Proving that neither transfers nor buying a top goalscorer are the way to win the league

By Tony Attwood

Since Untold started in January 2008 I’ve never thought that Untold would make any reader change his/her mind.  Rather I just hoped that I might find a few people who like me, felt that football was not being reported in a reasonable way.  And that seems to have happened.  At least I feel less alone!

Through the process of probing and searching, over the years I think we’ve picked up on maybe four or five areas where this notion – that the media, for all sorts of reasons, will present a false picture of what football is – has not only been continued but also amplified.  And the one element within this we have been discussing a lot of late – transfers – continues to pop up year after year.

The media loves transfers because they don’t require any journalism – you can just make up a story and then when it doesn’t happen, blame the club for being too slow or being unwilling to pay the right amount of money.   It is also one where myths can be built up – such as that Arsene Wenger will never spend money – even though he has bought the likes of Ozil and Alexis.

But this constant push in relation to transfers now has a power of its own, in that in some people’s minds, big money transfers are what defines a club’s success.  In such a view of the world Manchester City, Chelsea, Manchester United, and Liverpool were actually more successful than Arsenal in the league last season because the spent more money.

Of course the League table tells a different story.  But there is more to it than that, as I have been trying to say in articles over the past year…

Why big name transfer window signings are more likely to flop than succeed

How much did the Arsenal squad actually cost and did we get value for money?

But it is not just any transfer at a high fee that is wanted.  It is a striker.  Always a striker.   We have also shown that although having the top scoring players in the league in the squad can help a team win the league, it happens far less than one might imagine.   The fact is that many of the most successful teams in the League have had a good striker, and at least one astounding wing player, or a brilliant number 10, or a man who can put through assists.  It is the combination that works – but is of course less easy to write a simplistic headline about.   And the combination of a brilliant winger or number 10, plus a superb always fit striker who scores all the time, is very, very hard to get.

But then argument is that we still ought to buy because some of the transfers work.   But as I want to argue here, buying a duff player can itself be a huge problem for various reasons.

First, it hampers the manager.   He has invested the big money in the player and that player doesn’t start scoring.  The manager is reluctant to drop the player because of the publicity surrounding the purchase so it is very much a case of his name being on the line.

The crowd start to get on the player’s back.  Other players in the squad know that this newcomer is having a hard time, and that this is causing the club difficulty.   When the club draw or lose instead of getting an expected win, there is moaning in the dressing room that the new man is taking the big salary and stopping the lower paid players getting their win bonus.

The new man tries harder, which is often the worse thing to do because on the field of play you need to have that balance between relaxation and tension.  You need the adrenaline and calm.

Such a balance is not something I can talk about from a football point of view since I’ve never played at anything like a decent level, but exactly the same issues arise in the theatre where I have worked, and in musical performance.  At the heart of this is the need to realign posture and to avoid unnecessary muscular and mental tension.  Get too worked up about your poor performances on the pitch and you start running inefficiently, and respond to stressful stimuli in an exaggerated way.

Everyone involved in performance being sporting or artistic, comes to realise the need for balance.  But it is this that often eludes the expensive signing who fails to live up to expectation, and who then causes disharmony.

The problem with football is that because our support is focussed on just one team we tend to be very aware of our own players who fail to realise their ability, and so we blame our manager for buying a player who turned out to be a donkey.  But the problem of harmony and balance against the big name purchase is one that every team faces.

Players need to fit into a team, and so each new purchase has to relate to the players already at the club as well as their own personal playing abilities.  Robert Pires is a perfect example.   Arsene Wenger realised that although right footed Pires played far better on the left because of the way his eyesight worked.   It is not at all uncommon for people to have much better awareness of what is happening around them on one side rather than the other.  This difference is not to do with handedness (I am right handed but my awareness on my left is far greater than on my right) but to do with the eyes themselves and the eye/brain co-ordination.

Put Pires on the left wing and he was a much much better performer than on the right.   But Henry also had the desire to drift out to the left wing, as those of us who watched him week on week will remember with such joy.   So Arsene Wenger had to work out a system with the two players as to how they would handle this, and of course it came good – although I think many people do forget that Pires first season at Arsenal as he adjusted to the demand of the approach, was not his best.  Indeed the crowd did get on his back a little.

