The [Horribly Unpopular] Soccer Thread

Brewer's Friend 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So just thinking out loud:

Mourinho goes to Man U.

Moyes to Chelsea?

Rafa stays?

Abramovich pitches a fit and finds someone from left field? Heyncke from Bayern?

Next season will be interesting to watch at the very least.
 
aygov said:
Moyes is SAF's successor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22453802

Should be an interesting time for United. Will Moyes be good enough? Say what you will about what he did at Everton, but the pressure at United will be in a whole other galaxy.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what he does with the seemingly endless transfer funds that will be made available.
 
Grannyknot said:
It will be interesting to see what he does with the seemingly endless transfer funds that will be made available.
Click to expand...

Limitless transfer funds do not a great team make (see citeh and Chelsea). Look at how Rafa hasn't been able to turn Chelsea around (relatively speaking) and Mancini's last hope for silverware is the FA cup...
 
Grannyknot said:
Aygov, are you part Yoda? :p

Not saying he can make a great team buying players.
I'm just curious what type of players he goes after.
Click to expand...

Wise you are.... hmmmmmm.... :)

I'm interested in that too. He's been surviving on scraps at Everton but will he spend wisely when he gets the blank check at United?

Also, I bet Rooney is off during the summer. RVP is certainly first choice and there will be no fergie there to twist his ear and make him stay.
 
aygov said:
Limitless transfer funds do not a great team make (see citeh and Chelsea). Look at how Rafa hasn't been able to turn Chelsea around (relatively speaking) and Mancini's last hope for silverware is the FA cup...
Click to expand...

rafa signed ba for 7 million that's it

That's limitless transfer funds?
 
hopstupid said:
rafa signed ba for 7 million

That's limitless transfer funds?
Click to expand...

And Mata was 35 mill.....

I know he wasn't Rafa's transfer, but he hasn't been there long enough to get to the summer window.

12/13 they spent 95 mill on players... You can say that's not limitless, but it's close enough.
 
aygov said:
And Mata was 35 mill.....

I know he wasn't Rafa's transfer, but he hasn't been there long enough to get to the summer window.

12/13 they spent 95 mill on players... You can say that's not limitless, but it's close enough.
Click to expand...

mata was a steal at 35 million without him they would be alot worse

if you want to talk about bad signings torres, teams that blew money on nothing QPR & Liverpool

Chelsea & Man City get quite a bit of bang for what they spent.


You do know

Chelsea won the FA cup & Uefa champions league last year.

Man City won the Premier league last year.

How many trophies did Man United win last year?
 
hopstupid said:
mata was a steal at 35 million without him they would be alot worse

if you want to talk about bad signings torres, teams that blew money on nothing QPR & Liverpool

Chelsea & Man City get quite a bit of bang for what they spent.


You do know

Chelsea won the FA cup & Uefa champions league last year.

Man City won the Premier league last year
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about bad signings. I'm talking about the fact that Chelsea are owned by a billionaire who, depending on whether he is inclined, can furnish them with massive amounts of cash to buy players.

And yes, they both won stuff last year, but do you honestly think the goal of either of those clubs is to win stuff some of the time. Spending 95 million and then fighting with Arsenal and Spurs for a CL place isn't exactly a good year....
 
aygov said:
I'm not talking about bad signings. I'm talking about the fact that Chelsea are owned by a billionaire who, depending on whether he is inclined, can furnish them with massive amounts of cash to buy players.

And yes, they both won stuff last year, but do you honestly think the goal of either of those clubs is to win stuff some of the time. Spending 95 million and then fighting with Arsenal and Spurs for a CL place isn't exactly a good year....
Click to expand...

If Man City wins the FA cup both Man City & Chelsea will have more trophies then Man United these past 3 years. I think that's the owners goal is to win trophies so far they have done it.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
So what are the odds that Jose Mourinho doesn't join Man U? He's planning on leaving Bernabeu only other suitor mentioned is returning to Chelsea, but unless all he cares about is money, I can't imagine he'd pass up Man U who are a much better squad and could be in the UCL mix next year. I'd imagine him leaving Real is an indicator he's not all about the money. I have a hunch (though I may be entirely wrong) that Sir Alex and Mourinho have been talking in private about Fergie retiring and Mourinho taking over. Coudl be wrong of course. Only other guy I see United taking would be Moyes, but I don't know if his style meshes with Man U.
Click to expand...

