsea spent more money then arsenal the past seasons? yes. Is chelsea better then arsenal? yes. Will chelsea win this year? yes. will Chelsea win next year? most likely.
as sad as it is, chelsea is the best team in england at the moment, and they will continue to be for a long time unless something crazy happends, like Abramovich leaving the club or 11 players with broken legs.
TheBlueBalla said:
You play too much Championship Manager.
What generally determines a club's transfer budget? The club's overall financal balance.
When you purchase a player, where does the money come from? The club's overall finances.
When you sell a player, where does the money go into? The club's overall finances.
In Wenger's case, he's spent 120M or something of the club's money, and recovered the vast majority of it through selling players (Anelka, Overmars, Petit
). George's wording was a bit off but overall that's what he meant.But then again, the financial workings of football have no application whatsoever to Chelsea so I forgive your ignorance.
josephd18 said:
how on earth can you make that conclusion by me saying that Chelsea is the best team in england right now?
I think the way Chelsea throws money around is ridiculous, but they do. There is not much I can do about it. And their excellent finances + maurinhoasdiuy has made them the best team in england, and one of the top three teams in the world, wether you like it or not.
tracertong
Reserve Team
Dreath said:
Chelsea have the best squad , not the best first 11. If Man Utd / Chelsea / Arsenal field their strongest teams theres not really anything in it.
TheBlueBalla
Starting XI
Frostwolf said:You play too much Championship Manager.
What generally determines a club's transfer budget? The club's overall financal balance.
When you purchase a player, where does the money come from? The club's overall finances.
When you sell a player, where does the money go into? The club's overall finances.
In Wenger's case, he's spent 120M or something of the club's money, and recovered the vast majority of it through selling players (Anelka, Overmars, Petit
But then again, the financial workings of football have no application whatsoever to Chelsea so I forgive your ignorance.
For the record, I dont actually own championship manager and for that I am glad: from what I hear and read it is the most addicting game one could possibly own.
Anyway, in all the insinuations of paedophilia I think you missed my point. I understand youve managed to fleece people by selling players. Thats commendable, and if that was what he meant to say, then so be it. What I was saying is that the fact that you manage to recoup money on player transfers doesnt magically reduce the amount you have spent on incoming transfers any less. That amount is still 160 million or whatever was suggested. I dont click on links to BigSoccer because that site compounds my supposed ignorance. Too many rancid gooners