CONFIRMED: Moyes Leaving - All Reaction Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
No they just win things all the time.

For all the money that Man C, L'pool and Spurs have spent they have had precious little trophies to show for it - 1 EPL, 1 CL, few cups. Arsenal haven't won anything for how long? It's taken Chelsea many millions of spending to win the CL and their EPL/FA Cup titles.
 

Of course not. Moyes has managed to build one of the best teams in the country on bugger all spend.

It is absoloutly to his shame that he has failed to achieve anything tangiable with that team. We have been good enough to win a trophy for at least seven years.

And that's the main reason he should leave. Because frankly he's not good enough if he can't do better in the cups with this team than he has.

Agree 100%. Well I think shame is maybe a bit strong, but certainly a big dissapointment!
 
Just on paying the clubs that pay more wages than us they often pay huge amounts more but we probably pay higher wages than a lot of the clubs beneath us. Which is why no way were the likes of yobo going to move in the prem , once the 'big' clubs didn't want him here abroad was the only place he was going. I realise obviously the like of QPR are paying huge money but I mean 'generally'

We have, over Moyes time here, spent about the tenth most on wages and the 19th most on transfers and as a combined sum the 14th most on money for the first team.

Using the telegrath figures anyway which might not be entirely accurate. I think our average finish under moyes is 7th. So we're finshing seven places higher on average than our finances would dictate.

So our players are seven places better than the market thinks they should be and our manager is basically seven places better than the average manager in the prem.

Which is essentially my problem with Martinez.

No matter which way of looking at it (gross transfers, net transfers, wages, combined transfers and wages, cost of squad etc etc) wigan are about the 15th - 17th most expensive team in the prem and they finish about 15th -17th. Martinez gets market value from his team, his team are exactly as good as the market says it should be and he as a manager is exactly as good as the average prem manager.

He'll be a disaster here.
 
For all the money that Man C, L'pool and Spurs have spent they have had precious little trophies to show for it - 1 EPL, 1 CL, few cups. Arsenal haven't won anything for how long? It's taken Chelsea many millions of spending to win the CL and their EPL/FA Cup titles.

I don't follow your logic.

Man Utd and Chelsea are the only teams to win significant amounts of trophies - and over the last 10 years have been the biggest two spending teams.

Then the only other teams to have won anything - Arsenal, Liverpool and City make up the other top 5 biggest spending clubs

Then you say money isn't the important factor in whether teams win. Well you've just shown that is does precisely that.
 
I don't follow your logic.

Man Utd and Chelsea are the only teams to win significant amounts of trophies - and over the last 10 years have been the biggest two spending teams.

Then the only other teams to have won anything - Arsenal, Liverpool and City make up the other top 5 biggest spending clubs

Then you say money isn't the important factor in whether teams win. Well you've just shown that is does precisely that.

Liverpool have outspent man u over the last ten years.

Don't let them forget that.
 

We have, over Moyes time here, spent about the tenth most on wages and the 19th most on transfers and as a combined sum the 14th most on money for the first team.

Using the telegrath figures anyway which might not be entirely accurate. I think our average finish under moyes is 7th. So we're finshing seven places higher on average than our finances would dictate.

So our players are seven places better than the market thinks they should be and our manager is basically seven places better than the average manager in the prem.

Which is essentially my problem with Martinez.

No matter which way of looking at it (gross transfers, net transfers, wages, combined transfers and wages, cost of squad etc etc) wigan are about the 15th - 17th most expensive team in the prem and they finish about 15th -17th. Martinez gets market value from his team, his team are exactly as good as the market says it should be and he as a manager is exactly as good as the average prem manager.

He'll be a disaster here.

A perfectly logical point.

But destroys your argument for getting rid of Moyes.

Get rid of the only manager to do better than the market shows he should. And replace him with someone who does this AND wins trophies. Well I'm sorry they simply don't exist.
 
I don't follow your logic.

Man Utd and Chelsea are the only teams to win significant amounts of trophies - and over the last 10 years have been the biggest two spending teams.

Then the only other teams to have won anything - Arsenal, Liverpool and City make up the other top 5 biggest spending clubs

Then you say money isn't the important factor in whether teams win. Well you've just shown that is does precisely that.

