GWT: Premier League Week of 1/14-1/15

[YNWA14]

Sure, but this is where the prestige factors in. Tottenham is probably level with Liverpool at this point as far as prestige,

Um, wat?

 

[Savant]

Sure, but this is where the prestige factors in. Tottenham is probably level with Liverpool at this point as far as prestige, but is looking better in the long term as far as finances. They are both respected but aren't considered a legitimate contender because they haven't won anything recently. If you're looking at a choice between Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, and Liverpool and all are offering about the same wages, if you care about winning you're likely to go to the clubs that already have winners playing for them.

Tottenham is from London so they have an easier time recruiting players. Let's not confuse that for prestige.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Um, wat?

Historically Liverpool has more, but when players are choosing clubs, they don't care what happened long ago, they care about now. Liverpool is getting back to where they used to be though.

 

[Havre]

I personally think it is a bit more random than that. For a guy like Griezmann Spurs would never be able to compete financially, but Bale picked Spurs over ManUtd because he was more likely to play and got along with Jol when meeting him.

In random order I would say:

1. Location (London is better for most)
2. Facilities (City and Spurs got the best as soon as the new stadium is finished)
3. Manager/reputation for young players (they all got strong reputation. Pochettino might be the preferred for a young player - at least British as half the English national team came through under Pochettino).
4. Competition (depending on which position you are playing in)

All more important than prestige in my opinion. Not saying prestige isn´t totally irrelevant, but it is such a "blurry" concept. How far back do you go? If you look at "long history" then Liverpool is far far bigger than City, Chelsea and Spurs.

 

[Blender]

Um, wat?

Ok maybe they aren't quite at Liverpool's level yet, but they are closer to Liverpool than the other top 4.

 

[Blender]

I personally think it is a bit more random than that. For a guy like Griezmann Spurs would never be able to compete financially, but Bale picked Spurs over ManUtd because he was more likely to play and got along with Jol when meeting him.

So if they can't compete financially for a guy like Griezmann, and they don't have a reputation for winning, how exactly will they land and keep players on that level to push the club to the next level?

Everyone really respects what Tottenham is doing by bringing in young guys with big potential and developing them into stars, but the next step is keeping them and also attracting other stars, and they aren't there yet. Getting more money also won't be enough unless they are going to overpay to do it like Manchester City and Chelsea both did years back.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I personally think it is a bit more random than that. For a guy like Griezmann Spurs would never be able to compete financially, but Bale picked Spurs over ManUtd because he was more likely to play and got along with Jol when meeting him.

In random order I would say:

1. Location (London is better for most)
2. Facilities (City and Spurs got the best as soon as the new stadium is finished)
3. Manager/reputation for young players (they all got strong reputation. Pochettino might be the preferred for a young player - at least British as half the English national team came through under Pochettino).
4. Competition (depending on which position you are playing in)

All more important than prestige in my opinion. Not saying prestige isn´t totally irrelevant, but it is such a "blurry" concept. How far back do you go? If so Liverpool is far far bigger than City, Chelsea and Spurs.

Bale also wasn't Bale that he is today when he picked Spurs.

I guess I'm confused, what's even your primary argument here? They have to win titles to be considered a big club. Until then, they are just a worse version of Arsenal or Liverpool without the historical success.

You need more than money and a stadium to join the big boys.

 

[Savant]

Historically Liverpool has more, but when players are choosing clubs, they don't care what happened long ago, they care about now. Liverpool is getting back to where they used to be though.

They care about going to London so they can party and so their WAGs are happy. It's one of, if not the reason, Liverpool couldn't get Alexis Sanchez. His girl only wanted London.

Liverpool and Manchester and the Midlands are not exactly prime destinations. if you were a hockey player would you rather go to New York or Nashville, from a purely geographic point of view. It's the same scenario, if not worse in soccer.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They care about going to London so they can party and so their WAGs are happy. It's one of, if not the reason, Liverpool couldn't get Alexis Sanchez. His girl only wanted London

Of course, London is definitely a draw, and there will always be individuals that rate certain things higher than others.

If Liverpool today was what it was in the 70s and 80s, they wouldn't have that problem though, except for a select few that value other things more. Liverpool didn't get Sanchez because Arsenal was a vastly superior club at the time with a much better recent track record.

Man U gets the pick of the litter. Why is that? Because they are Man U.

 

[Savant]

Of course, London is definitely a draw, and there will always be individuals that rate certain things higher than others.

If Liverpool today was what it was in the 70s and 80s, they wouldn't have that problem though, except for a select few that value other things more. Liverpool didn't get Sanchez because Arsenal was a vastly superior club at the time with a much better recent track record.

Man U gets the pick of the litter. Why is that? Because they are Man U.

Man U gets the pick of the litter because they spend the most.

Liverpool wanted Sanchez and could have put him in the Suarez deal (a la Zlatan/Eto'o transfer) but Sanchez' lady said only London.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Man U gets the pick of the litter because they spend the most.

