Ibime:


The more money does not necessarily translate into better players in comparison, all it means is players charge more for salary and other leagues charge more for transfer fees. Europa League performance is still a decent arbiter for the strength of the midtable.

Top players still go to top clubs and mid-level players still go to mid-level clubs. All those Tyrone Ming's, Matt Target and Matty Cash that Aston Villa paid £16-£30m from Championship are no different calibre to Joleon Lescott and Phil Jagielka that Everton paid £4m for in the 2000s. What of Sylvain Distin and Yobo for £4m? Distin and Lescott as LCB are better than Mings who cost £25m.

Aston Villa are now paying £35m apiece for the Championship best players in Ollie Watkins and Buendia while Spurs picked up Championship best players in Carrick and Defoe for £3m and £7m respectively. The best attacking midfielder in the Championship Tim Cahill will move to Everton for £3m then, today Buendia is costing £33m.

The £20m Villa paid for Traore who was not a sure starter in Lyon is no different than West Ham paying £3m for Freddie Kanoute or Fulham buying Louis Saha.

Spurs back then can pick up a UCL runner up and Bundesliga top striker like Berbatov for £11m, today it will cost £50m, or a Luka Modric for £16m that will cost £40m today. Where they pay £5m for Championships most promising left-back in Gareth Bale then, they are now paying £20m for Sessegnon who is not as good.

Croatia league top scorer and bonafide hitman like Viduka can come to Leeds for £4m, likewise a solid French DM like Olivier Dacourt for £7m who is better than most French DMs moving for £40m today.

Players like Ashley Young and James Milner who Villa would pick for £7m will be charged at £30m today.

Even back then, top legends like Fernando Hierro, Djorkaeff, Okocha and Ivan Campo come to Bolton to play their last three years, nowadays EPL can't afford their salary so they go to China, Qatar, USA.

In other words, the TV money has made no difference to the quality of the midtable. Top players still go to top clubs and midtable pay over the odds for what's left.

There is a difference between experiencing these things and revising them on Wikipedia.

I know for sure you can't be hitting 99 points regularly in EPL back then, much less both Liverpool and City taking 97 and 98 points in the same season. That just means the rest of the league is weaker, or too many teams are trying to be a poor mans Barcelona. Back then, teams like Bolton, Villa, Everton and co will scalp points off those teams with dogged performances, these days even relegation candidates are trying to play like Barcelona and taking 5-0 hammerings.

You typed all these under the assumption that more funds means better players. There are other ways money can influence success on the pitch other than outrightly paying for players. Of course, even a fool would know that big players will prefer going to big teams with history.

But look at this from this angle: better funding could improve a clubs training facilities, better managers, good scouts etc and most importantly, ability of a club to retain there best players against the big teams by offering good wages.

Leciester City who struggled with relegation in the 2000s is now known for their good management where they scout excellently for talents. They have a league title to show for this.

Everton afforded a royalty like Carlo Ancellotti who schooled Lampard when they met. Not necessarily because he had better players, but because he is better than Lampard.

Man City came and provided intense competition too. They afforded better players, facilities and management. They effectively ended the dominance of the Top 4. They even trashed Ferguson 6:1 in an outter show of strength which all but confirmed the beginning of a new era.

Tottenham also became more competitive. Though their progress was gradual but it was also noticeable...

So, while quality of players in Man u, Arsenal and Chelsea have slightly degraded, it would also be an error not to notice the improvement in other teams.

11611

I wuz ere.

Euros 2020.

swiz123:

So, while quality of players in Man u, Arsenal and Chelsea have slightly degraded, it would also be an error not to notice the improvement in other teams.

Such is the nature of football. Clubs come and go and it's not due to money but good decision making. As Leicester and Spurs rise, so did Arsenal and Newcastle fall despite having money.

The TV money does not afford clubs more coaches or scouts than before, they could always afford those, it's more the exchange of ideas and globalisation, not because clubs can now afford a scouts salary due to TV money. These are minor factors compared to the quality of players.

Allez Les Bleus!

O shey!

Wikipedia v Live experience

Old gods v new kings

La Furia Roja

Let's do this again Boyz

airmark:


Shame on you.

