?% Villa. Martinez, MON and the pie eaters

[dave.woodhall]

You weren't so shy the other night when you were questioning my integrity.

[Villa'Zawg]

All you have to do to get me to agree with you is explain to me how we could have done it with less money and without further investment. You won't find any of the clubs that are now vying for top four with a more frugally assembled squad or significantly lower wages than we had. We were and are massively below average in terms of transfer spend and wages for the top six.

We need to stop thinking about the money as Lerner's money and realise that we are talking about the club's revenue and investment.

We were also massively below average in terms of points and league place in the top six. The credibility of your statistics, even dubious ones, would improve immeasurably if you didn't discard ones that don't fit into your argument.

I also didn’t mention the price of fish. That isn’t because I chose to disregard it on the basis that it didn’t fit my argument, I chose to disregard it because it was irrelevant to the point I was responding to.

If people want to argue that we spent too much on transfer fees or we paid too much in wages compared to what we achieved, then it makes sense to compare our spending  to the other clubs we were trying to compete with.

You have raised a different question about the other side of the equation i.e. our points total compared to the average top six. It’s a fair question.

In 07/08 we were 16 points below the average for the top six and 16 points behind the fourth placed team.
In 08/09 we were 14 points below average and 10 points from fourth place.
In 09/10 we were 10.5 points below average and 6 points from fourth place, with the added benefit of a decent showing in the domestic cups.

I’d be interested to hear how those statistics fit with your argument? 

They show that we finished sixth. Are you ever going to include more than six clubs in your rather tired argument?

I know we finished 6th Dave, I think everyone knows we finished 6th. The discussion is about whether we should have finished higher with the resources available to the manager, which is why it focuses on the top six.

You appear to have skipped over the statistics about average points of the top 6 that you asked for. It couldn't be that you are disregarding them because they don't fit with your argument could it?

[PeterWithe]

"Absence makes the Mart Grow Stronger":

http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fanseyeview/archive/2011/08/01/absence-makes-the-mart-grow-stronger.aspx

That is a really tired piece. He mentions losing Bouma to injury but not Laursen?

[dave.woodhall]

All you have to do to get me to agree with you is explain to me how we could have done it with less money and without further investment. You won't find any of the clubs that are now vying for top four with a more frugally assembled squad or significantly lower wages than we had. We were and are massively below average in terms of transfer spend and wages for the top six.

We need to stop thinking about the money as Lerner's money and realise that we are talking about the club's revenue and investment.

We were also massively below average in terms of points and league place in the top six. The credibility of your statistics, even dubious ones, would improve immeasurably if you didn't discard ones that don't fit into your argument.

I also didn’t mention the price of fish. That isn’t because I chose to disregard it on the basis that it didn’t fit my argument, I chose to disregard it because it was irrelevant to the point I was responding to.

If people want to argue that we spent too much on transfer fees or we paid too much in wages compared to what we achieved, then it makes sense to compare our spending  to the other clubs we were trying to compete with.

You have raised a different question about the other side of the equation i.e. our points total compared to the average top six. It’s a fair question.

In 07/08 we were 16 points below the average for the top six and 16 points behind the fourth placed team.
In 08/09 we were 14 points below average and 10 points from fourth place.
In 09/10 we were 10.5 points below average and 6 points from fourth place, with the added benefit of a decent showing in the domestic cups.

I’d be interested to hear how those statistics fit with your argument? 

They show that we finished sixth. Are you ever going to include more than six clubs in your rather tired argument?

I know we finished 6th Dave, I think everyone knows we finished 6th. The discussion is about whether we should have finished higher with the resources available to the manager, which is why it focuses on the top six.

You appear to have skipped over the statistics about average points of the top 6 that you asked for. It couldn't be that you are disregarding them because they don't fit with your argument could it?

I didn't skip over anything of relevance. Neither, unlike you, did I conveniently ignore another 14 clubs.

[Villa'Zawg]

All you have to do to get me to agree with you is explain to me how we could have done it with less money and without further investment. You won't find any of the clubs that are now vying for top four with a more frugally assembled squad or significantly lower wages than we had. We were and are massively below average in terms of transfer spend and wages for the top six.

We need to stop thinking about the money as Lerner's money and realise that we are talking about the club's revenue and investment.

