In the EPL thread a Chelsea poster made a comment about Liverpool's inflated squad which almost everyone turned around and laughed about because Chelsea's squad is massive as well.

Then with the Jovetic deal to Inter it just got me thinking, how much money does the EPL waste on players they don't need or give up on player after a season or two.

I mean the league has the most most money of any league and there is just case after case of these teams paying large transfer sums for players and then getting almost nothing out of them and either loaning them out or selling them below what they paid for them.

It's almost like there not even trying to form a coherent transfer policy or way to build a team they just buy and buy and buy because they have the money, they are like a rich housewife with nothing to do so they spend there husbands money on crap they don't need.

I mean it's almost like an arms race with children at the helm wanting a cool new toy every transfer window weather they fit the squad or not.

Man United's gotten in on the insanity with a gluten of midfielders Herrera, Blind, Carrick, Di Maria, Fellaini, Mata, Schneiderlin, Schweinsteiger, Valencia, Young

Look at the amount of money in that list.  People forget Herrera was 30 mill, Fellaini- 30 mill, Blind 14 mill, Di Maria- 60 mill, Mata- 37 mill, Schneiderlin- 30 mill ish, Valencia 16 mill, Young 18 mill, Schweinsteiger 18 mill

I don't mean to point Man United out as they have just gotten in on the insanity the last couple years but City, Pool, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal have been modest in there spending but it's a trend that has to stop at some point, right?

I mean teams from other leagues shop for bargains, buy players that fit there system don't buy multiple high price players for a single spot etc etc . Sure there are exceptions in other leagues but not like this.

I mean some of the EPL's non CL squads outspend other leagues CL teams and the EPL since adopting this model has been poor in Europe in comparison.

Does this bother EPL fans that they outspend there counterparts in other leagues yet can't compete Europe with them anymore?

Also please feel free to list other examples, BTW I used to say the same thing about Madrid as they were a massive culprit of buying good players for huge sums of money and then selling them on or loaning them out without getting any value from them.

Overmars, Petit, Vermaelen, Song, Hleb.

Kerrison, Chygrynskiy. Milito, Simao, Caceres, Riquelme, Ibrahimovic.

Gil wrote:Overmars, Petit, Vermaelen, Song, Hleb.

Kerrison, Chygrynskiy. Milito, Simao, Caceres, Riquelme, Ibrahimovic.

Its a good thread tbh.

A lot of EPL teams have been awful with their spending.

And it will only get worse.

Only Chelsea in my eyes seem to do pretty good.They made some shrewd market moves both selling and buying in the last few yrs under Mourinho.

Lower and middle table clubs actually make relatively many good signings. It's the top-6 clubs who waste too much money in their impatient search for the hottest players.

Art Morte wrote:Lower and middle table clubs actually make relatively many good signings. It's the top-6 clubs who waste too much money in their impatient search for the hottest players.

Disagree tbh, lower and mid table players buy an awful of crap when you compare to their European counterparts. They don't scout at all well.

Southampton and Swansea are the exceptions.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Disagree tbh, lower and mid table players buy an awful of crap when you compare to their European counterparts. They don't scout at all well.

Agreed.

They make a lot pf horrendous signings from mid-table down.
The January window saves a lot of them from going down.

Gil wrote:Overmars, Petit, Vermaelen, Song, Hleb.

Kerrison, Chygrynskiy. Milito, Simao, Caceres, Riquelme, Ibrahimovic.

Dude, you do know your comparing a team who have played and won big La Liga games with all 11/11 "homegrown" players and a CL final with 8/11 players that were homegrown.

Every club makes bad transfers but listing Barca is just comical.

Dnmac4 wrote:

Gil wrote:Overmars, Petit, Vermaelen, Song, Hleb.

Kerrison, Chygrynskiy. Milito, Simao, Caceres, Riquelme, Ibrahimovic.

Dude, you do know your comparing a team who have played and won big La Liga games with all 11/11 "homegrown" players and a CL final with 8/11 players that were homegrown.

Every club makes bad transfers but listing Barca is just comical.

Not sure what "homegrown" players have to do with transfers mind

izzy wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Disagree tbh, lower and mid table players buy an awful of crap when you compare to their European counterparts. They don't scout at all well.

Agreed.

They make a lot pf horrendous signings from mid-table down.
The January window saves a lot of them from going down.

I mean even relegation teams like QPR were outspending teams in Europe from other leagues.

And it's almost like they just could care less about the money.

The exception being Pool and Spurs got massive influx's of cash from Suarez and Bale but IMO just spent the money as quick as they could like they had to get rid of it or it would disappear.

If you gave that money to teams in other leagues be it Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany etc there is almost no doubt they would spend it better.

I mean some of these purchases your talking about almost zero production for them money.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:

Dnmac4 wrote:

Gil wrote:Overmars, Petit, Vermaelen, Song, Hleb.

Kerrison, Chygrynskiy. Milito, Simao, Caceres, Riquelme, Ibrahimovic.

Dude, you do know your comparing a team who have played and won big La Liga games with all 11/11 "homegrown" players and a CL final with 8/11 players that were homegrown.