Henry scored 17 goals in his first two league seasons with Arsenal – his second season being Pires’ first, when he (Pires) struggled to make sense of his position in the team, and to overcome the fact that he was chopped down by a thug player every time he got the ball.   But in Pires’ second season and Henry’s third, the combination exploded and as a result Henry went up to 24 goals.   Indeed it is often said that Pires actually arrived on 31 March 2001, a day many remember as the day David Rocastle passed on.  Arsenal played Tottenham that day, Pires was amazing, we won 2-0.  Three matches previous to this we had lost 6-1 to Man U.  It was impossible to imagine how the team could have been transformed.

Wenger had faith not only in Pires but also in the Pires/Henry combination, and Mr Wenger’s position was safe because the clamour to get rid of managers at the drop of three points was less in those days.

So we’ve seen through these articles that having the top scorer in the league can help win the league, but doesn’t always.  That high cost transfers can help, but can hinder.  And that the simplistic link between how much a club spends and where it comes in the league is actually a fantasy.

But still, in all this people forget just how many transferred players flop.

I could list hundreds of such players, but here are three, virtually selected at random.

Juan Sebastian Veron – Chelsea.   He made seven appearances in his season at Chelsea before being sold on to Inter.  It cost Chelsea over £2 million a game.

Roque Santa Cruz – Manchester City.  He cost £17.5 million and scored 3 goals in 19 league games and after one such the following season he went back to Blackburn on loan coasting £875,000 a game.
And of course with Liverpool I could list player after player, but the likes of Mario Balotelli are too easy a target.  So remember Christian Benteke – a decent enough player who produced decent results, but was never really part of the system of the club.   That is what you get when a manager (Rodgers) knows everyone is getting ready to sack him and the fans are baying for purchases – no matter who no matter what.   There are many more like him.
 Remembering two transfers
  • 10 July 1995: David Platt transferred to Arsenal from Sampdoria for £4.75.  Platt said that Bruce Rioch had been on holiday in Portugal and flew to Italy to make the signing and they “hit it off straight away”.
  • 10 July 2014: Arsenal sign Alexis Sanchez from Barcelona for around £30m.  He became an immediate success being the club’s top scorer in his first season and showing an unending drive and passion while on the pitch.

35 Replies to “Proving that neither transfers nor buying a top goalscorer are the way to win the league”

  1. Buying players to fill a spot in a restricted 25 man squad also blocks off potential from within the club. If we had failed to promote Iwobi (cost in transfers £0) because we had bought someone who eventually was revealed to be a waste of money (insert own list here – cost £xm) then we would be castigating the Club and specifically the manager for mis-spending ‘our’ money and moving away from our very long held ethos of producing our own talent.
    Spending money in the transfer market is a massive gamble and is best done as a last resort and with money that is not already allocated to salaries, mortgage payments and other much more certain improvements the the Club’s overall strength.

  2. Is this an attempt at preempting the inevitable disappointment of Arsenal’s lack of transfers?

  3. great article. couldnt agree more. shevchenko (hands down THE BEST out and out striker in the world at the time) to chelsea anyone?

  4. Des. Enlighten me please.

    Your experience as a successful premier league manager is?

    How many transfers does the club have to make to meet your required number of transfers?

    How do you know that the players you want the club to buy can be transferred to the club? What evidence do you have for your claims?

  5. Sure, interesting. But you forget that the challenges notwithstanding, other clubs manage to assemble the right mix of players. It’s not a mere lottery.

    And Wenger hasnt managed this in over 12 years now. That’s a very long time.

    Admittedly, has HAS tried, with the pursuit of suarez and benzema. Many fans tend to forget that.

    BUT – he needs to go all in for a striker this summer. He has to be able to mount a serious title challenge this year, after having had a stable squad for many years and having added world class players like özil, sanchez, cech and xhaka. Otherwise his credibilty as a capable manager is all but gone i would say, and i fear we might see both özil and sanchez leave.
    (Really that should have been the case last year when he opted not to sign any outfield players, though there was a need).

    It’s not intellectually honest to ONLY emphasize the problems involved (buying expensive players who flop, etc) while not simultaneously submitting the club’s actual shortcomings to a similar critical examination, if you ask me

  6. Arsenal …

    Unfortunately this comment cannot be published because the correspondent so lacks in the conviction of his argument that he or she cannot even put a valid email address in.

  7. Arsenal has ….

    Sorry to cut this comment but it slipped through. The writer has failed to provide a valid email address.

    Can’t really understand why people are so lacking in the convictions of their own views that they won’t provide a valid address, but there you are.