This doesnt look like a world cup or CL

If you want to see what a world cup looks like

airmark:


If we start with how Madrid dominated your team now, that's when you will start showing us pictures of how Ronaldo scored an offside goal and other ojoros they used to win UCLs in the last 10yrs.

Those that watched Beckam, Figo, Zidane, Ronaldo balling on the pitch at the same time will laugh at your wack judgement.

Barcelona, the UEFAlona era?

You are not known to be very bright nor sensible at anything that requires little thinking

Mecka:
nooo! I disagree. Aha What are you saying. A man U that managed to win two epl titles despite all odds is no where near a man U that won one ucl, multiple league and cup laurels including three back to back to back premiership titles with ease.

Man uts between 2008 and 2013 made 3 CL finals
How many did Man Utd of the 2000s make? They even didnt make it ot of their groups in 2005

popizaino:



Chelsea without Thiago Silva- R16 with disgraceful scoreline

Chelsea with Thiago Silva- European champion


Please draw your conclusion.

Chelsea didnt play this years Round of 16 with Silva and won both legs while he was jumping in the stands

popizaino:



When will you show us Chelsea ucl trophy for 2019/2020 season without Thiago Silva?

2020/21 was with Silva mostly on the bench where he belongs

FBS:
Euros 2020.

me think say na only copa you go watch where willy is involved

raumdeuter:


This doesnt look like a world cup or CL

If you want to see what a world cup looks like

Go and tell Messi that the 3rd most watched international soccer tournament is not major. Ode.

monerozi5590:



Airmark, what are you saying?... I watched all those guys in Madrid. Beckham and Owen didn't even see quarter final in the UCL with Real Madrid. From2005 to 2010 we didn't cross the round of 16.post 2010 was stronger.

From 2011 to 2021 we made 9 semi finals appearances in the UCL and won 4
From 2000 to 2010, we made 4 semi finals and won 2.

WHat does airmark know about football? You are just wasting your time trying to educate him
Even the Chelsea he supports, he doesnt know much about them. He is one of those crowd at viewing center too short to see the TV and will just shout goal when they hear people screaming

airmark:


Go and tell Messi that the 3rd most watched international soccer tournament is not major. Ode.

So Silva cannot win the World cup like Boateng, he cannot win the CL on the field like Boateng
He has to settle for a continental competition where everyone in the continent qualifies and they even have to invite fodder teams like Japan, Canada USA to make up numbers

donstan18:

What has money done for PSG and ManCity in Europe for the past 10 years?

Between PSG/ManCity and other Ucl winners for the past 10 years, who has spent much?

Money has ensured that PSG and City are dong way better than they used to do in Europe

For example both made the CL finals which they never did before

pamcode:
The fact that a league is competitive doesn't translate to quality. The 2010 era of EPL and Nigerian league are good examples of competitive league but quality was below par. I don't know what point you are trying to make but the top four teams then are better than the top four teams now.

I disagree

Ibime:


Such is the nature of football. Clubs come and go and it's not due to money but good decision making. As Leicester and Spurs rise, so did Arsenal and Newcastle fall despite having money.

The TV money does not afford clubs more coaches or scouts than before, they could always afford those, it's more the exchange of ideas and globalisation, not because clubs can now afford a scouts salary due to TV money. These are minor factors compared to the quality of players.

you really can't see big picture issues or understand correlation and causation

Where was the premier league before TV rights money?

What was the percentage of foreign players in the league before the money came and what is it now?


How about foreign managers?


How about investments into clubs by foriegn investors


The money made the premier league what it is today and over the years as they have made the sharing formula fairer, it has made most premier league teams more successful, they can take players from any continent and that made the competition more competitive
Watch and educate yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8MyodchL-c

Will SIlva ever get to hold this in his lifetime?

monerozi5590:




Alonso, Modric, Kroos, Bale, Benzema, Casemiro, Marcelo, Carvajal, Ramos, Pepe, Varane and CR7..All those guys made us thick and formidable.


Complacent!.... they were not just good enough..
Those days, Lyon d beat us like small pikin.

No. They were just not zealous enough. Barca spearheaded by ronaldinho overwhelmed them in 2005

Who wins or makes finals in Euro 2021 will determine men's player of the year.