Sure they've won things, but people make it sound automatic, as if just having that money is the only thing necessary to win things. If it were that easy surely those three would have won more than they have? Liverpool and Arsenal in particular have very little return for what they've spent (altho I admit maybe Arsenal aren't the best example due to Wenger's reluctance to spend big and their overall 'net spend (*opens pandora's box*)). But for all the money those 5 teams, plus Spurs have spent, only 2 have consistently won anything, and Chelsea 'only' have 3 EPL titles in the last 10-15 years. Which clearly goes to show that the post I was replying to:

No they just win things all the time.

isn't true for anyone but Man Utd. And their success is down to Fergie, not money.
 
Last edited:
Sure they've won things, but people make it sound automatic, as if just having that money is the only thing necessary to win things. If it were that easy surely those three would have won more than they have? Liverpool and Arsenal in particular have very little return for what they've spent (altho I admit maybe Arsenal aren't the best example due to Wenger's reluctance to spend big and their overall 'net spend (*opens pandora's box*)). But for all the money those 5 teams, plus Spurs have spent, only 2 have consistently won anything, and Chelsea 'only' have 3 EPL titles in the last 10-15 years. Which clearly goes to show that the post I was replying to:



isn't true for anyone but Man Utd. And their success is down to Fergie, not money.

Not exactly true
 

Sure they've won things, but people make it sound automatic, as if just having that money is the only thing necessary to win things. If it were that easy surely those three would have won more than they have?
Those teams (as a group) have won the league every single year for ages (and most of the FA Cups). Think of spending money as a raffle ticket -- you're not the only team with a ticket (so it's not "automatic") but no team without a ticket is going to win the league.

Liverpool and Arsenal in particular have very little return for what they've spent (altho I admit maybe Arsenal aren't the best example due to Wenger's reluctance to spend big and their overall 'net spend (*opens pandora's box*)).
There is one (okay one and a half) Cups per year. It's not a big sample size no matter how much people who desperately need to take a statistics course like to use the lack of a Cup to bash the likes of Wenger and Moyes. If we (or Arsenal) had a 20% chance of winning the FA Cup (which is absurdly higher than the true odds) you'd "expect" to win at least once every five years. However it wouldn't be remotely notable to perform below expectation and not win in 10 years -- play poker (or flip a coin) for an hour or so and you'll see how in the short-term even huge favourites can go on long runs where they don't win.

Which clearly goes to show that the post I was replying to isn't true for anyone but Man Utd. And their success is down to Fergie, not money.
But it's not like Swansea finished second one year. If you remove Man U. from winning the league then who is in second place? Another one of the super rich teams. So while it's probably true that Fergie won them some extra titles it doesn't disprove the money thesis -- another team with huge money would have just taken their place.
 
Not exactly true

Come on it is a shoe string budget:


  • 01 De Gea - £20m
  • 02 Rafael - £2.5m
  • 03 Evra £6m
  • 04 Jones- £18m
  • 06 Evans - Free
  • 07 Valencia - £17m
  • 11 Giggs - Free
  • 16 Carrick - £18m
  • 26 Kagawa - £13m
  • 10 Rooney - £27m
  • 20 Van Persie - £24m
[h=4]Substitutes[/h]
  • 13 Lindegaard - £1m
  • 05 Ferdinand - £30m
  • 28 Buttner - £3m
  • 17 Nani - £17m
  • 23 Cleverley - Free
  • 14 Hernandez- £6m

With only Young (£17m), Powell (£6m), Smalling (£10m), Vidic (£6m), Anderson (£17m) in reserve
 
There is one (okay one and a half) Cups per year. It's not a big sample size no matter how much people who desperately need to take a statistics course like to use the lack of a Cup to bash the likes of Wenger and Moyes. If we (or Arsenal) had a 20% chance of winning the FA Cup (which is absurdly higher than the true odds) you'd "expect" to win at least once every five years. However it wouldn't be remotely notable to perform below expectation and not win in 10 years -- play poker (or flip a coin) for an hour or so and you'll see how in the short-term even huge favourites can go on long runs where they don't win.

There's two cups a year. Three if you're in europe.
 
IndianaJones_BG_Large.jpg
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top