  8. XX you have never won anything. You have never managed anyone. You do not know the difference between ‘Supporting the Manager’ & disloyalty. Do not use ‘we’ when it is only you. Thanks for your post, but its time for you to return to the sewer you came from.

  9. Robert, the problem with your argument is that this site has examined the other issues of what you call the “shortcomings”. Indeed the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the article gives a link to another piece (one of many) which shows that simply have the best goalscorer in the country is not a guarantee nor even always a help, towards winning the league. That’s the problem – you are commenting without even taking note of articles cited in this piece – let alone the many other articles on this site that have provided evidence supporting the thesis.

    To give but one of many examples, you could consider the restriction on finances that was caused by the stadium building. Now you could argue that we should have not moved, or that we should have tried to get the tax payer to pay as WHU have done – fine that would be something we could debate. But just to reject the view without even bothering to take up provided evidence isn’t a very good argument.

  10. Hi Tony,
    Although I agree with much of what you say regarding the cost against the success rate of potential purchases, it has become highly apparent for some time we urgently need a striker who is experienced and sharp in the box. Giroud is excellent at what he does but he comes from the Mertesacker school of speed. We desperately need an alternative and at some point in this window Wenger will have to bite the bullet and buy a striker at an exorbitant price and hope it works. That is what he should have done last year and that is what he is paid a huge salary to do.

  11. Your loyalty to the club is admirable, but there are times when criticism of the club is needed. Actual critical analysis of our finances shows that we don’t invest the profit we make. Why should a sports club make a huge profit every year? Who actually benefits from that?
    Logically, if our owner was interested in winning, the resources to compete would be provided. He had the money to prevent any number of player sales during the austerity years but chose not to. Why would anyone think that this is good for the club?
    The austerity years have brainwashed some fans into thinking that spending money on top players is cheating – but its not. We are perfectly entitled to carefully spend some profit on improving the team. That was the whole point of moving stadium and growing the club. Instead we have a leech of an owner who is banking the fans money and stunting our development. I have no doubt that these problems will continue long after AW has retired.

  12. ‘In such a view of the world Manchester City, Chelsea, Manchester United, and Liverpool were actually more successful than Arsenal in the league last season because the spent more money.’

    Suspect you were having a little joke there,Tony, but it actually gets close to the heart of the issue : the media imply spending is always a good thing, and that not spending is a disaster, but they don’t congratulate a team for spending large amounts at the end of a year in which that team is not successful.

    If they are to comment, at that stage, on the fact the team spent a lot but didn’t excel, it will be to criticise the quality of the signings. You may, at that stage, see some journalists touch on the fact that not all big spending works.

    But then the new season begins (a few days after the last one ends) and…no lessons are learned or inferences made from the last season in relation to transfer spending. Or at least any such knowledge only tends to be in evidence around the fringes or, even worse, is there one minute gone the next.

    In a majority of lines of work, a person or the business/organisation they belong to would receive some punishment for ignoring evidence and repeating the same mistakes continually, but not the media.

    On it goes.

  13. Guys, even Arsene Wenger himself is trying to get a top notch striker. That obviously means those of us who are indeed genuine Arsenal fans (as well as Wenger fans) may be right in saying that our beautiful football needs to be rewarded with more goals.

    Le Prof has said that he was handicapped for about 10 years due to the costs of building the stadium. He said he couldn’t compete to buy or keep the top, top players.
    Now that that handicap is over, we (who like Tony) are genuine Arsenal fans should surely be given space without undue criticism of asking that Arsenal now address what we see as a weakness. No, I have never been a manager. No, I have never coached. But yes, I know a top, top striker when I see one. I have seen Thierry play, I have seen Dennis The Non-flying Dutchman, I have seen Anelka, I have seen Ian Wright. I have seen Pires. I have seen (with regret) van Persie.
    I have also seen Suarez, and seen our shambolic attempt at breaking the Release Clause with £1 (which did our good name a lot of damage in that we were made to look like scroungers). I have indeed seen, with regret and hatred, Van Nisteltrooy and other top quality finishers.

    Le Prof does want to buy a top notch striker. I think everyone knows it. The points of debate should be:
    1) let’s hope Arsenal offer the true value of the player (and not £40m plus £1 for a super striker like Suarez. I accept we were not fully to blame for this regretful episode as we were dealing with a dishonest Liverpool executive team).
    2). What sort of top notch striker would we the Gunners love to see.
    3). Can Le Prof surprise us once again by buying a brilliant but unknown striker?
    4). Will Le Prof surprise us by buying a well-known and brilliant striker at the top of his game such as he did when he bought Ozil and Sanchez? Could that be Griezman???

