Premier League 2015/16 Stuff it in here.

[Socks]

Thinks it's between Norwich and Newcastle who go down with Villa and Sunderland!!

 

   Norwich please!!

[Socks]

Still not having Newcastle. They've squandered absolutely loads and they're still shite.

 

looking forward to the true (oops) geordie!

[Corky]

This time last year McClaren was heading up in style with Derby and his reputation being restored in this country. Now after going from 1st to 8th in two months he's in the bottom three with Newcastle after spending over £70 million.

[STUHILL]

Would love Newcastle to go down. Can't stand Mike Ashley and be even more funny if they go down now after he finally spent a load of cash! 

 

Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa to be relegated would be awesome 

[StanSP]

Paredes has to have some action taken against him for his part in the incident with Costa. utterly embarrassing and shameful from him.

[Bluetintedspecs]

Watching Watford Chelsea makes me realise how good our discipline is this season. I can't remember a time when one of our players has gone in the book for petulance or handbaggery. Bookings have been for the good of the team. Mind you. I have a highly selective memory.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuths been a tad luvky of late though

[surrifox]

Still not having Newcastle. They've squandered absolutely loads and they're still shite.

I kind of hope they stay up though - good fan base and they deserve better than the Ashley / mclaren axis. Only in professional football could a fraud like mclaren blag a living moving from club to club with zero talent or ability for ever higher money

[Super_horns]

Fortunately that incident didn't wind Costa up enough for him to score but certainly Gomes was the star after the break.

We were probably the better team 1st half.

[EnglishOxide]

Paredes has to have some action taken against him for his part in the incident with Costa. utterly embarrassing and shameful from him.

It was a nothing incident. Mike Dean took about 3 minutes to deal with it which only exasperated things. Should have pulled them together immediately and had a word. Or book them and get back to it within 1 minute.

[Super_horns]

Paredes did indeed make a meal of it - but the ref did take ages to sort that all out.

Suspect he was taking advice from the 4th official..

[Corky]

Mike Dean has never done anything to suggest he wants to make a fuss out of things, however minor.

[Stevosevic]

Kasper nominated for January POTM - 3 clean sheets in 4 games.

[weller54]

Paredes did indeed make a meal of it - but the ref did take ages to sort that all out.

Suspect he was taking advice from the 4th official..

Need Watford to take points from the Tottenham game!!.. Chances??

[foxfanazer]

Kasper nominated for January POTM - 3 clean sheets in 4 games.

Made some big saves too. Well done Kasper!

[foxfanazer]

Today I will be punching people in the face who say that if Leicester win the league it will be because its the weakest PL season ever. You've been warned!

[filbertway]

Pretty sure this is just the start of the Premier League losing a traditional top 4/6, as more money comes in. Teams can start throwing serious cash at talent.

 

I think it will come down to managerial talent and their backroom staff more and more.

[Carl the Llama]

Having a bit of fun this morning I've thrown together a quick Premier League table based on outgoing expenses according to the admittedly not entirely reliable transfermarkt website (current position in brackets):

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Man Utd (5)

3.  Liverpool (8)

4.  Newcastle (18)

5.  Chelsea (13)

6.  Watford (9)

7.  Spurs (3)

8.  Aston Villa (20)

9.  Sunderland (19)

10. Southampton (7)

11. Bournemouth (15)

12. Stoke (10)
13. West Ham (6)

14. Leicester (1)

15. Everton (11)

16. Norwich (17)

17. West Brom (14)

18. Palace (12)

19. Arsenal (4)

20. Swansea (16)

 

Colours roughly represent current league position: Bright green = top 5; dark green = 6-10; dark red = 11-15; bright red = bottom 5.

 

Looking at that table there doesn't appear to be too much correlation between the amount of money a club's willing to throw at new signings and their league position.  It does look like the less you spend the more likely you are to find yourself in the bottom half with 4 of the bottom 5 teams by expenditure currently below 10th in the real table while 3 of the 5 biggest spenders sit comfortably in the top half.  It's only a slight link though; the 3 relegation places irl are occupied by teams in the top half of the expenditure table.  The spread of the current top 4 also says a lot about the relationship between outgoing expenses and league position.