Messi doesn't deserve any top three if he can't manage Copa finals. I hope Brazil with it though

Now favorites for Euros
1. France, having won 2018 world cup and bringing back our boy Benzema, making finals should likely happen and players like Mbappe and Kante to make top three men's player of the year.

2. England, not making this Euros finals would be seen as a step back, after using a poorer england squad to make 2018 world cup semifinals. If England wins, hope those who don't like Mount don't commit suicide because chances of him making top three or top ten men's player of the year is stamped. He is the Kante of England.

3. Belgium, for what it's worth, this may be the only chance Hazard, KDB, Lukaku get to lifting a major trophy for Belgium, a finals could get KDB winning men's player of the year.

4. Germany, filled with exciting players and hope, much like Spain, but with better hope of actually achieving something in this tournament. Unlike Spain, if Germany makes the finals, players like Gundogan, Havertz, Werner could make top ten men's player of the year, especially Gundogan.

5. Portugal, they could win it, I won't just say they would pull a surprise like Netherlands, Croatia, or Italy. Portugal have star players that could make a difference and make top three or ten men's player of the year, Ronaldo and Fernandes. Ronaldo could do what Lewandoski could dream of doing this euros, but not write Poland off, Denmark have as much as they do.

If I would write a number 6, it would be between Spain, Italy or Netherlands. This is England's best chance and season to win the Euros

raumdeuter:


Money has ensured that PSG and City are dong way better than they used to do in Europe

For example both made the CL finals which they never did before

In comparison with those that were doing in 2000s?

donstan18:

In comparison with those that were doing in 2000s?

In comparison to where City and PSG used to be

raumdeuter:


I disagree

let do a comparison then. 2000s - United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Now- Man city, Liverpool, Chelsea, United/Spurs.

The United side of 2000s were the no 1 and certainly are better than the dominating Man city now. They dominated the league like no other and performed excelently in Europe. The chasing pack currently don't even stand a chance.

Chelsea are arguably the second best team. A very solid team, might not blow away teams but we knew how to grind out results and our backline was arguably the best in the league. I would say we are greater than or equal to the man city team that is no 1 now. Over a decade, spoils would likely be shared equally if they were to be playing in this era.

Arsenal team especially the early 2000s consisting of Henry, bergkamp, vieria, A.cole, Lehman. I would say they are less than or equal to this Man city team. If they played in the same era the titles would be hard fought.

Liverpool would be stomped by both man city and Liverpool both, but will obliterate the chasing pack.
First three of 2000s based on quality and performance ahead of the first two side. It a wrap.

Why are we acting like it's all cool watching Tomori leave? I rate that niccur high, and believes he's better that Christensen.

I've been in Man United thread close to an hour now lmao

Airmark and Bikeman on another level of trolling.

raumdeuter:


In comparison to where City and PSG used to be

How about winning the biggest trophy in club football with their money since money guarantee football success?

pamcode:
let do a comparison then. 2000s - United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Now- Man city, Liverpool, Chelsea, United/Spurs.

The United side of 2000s were the no 1 and certainly are better than the dominating Man city now. They dominated the league like no other and performed excelently in Europe. The chasing pack currently don't even stand a chance.

Chelsea are arguably the second best team. A very solid team, might not blow away teams but we knew how to grind out results and our backline was arguably the best in the league. I would say we are greater than or equal to the man city team that is no 1 now. Over a decade, spoils would likely be shared equally if they were to be playing in this era.

Arsenal team especially the early 2000s consisting of Henry, bergkamp, vieria, A.cole, Lehman. I would say they are less than or equal to this Man city team. If they played in the same era the titles would be hard fought.

Liverpool would be stomped by both man city and Liverpool both, but will obliterate the chasing pack.
First three of 2000s based on quality and performance ahead of the first two side. It a wrap.

Man City >> Man Utd 2000s
Liverpool = Chelsea 2000s
Chelsea recent >> Arsenal 2000s
United recent <<< Liverpool 2000s

donstan18:

How about winning the biggest trophy in club football with their money since money guarantee football success?

When Chelsea spent money in the 2000s did they win the biggest trophy?