Style of play is just a weak bat that lesser teams can beat successful clubs over the head with Mourinho’s Chelsea, Guardiola’s Barcelona and Abu Dhabi FC and now of course Arteta’s Arsenal.
1 Like
It does come down to money but with the caveat that money doesn’t guarantee success. It merely creates a platform for success. Being able to take advantage of money is the skill and not everyone can do that. Thus @Bobthebuilder valid point re: Spurs. What we expect money to do and what it actually does are often miles apart at all levels.
On the one hand you have Spurs spaffing away the Bale money. On the other you have Cambridge United getting back into the Football League, drawing Man Utd in the cup and deciding to spend the £1m windfall on new toilets for the away end only to see a board member steal it.
One of the more interesting developments in recent seasons has been the creation of extra play off places. There is quite some opposition to this but one of the interesting, and I think positive, side effects is that, when allied to fewer auto places, the league becomes more competitive not less. Owners are far less likely to put money into trying to get even a play off place when there are more teams in the mix and so suddenly caution gets exercised. Add that to only 1 or 2 auto places and there’s an increased reluctance to throw money at auto promotion too.
Thus why the National League is far more genuinely competitive than say the PL. It’s a very unpopular view but I oppose the campaign for 3 up for exactly this reason. It encourages more money and more inequality.
To be fair, Arsenal’s football was dire at times last season. Can’t knock winning the title, though.
1 Like
Wrexham fans can forever celebrate and sing about being the first team to do “back to back to back”.
The reality was that in L2 there was exactly 1 decent performance to Christmas and 5 after it. We watched some grim s%ite. Nobody cares.
In L1 there were 3 decent performances over the whole season. We watched some grim s%ite. Nobody cares.
The most entertaining games in both seasons were ones we mostly lost.
You are making unwarranted assumptions about a forum member. Please stop as it is offensive.
There are various ways of using AI in research. Here are a couple:
- Use AI with open questions (best to avoid leading questions). Challenge AI to obtain clarity. Use independent research or otherwise to validate.
- As 1. But in reverse order.
I used 2 which is my usual preference. I had already done enough research in the past to make my initial claim, otherwise I wouldn’t have made it. I used AI to validate and refresh it.
Research is rarely complete and perfect and there is room for different interpretations. That’s the whole point of having discussions to enhance understanding. So you now have found a note that means you interpret things a bit differently. I don’t have to agree. Things are rarely clear cut.
But your repeated patronising responses do nothing constructive.
Love the edit. The omission of the word “… people’s…” is subtle and yet obvious. Alleges I’m attacking you whereas I was saying your post appeared to be a good example of that kind of thing.
I’m struggling to see the assumption to be honest. You used AI and quoted a report you’ve not obviously read which, apparently unknown to you, AI quoted from selectively and badly.
Which bit of
do you think there’s room to “interpret differently”?
A few posts ago you were quoting the Deloitte approach as “authoritative” but when it turns out that same document doesn’t support your opinion then all of a sudden “Research is rarely complete and perfect…”. 
.
AI considered it authoritative. That doesn’t mean it has to be perfect or complete. Nor black and white. Nor do I need to agree with everything it says. Nor agree with your interpretation over one part of it.
How do you know what I’ve read?
It maybe your opinion about the quality of AI, but I don’t have to agree.
You seem to have put full weight on one paragraph. That’s up to you but I am allowed to use whatever I choose to form my opinion.
By the way, be careful how you use emojis. I am not sure how you intended it to be received but in such a post it can be seen as mocking and aggressive.
I would prefer we stop this particular discussion.
1 Like
Spurs had 2 bad seasons. Spurs have regularly qualified for Europe over the last few years. As a general rule, and over a period teams, the wealthiest teams will always rise to the top (subject to the authority’s financial rules). It is exactly the same in the lower leagues.