 

Maybe I'm not getting the full picture though.  Could be that I'm doing a disservice to the more frugal teams who have sold players to balance the books and fund their purchases so let's see what the table looks like if we base it on net expenditure:

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Newcastle (18)

3.  Watford (9)

4.  Sunderland (19)

5.  Bournemouth (15)

6.  Leicester (1)

7.  Man Utd (5)

8.  West Ham (6)

9.  Everton (11)

10. Norwich (17)

11. West Brom (14)

12. Liverpool (8)

13. Stoke (10)

14. Palace (12)

15. Arsenal (4)

16. Chelsea (13)

17. Swansea (16)

18. Southampton (7)

19. Aston Villa (20)

20. Spurs (3)

Just look at that; real league positions are all over the place. 2 of the 4 biggest net spenders are current relegation zone occupants while 5 of the current top 10 sit in the bottom half of the table.  

 

My conclusion: It's not what you spend it's how well you spend it.  Bin the myth that historically smaller clubs being able to chuck 20 million at Spanish league rejects makes them better equipped to handle the bigger teams.  Bin it now.

[Staffs Fox]

And proper scouting, something we are generally exceptional at

[rebelarmysupporter]

Hi guys - new member from Ireland.

 

Just wanted to share a recent comedy sketch on Irish Radio station Today FM..

 

The creator of Special 1 TV / I'm on Setanta Sports has put this together about Ranieri

 

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Ian_Dempsey_Breakfast_Show/The_Ian_Dempsey_Breakfast_Show/48650/2/Gift_Claudio_Ranieri_Believe_It_Or_Not

 

Enjoy!!

[UPinCarolina]

Having a bit of fun this morning I've thrown together a quick Premier League table based on outgoing expenses according to the admittedly not entirely reliable transfermarkt website (current position in brackets):

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Man Utd (5)

3.  Liverpool (8)

4.  Newcastle (18)

5.  Chelsea (13)

6.  Watford (9)

7.  Spurs (3)

8.  Aston Villa (20)

9.  Sunderland (19)

10. Southampton (7)

11. Bournemouth (15)

12. Stoke (10)

13. West Ham (6)

14. Leicester (1)

15. Everton (11)

16. Norwich (17)

17. West Brom (14)

18. Palace (12)

19. Arsenal (4)

20. Swansea (16)

 

Colours roughly represent current league position: Bright green = top 5; dark green = 6-10; dark red = 11-15; bright red = bottom 5.

 

Looking at that table there doesn't appear to be too much correlation between the amount of money a club's willing to throw at new signings and their league position.  It does look like the less you spend the more likely you are to find yourself in the bottom half with 4 of the bottom 5 teams by expenditure currently below 10th in the real table while 3 of the 5 biggest spenders sit comfortably in the top half.  It's only a slight link though; the 3 relegation places irl are occupied by teams in the top half of the expenditure table.  The spread of the current top 4 also says a lot about the relationship between outgoing expenses and league position.

 

Maybe I'm not getting the full picture though.  Could be that I'm doing a disservice to the more frugal teams who have sold players to balance the books and fund their purchases so let's see what the table looks like if we base it on net expenditure:

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Newcastle (18)

3.  Watford (9)

4.  Sunderland (19)

5.  Bournemouth (15)

6.  Leicester (1)

7.  Man Utd (5)

8.  West Ham (6)

9.  Everton (11)

10. Norwich (17)

11. West Brom (14)

12. Liverpool (8)

13. Stoke (10)

14. Palace (12)

15. Arsenal (4)

16. Chelsea (13)

17. Swansea (16)

18. Southampton (7)

19. Aston Villa (20)

20. Spurs (3)

Just look at that; real league positions are all over the place. 2 of the 4 biggest net spenders are current relegation zone occupants while 5 of the current top 10 sit in the bottom half of the table.  