Liverpool wanted Sanchez and could have put him in the Suarez deal (a la Zlatan/Eto'o transfer) but Sanchez' lady said only London.

I agree London has a draw, but it's not like every player values everything equally. Liverpool has attracted top talent in the past and they will do it in the future. You shouldn't act like the poor step-child.

Hell, many players prefer being away from a city like London.

 

[Havre]

So if they can't compete financially for a guy like Griezmann, and they don't have a reputation for winning, how exactly will they land and keep players on that level to push the club to the next level?

Everyone really respects what Tottenham is doing by bringing in young guys with big potential and developing them into stars, but the next step is keeping them and also attracting other stars, and they aren't there yet. Getting more money also won't be enough unless they are going to overpay to do it like Manchester City and Chelsea both did years back.

They can still land players even if they can´t buy what now might be the most attractive player not already playing at one of the bigger clubs.

This is not a computer game where you buy someone at skill level 96 if you are rich and 84 if you aren´t that rich. Spurs bought Alderweireld for around 11m pounds. Arguably the best CD in England now that Kompany is always injured. Of course you got to have a bit of luck. I´m not arguing that clubs like Spurs will be more competitive long term than ManUtd, but in spells they can. The same way AM has the last couple of years.

Bale also wasn't Bale that he is today when he picked Spurs.

I guess I'm confused, what's even your primary argument here? They have to win titles to be considered a big club. Until then, they are just a worse version of Arsenal or Liverpool without the historical success.

You need more than money and a stadium to join the big boys.

No. I responded to Spurs needing "prestige" to attract players.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No. I responded to Spurs needing "prestige" to attract players.

They can attract players, no doubt, but it's attracting established stars or retaining players once they hit star level status.

 

[Blender]

They can still land players even if they can´t buy what now might be the most attractive player not already playing at one of the bigger clubs.

This is not a computer game where you buy someone at skill level 96 if you are rich and 84 if you aren´t that rich. Spurs bought Alderweireld for around 11m pounds. Arguably the best CD in England now that Kompany is always injured. Of course you got to have a bit of luck. I´m not arguing that clubs like Spurs will be more competitive long term than ManUtd, but in spells they can. The same way AM has the last couple of years.

They are already good at finding undervalued talent and getting great results from them though. You made a statement earlier about their increased finances getting them closer to the world's big clubs, but as I've been saying they need the results along with the money to have any chance at that.

 

[Savant]

I agree London has a draw, but it's not like every player values everything equally. Liverpool has attracted top talent in the past and they will do it in the future. You shouldn't act like the poor step-child.

Hell, many players prefer being away from a city like London.

How am I acting like a poor step child? I'm talking how a specific example in which choosing a club because of London over Liverpool occurred.

I think especially in the modern era you need to be in a marquee city or offer prime wages to get the best players.

 

[bleedblue1223]

How am I acting like a poor step child? I'm talking how a specific example in which choosing a club because of London over Liverpool occurred.

I think especially in the modern era you need to be in a marquee city or offer prime wages to get the best players.

You said that was the only reason that's why Liverpool didn't get Sanchez. That probably played a big factor, but the fact that Arsenal is a superior club in recent times also played a factor. If he chose Arsenal while you guys were winning cups or titles or at a minimum consistently finishing in the top 4, then you have an argument there.

Any club has to offer prime wages, but if your argument is that any non-London city has to over pay just to get the player instead of a London club, then that's just a ridiculous assertion to make.

Chelsea and Arsenal won't get top players if don't offer prime wages, and clubs like Man U, City, Liverpool can attract top talent and still offer similar prime wages.

 

[Savant]

You said that was the only reason that's why Liverpool didn't get Sanchez. That probably played a big factor, but the fact that Arsenal is a superior club in recent times also played a factor. If he chose Arsenal while you guys were winning cups or titles or at a minimum consistently finishing in the top 4, then you have an argument there.

Any club has to offer prime wages, but if your argument is that any non-London city has to over pay just to get the player instead of a London club, then that's just a ridiculous assertion to make.

Chelsea and Arsenal won't get top players if don't offer prime wages, and clubs like Man U, City, Liverpool can attract top talent and still offer similar prime wages.

I didn't say it was the only reason but it was reported as a very big one. Maybe geography wasn't the sole decider but it had an acknowledged effect. Maybe if Sanchez was coming from Udinese instead of Barcelona it matters less but the fact is that it made a difference.

My argument isn't that non-London clubs need to over pay. It's that London has a geographic advantage in signing players. Which is true. Similar wages does not mean same wages. One could certainly argue that Manchester United is overpaying on wages to attract players because they aren't in CL, but also if Arsenal wanted (for example) Mkhitaryan this summer they likely would have lost a bidding war with him on wages. The almighty dollar can triumph geography. Look at China.