We were also massively below average in terms of points and league place in the top six. The credibility of your statistics, even dubious ones, would improve immeasurably if you didn't discard ones that don't fit into your argument.

I also didn’t mention the price of fish. That isn’t because I chose to disregard it on the basis that it didn’t fit my argument, I chose to disregard it because it was irrelevant to the point I was responding to.

If people want to argue that we spent too much on transfer fees or we paid too much in wages compared to what we achieved, then it makes sense to compare our spending  to the other clubs we were trying to compete with.

You have raised a different question about the other side of the equation i.e. our points total compared to the average top six. It’s a fair question.

In 07/08 we were 16 points below the average for the top six and 16 points behind the fourth placed team.
In 08/09 we were 14 points below average and 10 points from fourth place.
In 09/10 we were 10.5 points below average and 6 points from fourth place, with the added benefit of a decent showing in the domestic cups.

I’d be interested to hear how those statistics fit with your argument? 

They show that we finished sixth. Are you ever going to include more than six clubs in your rather tired argument?

I know we finished 6th Dave, I think everyone knows we finished 6th. The discussion is about whether we should have finished higher with the resources available to the manager, which is why it focuses on the top six.

You appear to have skipped over the statistics about average points of the top 6 that you asked for. It couldn't be that you are disregarding them because they don't fit with your argument could it?

I didn't skip over anything of relevance. Neither, unlike you, did I conveniently ignore another 14 clubs.

The statistics about our points in comparison to the average of the top six was relevant when you declared that in your opinion we were massively below that average, is no longer relevant now we have the facts to discuss rather than just your skewed opinion?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your concerns about your personal integrity seriously whilst you continually accuse me of duplicity and then change the subject when I challenge your accusations.

Feel free to now ignore the Villa points/avg top six points statistics that you raised and change the subject but you'll have to be more specific if you want me to understand the point you are now trying to make regarding the other 14 clubs.

[Percy McCarthy]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

[Greg N'Ash]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

[Percy McCarthy]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

[Concrete John]

Everton getting there was a fluke - they had a great season that coincided with Liverpool having a poor one, which the points total of their 4th placed finish would seem to back up.  Spurs did it with investment at or around our level, but put in over a longer period.

Not all MON's buys were great value, but to say his spend was enough that we should have gotten 4th is wrong, IMO.   

[Greg N'Ash]

i don't think you can call 38 games a fluke - they took advantage of liverpool's problems. We had exactly the same chance with arsenal and we blew it big time. We had tons of expensive reserves on big wages who the manager didn't play presumably because he didn't think they were good enough. A smaller squad with more quality reserves rather than a massive squad with average players would probably have done it IMO

[Percy McCarthy]

i don't think you can call 38 games a fluke - they took advantage of liverpool's problems. We had exactly the same chance with arsenal and we blew it big time. We had tons of expensive reserves on big wages who the manager didn't play presumably because he didn't think they were good enough. A smaller squad with more quality reserves rather than a massive squad with average players would probably have done it IMO

You predicted we'd finish 14th didn't you?

[Concrete John]

i don't think you can call 38 games a fluke - they took advantage of liverpool's problems. We had exactly the same chance with arsenal and we blew it big time.

Well, if you count the 72 points Arsenal finished on in 08/09 as the same as the 58 Liverpool finished on in 04/05 then yes, we had exactly the same chance, other than totally irrelevant 14 point difference.

Them getting to 61 points wasn't a fluke, but 61 points being enough for 4th was.

[Greg N'Ash]

i don't think you can call 38 games a fluke - they took advantage of liverpool's problems. We had exactly the same chance with arsenal and we blew it big time.

Well, if you count the 72 points Arsenal finished on in 08/09 as the same as the 58 Liverpool finished on in 04/05 then yes, we had exactly the same chance, other than totally irrelevant 14 point difference.

Them getting to 61 points wasn't a fluke, but 61 points being enough for 4th was.

not sure what the points total prove apart from the league probably being weaker as a whole the season Arsenal were in trouble.

[pauliewalnuts]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

Where does the 13/14m a year net come from?

[Percy McCarthy]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

Where does the 13/14m a year net come from?

Greg's figures including the Milner sale. He is the voice of reason don't you know?