 

My conclusion: It's not what you spend it's how well you spend it.  Bin the myth that historically smaller clubs being able to chuck 20 million at Spanish league rejects makes them better equipped to handle the bigger teams.  Bin it now.

at Spurs sitting at the bottom solely because of Gareth Bale 

[fuchsntf]

Today I will be punching people in the face who say that if Leicester win the league it will be because its the weakest PL season ever. You've been warned!

let them, we still would be beating the so called biggies, with bigger signings.No matter how they turn it

we are a team thats come from nowhere, with plaudits a plenty.

Just agree , tell them they are right, that nothing is as good as it used to be, including the dour critics.

[Fox92]

 

 

Liverpool fans plan walkout protest at £77 ticket prices

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35494796

 

Wow - £77!

[purpleronnie]

Not surprising given the owners are dead set on bleeding every penny they can from the club.

 

Just look at the awful new stand, built simply to cram in as much corporate money they can get, it will lead to restricted views and will leave some of the kop uncovered, add to that a stand design that was outdated before it was even started.

[filbertway]

Having a bit of fun this morning I've thrown together a quick Premier League table based on outgoing expenses according to the admittedly not entirely reliable transfermarkt website (current position in brackets):

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Man Utd (5)

3.  Liverpool (8)

4.  Newcastle (18)

5.  Chelsea (13)

6.  Watford (9)

7.  Spurs (3)

8.  Aston Villa (20)

9.  Sunderland (19)

10. Southampton (7)

11. Bournemouth (15)

12. Stoke (10)

13. West Ham (6)

14. Leicester (1)

15. Everton (11)

16. Norwich (17)

17. West Brom (14)

18. Palace (12)

19. Arsenal (4)

20. Swansea (16)

 

Colours roughly represent current league position: Bright green = top 5; dark green = 6-10; dark red = 11-15; bright red = bottom 5.

 

Looking at that table there doesn't appear to be too much correlation between the amount of money a club's willing to throw at new signings and their league position.  It does look like the less you spend the more likely you are to find yourself in the bottom half with 4 of the bottom 5 teams by expenditure currently below 10th in the real table while 3 of the 5 biggest spenders sit comfortably in the top half.  It's only a slight link though; the 3 relegation places irl are occupied by teams in the top half of the expenditure table.  The spread of the current top 4 also says a lot about the relationship between outgoing expenses and league position.

 

Maybe I'm not getting the full picture though.  Could be that I'm doing a disservice to the more frugal teams who have sold players to balance the books and fund their purchases so let's see what the table looks like if we base it on net expenditure:

1.  Man City (2)

2.  Newcastle (18)

3.  Watford (9)

4.  Sunderland (19)

5.  Bournemouth (15)

6.  Leicester (1)

7.  Man Utd (5)

8.  West Ham (6)

9.  Everton (11)

10. Norwich (17)

11. West Brom (14)

12. Liverpool (8)

13. Stoke (10)

14. Palace (12)

15. Arsenal (4)

16. Chelsea (13)

17. Swansea (16)

18. Southampton (7)

19. Aston Villa (20)

20. Spurs (3)

Just look at that; real league positions are all over the place. 2 of the 4 biggest net spenders are current relegation zone occupants while 5 of the current top 10 sit in the bottom half of the table.  

 

My conclusion: It's not what you spend it's how well you spend it.  Bin the myth that historically smaller clubs being able to chuck 20 million at Spanish league rejects makes them better equipped to handle the bigger teams.  Bin it now.

 

How about money spent on wages? I never get why they are discounted when people mention finances. It seems to be that people are only interested in quoting transfer fee's and never how much a club has spent on wages.

 

Southampton's makes for very impressive reading.

[Carl the Llama]

How about money spent on wages? I never get why they are discounted when people mention finances. It seems to be that people are only interested in quoting transfer fee's and never how much a club has spent on wages.

 

Southampton's makes for very impressive reading.

I was just having a quick look at transfer spending this morning and thought I'd share my findings, since you seem to have already looked into it perhaps you can give us the wage table for comparison?