My local NLN team, South Shields, have narrowly missed out on promotion in the last 3 seasons. If a multi-billionaire bought them, and invested in the club, do I think they would win the league? Yes, I do. It’s an inarguable fact that money counts at all levels of football. I wish it wasn’t the case, but I’m afraid it is…
I don’t, but it’s pretty obvious that if you’d read the Deloitte report you’d have said so and quoted from it directly. Instead you quoted and continue to quote AI. Trying to infer it’s somehow wackily unreasonable to assume you’ve not read it is bizarre as is pulling me up for quoting from the key sentence of the summary whilst you’ve essentially done the same whilst ignoring the key sentence because AI failed to tell you?
Trying to suggest that you were merely quoting from it and not endorsing it is just bizarre. You used it to reinforce your opinion so clearly you do endorse it.
I think you do need to stop this particular discussion.
I don’t disagree Andy. Money absolutely matters but I also think it simply creates a basis for success rather than guarantees it. Spurs in Europe etc. shows that Levy, for the most part, knew what he was doing even if fans didn’t necessarily agree. The fact they did have those awful domestic seasons kind of reinforces that, even with money, success is not guaranteed.
I always loved the FGR story. Season after season of Dale Vince putting in £1.5m. Way more than anyone in the NL at the time. Couldn’t get promoted to save their lives. Only changed when they got the right manager.
Would be interested to know whether you think Newcastle are “successful” given the money. Not being sarcastic. Think it’s relevant and, arguably, a good example of how many can move you in the right direction but there is so much more at play which influences success.
I did mention about adhering to the authority’s financial rules, Mike. For me, that is a given, even if the rules seem to be hugely inequitable. I would prefer us to try and stick within the rules (e.g. by selling Anderson/Minteh), than not. My point is that, as a general rule, success in football is determined by wealth now. That’s all.
1 Like
Wage bill is the biggest determinant of league position I recall.
You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can force me to analyse like you and come round to your conclusions, but football financials isn’t what this is now all about.
You continue to insult me, even though I have tried to dissuade you in previous posts. You just can’t use such emotive language. For example in your most recent post:
Yes, and under SCR, the ability to pay high wages is directly pegged to revenues. If you don’t have the revenues, you can’t pay high wages (hence why we lost Tonali to Spurs, whose revenue is.£300m higher than ours). All about money/wealth.
Yeah, I think we’re on the same page.
1 Like
No-one is forcing you to do or think anything.
You made a point, using AI to quote a source you claimed as authoritative but plainly hadn’t read. The source, when read in full, turns out to support the opposite, so you then claim that no source is authoritative but stand by your point, which now has no evidence to support it.
As an exercise in tying yourself in knots I think that speaks for itself. If you wish to retain the same opinion no-one is going to change your mind. Personally, when someone shows me my opinion isn’t backed by the evidence I tend to change my mind but maybe that’s just me.
That aside, the persistence in confusing terms addressed to the above logic and trying to suggest they are somehow pejorative to you personally is not helping. When you’ve explained how you can quote from something, claim it as authoritative and supporting your opinion but not endorse it, because you were only quoting from it, is not in any way bizarre, I’ll happily withdraw what I consider to be the mildest of mild adjectives.
Your conditional withdrawal is not accepted. Just stop.
1 Like
Disappointing that you read that as my offering something there.
You don’t seem to have followed your own suggestion. If you write nothing more on the matter I’ll have nothing to respond to.
Appreciate Spurs were starting from a different position but what inhibits Newcastle from growing revenue streams or at least growing them more than they have been?
It’s like I’ve said, and we all know, it’s about growing revenues. The starting point for us is the stadium, Mike. The demand is there. We have 170,000 members (non-season ticket holders who can apply for matchday tickets). There is also a ST waiting list. My mate is about 20,000th in the queue. Every game, home and away, sells out.
It’s coming up to 5 years now for the Saudis. There are frequent rumours in the local press/forums, but nothing concrete. Just get cracking on a new 65,000/70,000 capacity stadium. That will be a good start. It will also give supporters some reassurance that the Saudis are still fully committed, as confidence is dwindling up here. 
2 Likes