    We all know that not all transfers work. Not all expensive transfers work, that’s a fact. But not all cheap transfers work too. I think most expensive transfers work rather than fail. Let’s us not use the failures of some expensive transfers as a basis to think it is bad to buy expensive players. There are many expensive players that have worked well for Arsenal and for other clubs: Ozil and Saurez quickly come to mind. Suarez and Cristiano Ronaldo are other very expensive players that have been outstanding for their clubs. The examples are many.

    As Arsenal fans let’s hope that Le Prof builds a squad that can win us the title and the Champions League. We the fans have waited too long for these trophies. Our club is too big and too rich to have waited so long for these honours. Le Prof really deserves to win the Champions League to crown his many years of loyal service to Arsenal FC and the world of football. Our genius of a manager should in all fairness also lift up the Champions League trophy.

    Giroud is a very good striker but Arsenal needs a better and quicker striker in our squad. Giroud and the new striker could complement each other or rotate each other.

    Viva Arsenal. Viva Le Prof.

  14. Very nice Analysis Tony. Couldn’t agree more. However, just to play devil’s advocate, have to wonder if we tried hard to lure Lewandowski or Diego Costa before their moves to Bayern / Chelsea. They would have cost more than OG but they bring a little more than him as well. Is taking a chance on Sanogo a lower risk than spending more money for an established player? Clearly for the right player Wenger is not afraid to spend. Of course easy for us to analyze after the fact. Maybe there were other factors at work. At the end of the day, it is definitely an art and not an exact science; and Wenger has got this right more often than not. More than the transfers the sense of unfulfilled potential with Jack and Theo so far is my biggest disappointment. If they had not had such a start-stop career to date we likely would not be having a conversation about bringing big name players I think.

  15. Zuruvi,
    Ozil and Suarez?

    Apart from that, fair point.
    I would add that the ‘Handicap’ isn’t removed completely, just a much smaller Handicap.
    We still couldn’t build a team of ‘Galacticos’ but equally we can afford to pay big money for the right player.

  16. I am glad that Diego Costa did not join Arsenal. His brand of aggressive cheating and habit of cowardly assaults make him stand out even among the Chelsea squad’s general unpleasantness under the Odious One.

  17. TonY Atwood

    I enjoy and agree with most of what you say, but have constantly challenged your prognosis that spending big does not equal success.

    Every time you post this thesis I respond with statistics that prove that prolonged high, or ‘mega’ spending, ultimately, if not always instantly, means success.

    I am certainly not going to waste my time posting them again as you have constantly refused to even respond to my statistics, some of which I spent hours collating.

    I have defended this sites stance on many things, to the point of entering into prolonged and very frustrating ‘debates’ with people I would not like to spend a moment in the company of.

    Yet you have point blank refused to ever acknowledge my posts and the statistics within.

    Making such claims as you have above without the decency to debate with someone who contests your claims is a bit of a poor show if you don’t mind me saying.

    To say I am disappointed with your attitude is an understatement to say the least.

  18. Okay, one more time.

    The 12 seasons since Arsenal last won the PL.

    That’s 36 domestic trophies, one of which is pretty much a 2nd 11 competition, but I I’ll include it any way.

    The big one. The real reason the money is spent. Well along with the CL, but this is just about the domestic trophies.

    Premier League:

    Man UTD 5

    Chelsea 4

    Man City 2 (But they’ve only been spending for half this period don’t forget).

    So that’s 11 out of 12 won by the ‘Mega’ spenders.

    Now for the one that is taken pretty seriously by the ‘Mega’ spenders, although not always, depending on CL and PL commitments.

    And lets also not forget the luck of the draw, as well as being a head to head knockout competition, greatly increases the chances of an ‘anomaly’

    Even with all that:

    Chelsea 4

    Man Utd 1

    Man City 1

    6 out of 12 won by the ‘mega’ spenders.

    Ok, not so impressive but it’s still half. But when you then see that Liverpool, the 4th biggest spenders, won one of the others and Arsenal won 3, 1 of which was before chelsea’s money had really kicked in and city hadn’t even started spending big, and 2 since we have started spending at least bigger, it still points at the money.

    That’s 10 out of 12 won by either the ‘Mega’ spenders or big spenders.