Liverpool as a club has decided to have a solid wage structure and aren't likely to get in wage wars to get a player. Liverpool has gone so far as to cap wages on youth players, so to say they can offer "similar" is just an incorrect statement, because institutionally they won't.

 

[Havre]

They can attract players, no doubt, but it's attracting established stars or retaining players once they hit star level status.

Sure. But that comes down to money and those factors more than prestige in my opinion.

Not arguing Spurs is destined to become the biggest club in the world. Extremely unlikely, but so is Manchester having one of the top 3. So who knows what happens over the next 50 years. Medium term I do see them being top 10 in Europe though. And if FFP really works top 5 might not be out of the question over the next 10 years. Not saying it has to happen, but it could.

They are already good at finding undervalued talent and getting great results from them though. You made a statement earlier about their increased finances getting them closer to the world's big clubs, but as I've been saying they need the results along with the money to have any chance at that.

It works both ways of course, but if you are top 10 financially you will find some success at some point. And unlike the situation in the past it is not a given that every world class player gets sold as the case has been.

 

[bluesfan94]

If I wanted to play PL and CL, id sign with the team that hasn't missed it in forever.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Sure. But that comes down to money and those factors more than prestige in my opinion.

Not arguing Spurs is destined to become the biggest club in the world. Extremely unlikely, but so is Manchester having one of the top 3. So who knows what happens over the next 50 years. Medium term I do see them being top 10 in Europe though. And if FFP really works top 5 might not be out of the question over the next 10 years. Not saying it has to happen, but it could.

If FFP really works? It's not like the clubs that Tottenham would have to pass to be apart of the top 5 are going to be penalized. City and PSG have, but not that significantly. City are probably able to maintain their place, and I bet PSG comes back a bit, but every other club will be able to sustain what they are doing.

 

[bluesfan94]

Sure. But that comes down to money and those factors more than prestige in my opinion.

Not arguing Spurs is destined to become the biggest club in the world. Extremely unlikely, but so is Manchester having one of the top 3. So who knows what happens over the next 50 years. Medium term I do see them being top 10 in Europe though. And if FFP really works top 5 might not be out of the question over the next 10 years. Not saying it has to happen, but it could.



It works both ways of course, but if you are top 10 financially you will find some success at some point. And unlike the situation in the past it is not a given that every world class player gets sold as the case has been.

Actually it isn't. The best clubs are traditionally not in capital cities. If you think about it, the only exceptions are Real Madrid which were buoyed by Franco and PSG/Chelsea which are new developments. Arsenal, too, historically. But even then, that wasn't central London when it was created. Obviously some smaller countries are exceptions as well (Netherlands?Ajax for example).

I read something about it.

 

[Blender]

Actually it isn't. The best clubs are traditionally not in capital cities. If you think about it, the only exceptions are Real Madrid which were buoyed by Franco and PSG/Chelsea which are new developments. Arsenal, too, historically. But even then, that wasn't central London when it was created. Obviously some smaller countries are exceptions as well (Netherlands?Ajax for example).

I read something about it.

Interesting, I never really thought about this. Spain is the only league of the big 5 to have their capital even in the top 2. Although PSG recently has been the best in France, and Arsenal/Chelsea have been big in England.

City with the most championships:

Italy (Rome) - Turin (39), Milan (36)
Germany (Berlin) - Munich (26), Nuremberg (9)
England (London) - Liverpool (27), Manchester (24)
Spain (Madrid) - Madrid (42), Barcelona (24)
France (Paris) - Saint-Étienne (10), Marseille (9)

 

[bluesfan94]

Interesting, I never really thought about this. Spain is the only league of the big 5 to have their capital even in the top 2. Although PSG recently has been the best in France, and Arsenal/Chelsea have been big in England.

City with the most championships:

Italy (Rome) - Turin (39), Milan (36)
Germany (Berlin) - Munich (26), Nuremberg (9)
England (London) - Liverpool (27), Manchester (24)
Spain (Madrid) - Madrid (42), Barcelona (24)
France (Paris) - Saint-Étienne (10), Marseille (9)

Yeah exactly. And really, you should conglomerate the Ruhr region into one metropolis and it'll come up second (or first) in Germany.

 

[hatterson]

Not arguing Spurs is destined to become the biggest club in the world. Extremely unlikely, but so is Manchester having one of the top 3. So who knows what happens over the next 50 years. Medium term I do see them being top 10 in Europe though. And if FFP really works top 5 might not be out of the question over the next 10 years. Not saying it has to happen, but it could.

A top 5 club in terms of what? reputation/prestige or money?

 

[Blender]

Yeah exactly. And really, you should conglomerate the Ruhr region into one metropolis and it'll come up second (or first) in Germany.

Wikipedia says by region it's Bavaria (39), and North Rhine-Westphalia (25). I admittedly don't know enough about German regions to say if that is a proper division or not.