Easy to say this now that the replacement has been announced, but there were 3 reason why Mourinho to Man U never made sense to me.

1) Chelsea would throw more money at him
2) Mourinho is apparently big into being loved these days, and has dropped enough hints that Chelsea is the place that loves him
3) Man U is obviously used to stability in the managers role. I have the impression, although I could be totally wrong, that this is something they would like to continue. And Mourinho is the opposite of stability. :D

On 3, its quite possible that the only reason they've had such stability is that they've had Sir Alex, and he hasn't given them any reason to consider changing any time in recent memory. So perhaps the stability has been more a commentary on their success than a reflection of a philosophy, in which case 3 would be totally moot.
 
hopstupid said:
If Man City wins the FA cup both Man City & Chelsea will have more trophies then Man United these past 3 years. I think that's the owners goal is to win trophies so far they have done it.
Click to expand...

What are we debating about here again?

You've gone from Chelsea don't have tons of money to City and Chelsea have more trophies than United in the last 3 years...
 
hopstupid said:
rafa signed ba for 7 million that's it

That's limitless transfer funds?
Click to expand...

besides an observation of the last january transfer window, where have you been the past 10 years?

Mata 23m
Hazard 32m
Torres 50m

There are about 10 others I can think of that were 20m+

Here are the transfer expenditures / revenues over the last 10 years.
I'd say ManU have blown Chelsea and city out of the water when it comes to bang for the buck.

big-5-10-year-spend.jpg


BTW, Ba is worth about 7m, and thats being generous.
 
Since we're throwing City into this since the sheikh took over in 2008 they have spent over 300 million on players. What have they got in those 4 years? 1 PL championship trophy and 1 (possibly 2 depending on the weekend) FA Cup trophy. With that kind of money domestic trophies should be a given and they should be running Europe.
 
aygov said:
What are we debating about here again?

You've gone from Chelsea don't have tons of money to City and Chelsea have more trophies than United in the last 3 years...
Click to expand...

you said this

aygov said:
Limitless transfer funds do not a great team make (see citeh and Chelsea). Look at how Rafa hasn't been able to turn Chelsea around (relatively speaking) and Mancini's last hope for silverware is the FA cup...
Click to expand...

I pointed out "citeh" & Chelsea have won more trophies then Man U lately. So I guess you could say all that money bought those trophies. :)

Never said Chelsea didn't have much money just pointed out Rafa spent 7 million on transfers.
I'm not a Chelsea fan but what they did last year was pretty great in my book.

Man U spent alot more then City this year and it turned out to be the difference. Van Persie was a great buy. I'm guessing city spends big this summer
 
hopstupid said:
you said this

I pointed out "citeh" & Chelsea have won more trophies then Man U lately. So I guess you could say all that money bought those trophies. :)

Never said Chelsea didn't have much money just pointed out Rafa spent 7 million on transfers.
I'm not a Chelsea fan but what they did last year was pretty great in my book.

Man U spent alot more then City this year and it turned out to be the difference. Van Persie was a great buy. I'm guessing city spends big this summer
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever argued against the fact that they won more trophies. If you think their net silverware haul over the last few years justifies the money they've laid out, well I would partially agree on Chelsea's part (sans this last season), but completely disagree on City. Over 300 million in a few years and they have MAYBE 3 pieces of silverware to show for it...

Originally you seemed to imply that since Rafa bought Demba Ba for the bargain basement price of 7 million that I was somehow wrong in calling Chelsea's money limitless. Limitless was hyperbolic, but you get my point. I was implying that the club has a lot of money. I'm not sure how one transfer proves that wrong, but if that's how you see it then I we'll have to agree to disagree.

Anywho, this debate has gone off on some weird tangent and I'm not inclined to carry it further. I got to catch a plane in a few hours anyways. Going to good 'ol London to see The Shrine (The Emirates) too bad Wigan screwed me out of seeing the Arse play live.... :mad:
 
So I guess gus Johnson is foxs answer to Brent musberger and bob costas types who gets on your nerves as much as possible and almost makes games unwatchable but somehow they're the ones that call the big games you want to watch. I think the networks just try to punish you for being interested in their offering
 
Congrats to the latics. Now lets see if they pull off another survival Sunday miracle to stay in the premiership
 
I don't know why Mancini didn't start Costel Pantilimon . You ride the horse that got you there.