    Now for the reserve cup. Arguably a Cup the CL sides, or ‘Mega’ spenders would rather do without, but even so:

    Chelsea 3

    Man Utd 3

    Man City 2

    That’s still 8 from 12.

    So, from 36 available trophies 25 where won by the ‘mega’ spenders.

    From 36 trophies 29 where won by either ‘mega’ or ‘big’ spenders, Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal. 30 If you include Spurs’s LC win.

    30 from 36.

    As I say, anomalies happen, especially in Cup competitions, but really, can anyone honestly suggest that ‘Maga’ spending does not, ultimately leads to success?

    I’ve yet to see anyone dispute that convincingly, and that includes Tony.

  19. Jambug, I agree with your argument.
    Thanks for explaining it much more eloquently than I would have.

    Untold Arsenal is a brilliant forum because it is for genuine Arsenal fans and because it promotes good debate based on facts. Jambug, you’ve given undisputable facts.

    Another easy fact to show that money creates champions is to ask why a team that was perennially relegated has in the last 6 or so years become perennial challengers for the premiership title. Yes, I’m talking about Man City. What has changed?

    Le Prof has done great to achieve good football on a relative shoestring budget. But good friends, we have now gone for more than 10 years without league title. And we went for more than 10 years without any silverware at all (before we won the 2 FA cups). The only reason why we went for so long without any trophies is because Arsenal was under significant financial handicap. Le Prof said so. Arsene Wenger said the lack of finance prevented our club from winning the major trophies because we couldn’t recruit top talent as we had no money. Le Prof was saying that there is a link between success and having ability to spend big. It is not a perfect relationship as we can in rare instances have Leicester winning the league or Chelsea finishing 10th or both. These are just rare anomalies. In general, and in the long term, the teams that spend big tend to do better than those that spend less.

  20. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results – Einstein.

    Apply this train of thought to Wenger and the need for change is apparent. I love Wenger and know he loves Arsenal but he desperately needs to swallow his pride and spend the big bucks. I agree big spending doesn’t guarantee results but it is a clear indication to the top players in our squad of our intentions. Mahrez cost 400K and Sterling cost 50M so evidently price isn’t everything but the fact Man U and Chelsea can pull in the big names still without CL football says 2 things to me. Either the players don’t respect Wenger or respect the club.

    This has to change in the upcoming season.

  21. Brilliant analysis by Tiny. I also agree with the counter points presented by Jambug. Last year was a freak year where only arsenal among traditional back four that bettered the previous years result. Buying established strikers for millions may not be our cup of tea, I support the stance the club takes as a fan. However I can not fathom why the arsenal scouts could not pick out the likes of Suarez, Lewandowski, Aubymayang, Griezman, neymar before they became the most wanted in Europe. It means we don’t have the eyes or ears that get us the top quality strikers. Now that to me is a catch 22, because you don’t get them as relative unknowns and we refuse to spend the millions. So how do we get the required striker??

  22. Or Brookster one could say the definition of insanity is suggesting Einstein said something but actually having no idea whether he said it or not, nor where it comes from. If you are going to use a quote from a famous person as the opening point of your argument you really ought to check where it actually comes from. Otherwise, it does rather detract from what you say thereafter.

    By the way, do you actually know what Einstein did?

  23. Brookster731

    Oxil…..£42 million
    Sanchez….. £35 million
    Zhaka…..£32 million
    You are either blind or stupid.
    Or both.

  24. Tony Atwood

    “But this constant push in relation to transfers now has a power of its own, in that in some people’s minds, big money transfers are what defines a club’s success.”

    It is. Or at least ‘big money spending’ is. Obviously not EVERY big money signing works, as not every low money signing fails. But as the statistics show, clubs that consistently spend big, win big.

    “In such a view of the world Manchester City, Chelsea, Manchester United, and Liverpool were actually more successful than Arsenal in the league last season because the spent more money.”

    This is an utterly ridiculous statement. How can you just isolate one season as ‘proof’? This is like isolating a referees one decent performance as proof that he is a good referee. The only way to judge a referee, or anything for that matter, is to measure the performance/results over a period of time, and generally the longer the period, the better and more reliable the results.

    This is how it can work, and I’ll show you using the fictional Club, Big Bucks United or BBU

    Season one, BBU spend £100 Million (talking Net loses here) recruiting 3 mega stars. Out of these 3, one does well, one okay, but one fails to deliver at all. Something was missing. They win nothing, despite spending a fortune.

    The next season, the successful signing from last year continues in the same vein. The okay signing, now settled, steps up. The flop still cant settle and is sold for a small loss. No big deal, as he’s simply replaced by another big signing. Not only that but an academy player breaks through. This all results in an improvement and with it a runners up spot and an FA Cup win. All for a £40 Million layout (net). But something is still missing.

    The next season the manager targets what he says as the final part of the jigsaw. At £60 Million it’s a big outlay but he is convinced it will be worth it. Anyway, this is off set with the moving on of 4 or 5 fringe players, recouping £50 Million of that outlay. This resulted in a meagre net spend this year of just £10 Million. But it all clicked. The early big signings where now settled. The academy player was now an established star, and the new signing hit the ground running.

    Result, despite a meagre summer transfer spend of just £10 Million, a title, an FA Cup and a good run in the CL.

    So in a season one, when £100 Million net is spent, Big Bucks United won nothing.

    So big money spending doesn’t work. Or does it?

    In season two Big Bucks United spend again. Okay, at £40 Million it’s not in the same vein as season one, but it’s still a substantial amount. Still no title, but it’s enough to land a cup.

    So big money spending still doesn’t really work. Or does it?

    In season three Big Bucks united only spend £10 Million. Hardly ‘Mega’ spending is it? But here’s the rub, this is the season it all clicks and they win a double and reach a CL final.

    And they did this without hardly spending a thing.

    But that’s not true really is it? Because it’s not just about ONE seasons spending is it? It’s about consistent big spending averaged out, season after season.

    With my fictional example above, Big Bucks United net outlay over the 3 year period was £150 Million, averaging out to a net spend of £50 Million per season.

    And this Tony is how it works.

    -Expensive signings flop. I know that. But they can also transform a team, a la Ozil and Sanchez.

    -Cheap signings succeed. I know that, but they can also be a resounding failure, as we have witnessed at Arsenal, and at every other Club to be fair.

    -One seasons big spending doesn’t guarantee success. I know that, but it can, and has.

    -Big signings don’t always hit the ground running. I know that, but occasionally they do, and even if they don’t as we have witnessed with our 2, seasons down the road they can be sensational.

    -Constant changing of manager can be disruptive, I know that, but it can also invigorate a team.

    All of these things are true.

    But the unavoidable truth of the matter is, as my statistics above shown conclusively, is that:

    25 out of 36 domestic trophies where won by the 3 ‘mega’ spenders.

    29 out of 36 domestic trophies where won by the top 5 spenders.

    These are the basic hard facts regarding the relationship between transfer spend and the acquisition of trophies.

    It is irrefutable that, over time, the more you spend the more you win.

    I’m sorry Tony, but on this issue you are wrong, and refusing to respond to my posts simply reinforces the notion that you know you are.

  25. Jambug
    July 11, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Repetition is a tedious vice, yet some find joy in it. Don’t seek validation bro’, just exhale and let it go! lol!!

  26. doc

    I appreciate what you are saying, and you do have a point.

    But the fact is Tony seems as obsessed with HIS theory that there is no, or very little, correlation between transfer spend and winning trophies, as I am with mine, that there is.

    Perhaps if Tony didn’t repeat his assertion quite so often, or otherwise had had the decency to respond to my posts at an early opportunity, I would not have needed to repeat myself quite so often ?

    In which case rebuking me for repetition and seeking validation is a bit unfair don’t you think?

  27. Jambug

    I’d say Tony’s answering you in today’s article “The transfer debate……

  28. Jambug

    Only just seen your posts. They’re excellent. The lack of response to them ,now or in the past, is quite disappointing.

    Proving that a lot of shite is spoken about the correlation between spending and success does not disprove that a strong correlation exists between spending and success.

  29. Everyone of tony’s followers.Take a look at his blog on Man City.At last you have been found out.Not only have you double standards on copy and pasting others stories from other sites but for years you have censored this site to allow only followers who are prepared to kiss your arse and follow some of your brainwashed theory’s!!!,

  30. Rich

    Thanks my friend.

    The thing is Tony constantly promotes this sites desire for statistically backed arguments, but when you give him one he ignores it.

    Yet certain posters, who shall remain nameless, that almost consistently disagree with everything this site stands for, will be engaged.

    Yes it is frustrating, but I will continue to challenge him every time it comes up, despite ‘repetition being a tedious vice’ (Well I’m allowed to have one).


    Do you know what’s happened to proudkev? I miss his brilliant posts.

Comments are closed.