What a difference a year makes.


Wigan FC first XI: £11.5million

Gareth Barry: £12 million

haha sad but true
 
Nice to see sir alex go out with a win at home. Seems like half their wins this year were come from behind. Great day my team Norwich isn't getting relegated this year :)
 
A piece of **** on Chivas pushed a Timbers ball boy to get the ball from him. Classy move... Maybe he was pissed because Portland made them look like a highschool girls squad
 
Love the whoopin on SJ sounders laid down this weak. Starting to pull their S together
 
Hearing that arsenal have agreed to a sale price with RM for Higuain. And Monaco have purchased Falcao for like €60m.
 
Higuin should be a good fit there. I think they thought they'd get something more out of Giroud and Podolski. Really without Santi they'd be in deep crap.
 
Grannyknot said:
besides an observation of the last january transfer window, where have you been the past 10 years?

Mata 23m
Hazard 32m
Torres 50m

There are about 10 others I can think of that were 20m+

Here are the transfer expenditures / revenues over the last 10 years.
I'd say ManU have blown Chelsea and city out of the water when it comes to bang for the buck.

big-5-10-year-spend.jpg


BTW, Ba is worth about 7m, and thats being generous.
Click to expand...

Man U has spent over 500 million to service their debt.

I think the bankers are getting the most bang for their buck actually, at the expense of all the Manchester United fans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/dav...og/2012/feb/22/manchester-united-glazers-debt

172.64 + 500= 672.64

looks like Manchester United is leading Chelsea & Man City. I wonder how many quality players 500 million can buy?
 
Using revenues to pay down an owners previously held debt has nothing to do with the cash "investments" Chelsea & City have received from their owners.

The chart I posted was specifically related to transfer spending/receiving, which is primarily where cash infusions are spent. It has nothing to due with club budgets and balance sheets, as you refer to. Using your logic, if Roman Abromovich & Chelsea had won the bid for the battlesea power station, their spending would have been 1 billion, rather that 500m.
 
While Chelsea & man city owners are infusing their clubs with cash Man U owners are draining their club of cash.

How many quality players could Man U of signed with that 500 million payed out to the bankers?
 
Man U is a greatly ran club. Hating on them is like hating on say the Pats or any other team who wins all the time regardless of how much they spend.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
Man U is a greatly ran club
Click to expand...

Punch yourself in face for typing that. Not on the cheek or forehead but on the nose or eye. Also, don't fall down flopping around trying to get a free kick like ****** soccer players do. You deserve it...

"Greatly run club"?

I can't tell if your talking elvish or just trying to put a eurotrash spin on the verbiage to sound "soccer" cool. Hopefully your just drunk.
 
I didn't say greatly run. FWIW.

Man U builds a young squad that competes year in and year out. They constantly find bargains as well. Don't get sucked into bidding wars and get a great player. Refused to get over sold on Lucas Moara (sp?) and instead got Kagawa who's fantastic
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I didn't say greatly run. FWIW.

It's worth ****. Same point
Click to expand...

At least throw some MLS into the discussion. Popularity of soccer in the states will drive international revenue/respect and incentive for the elite players and coaches jump aboard. I'm trying to like the game the fans don't seem to allow it
 
Popularity doesn't have to just hang on MLS. In fact I think more important to the further development of America Soccer has already started under Klinsmann bringing a more German attitude to the younger levels which will result in better players come up. MLS with their academies will bring up hot young talent, even if they're poached by Europe it will lead to a pipeline, eventually when the interest in MLS grows cause of these exciting young players they can retain those players. You won't have to see Brek Shea go elsewhere.

Personally I think every American should go to Europe if they can get into a major league. It's better competition over there and better competition sets you up better for the future.
 

Similar threads

Reno_eNVy
The World Cup Approacheth
19 20 21
Replies
828
Views
33K
Gremlyn
Gremlyn
U
If nothing else, be a USA soccer fan today...
Replies
20
Views
2K
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible

Latest posts

Back
Top