Every club makes bad transfers but listing Barca is just comical.

Not sure what "homegrown" players have to do with transfers mind

Because Barca has largely built it's success over the last decade through there academy and filling in with top class players when needed.

Chelsea on the other hand has done it buy buying it's team much like Madrid.

I find it comical to point Barca out in compairison with Chelsea as they Chelsea has almost no Brittish identity in there team and buy ready made players the total opposite from Barcelona.

I even said every team makes bad transfers, I just thought using Barca as an example is totally missing the point of the issue with EPL's Spending and basically how EPL fans use other teams bad transfers to justify the leagues horrific approach to building teams.

I think the size of the transfer fees is only the tip of the iceberg. The second thing, where EPL clubs burn money like there is no tomorrow, is the immense amount of wages they pay even to average and below average players.

Not trying to question anyone, but how on earth did this thread get moved off the main board?

I can't think of one reason this thread belongs in this section.

????????????????????????

Mo money, mo problems. Felt way for years.

Everyone cries about money and how much money teams spend compared to others. Its not a concern, because most of the team these teams with so much money dont value it and therefore waste it.

It makes sense, when your broke, you prioritise better and you analyse every small detail before you make the jump.

When you got it all, your loose with it and you waste it because you dont think as clearly.

Just the same in football I think. These teams with so much money, end up buying just for the sake of it.

Dnmac4 wrote:????????????????????????

u mad?

gotta go with danny, felt that way about prem clubs for a while, they are wasting money, but since their spending a lot the media love acting like the mid-lower end teams>other leagues automatically always found that logic weird.

El Gunner wrote:

Dnmac4 wrote:????????????????????????

u mad?

I'm guessing you're trying to be funny and I'm sure it's one of your lot who moved this thread.  Do you have any reason for the thread to be moved?

We have threads on the main boards for weeks on

Summer 2015 confirmed transfers

Summer Transfer rumors

Man United sign Di Maria

Van Gaal says United Lack Star Power

Newcastle assembling a good squad

De Bruyne should leave Chelsea

Raheem Sterling Joins Man City

Etc etc etc, we have one thread questioning the EPL's transfer policies where mostly EPl fans agree and it gets moved by probably a pro-EPL mod.

How many EPL transfer threads are on here and if this thread is moved shouldn't all the Van Gall says United need this or United sign Di Maria or Newcastle is assembling a good squad, shouldn't those be moved tot he United or Newcastle forums.

I mean this used to be a good board, now stuff questioning the EPl gets moved with the quickness.  I don't even think it was up for an hour until it got moved for no reason.

This is probably the reason like half the good posters have moved on or stopped posting on here, the EPL censorship has gotten way out of control.

just to get this out of the way my guess is that the argument is aimed mainly at the topto middle brass of the epl, and not lower sides as not many people, myself included follow what goes on in relegation to lower-middle table transfers (anyone who does, i mean that as no disrespect)

they make the worst decisions in comparison to who? according to some, the epl (don't quote me on this, i'm just going by hearsay) brings in the most funds and has the biggest market, so the spending habits of their top brass will be different from those of lets say serie a, la liga (with the exception of real n barcelona), ligue un (with the exception of the rich clubs)

the fact that england has 4 or 5 teams that have a lot of spending capacity unlike other leagues means they are likely to take more risks with regards to expenses and thus end up with more flops. for example anytime there's a big player on the market, he's linked to real, barca and a bunch of english teams....when real and barca are out of the mix or not interested, then you have a bunch of clubs from the same country that can sign said player, in order to avoid a bidding war, the price and wages get hiked up without any thought.

i disagree that its due to lack of scouting, everybody makes transfer errors, when you're fc porto, lyon, benfica et al who can't spend 30 million on one player, you become very frugal with your spending. and if you're real and barcelona who hold a duopoly, u're signings can appear smarter than they are , even though ibra, drenthe, song, kaka, hleb, faubert etc tells us that's not always the case

titosantill wrote:just to get this out of the way my guess is that the argument is aimed mainly at the topto middle brass of the epl, and not lower sides as not many people, myself included follow what goes on in relegation to lower-middle table transfers (anyone who does, i mean that as no disrespect)

they make the worst decisions in comparison to who? according to some, the epl (don't quote me on this, i'm just going by hearsay) brings in the most funds and has the biggest market, so the spending habits of their top brass will be different from those of lets say serie a, la liga (with the exception of real n barcelona), ligue un (with the exception of the rich clubs)

the fact that england has 4 or 5 teams that have a lot of spending capacity unlike other leagues means they are likely to take more risks with regards to expenses and thus end up with more flops. for example anytime there's a big player on the market, he's linked to real, barca and a bunch of english teams....when real and barca are out of the mix or not interested, then you have a bunch of clubs from the same country that can sign said player, in order to avoid a bidding war, the price and wages get hiked up without any thought.

i disagree that its due to lack of scouting, everybody makes transfer errors, when you're fc porto, lyon, benfica et al who can't spend 30 million on one player, you become very frugal with your spending. and if you're real and barcelona who hold a duopoly, u're signings can appear smarter than they are , even though ibra, drenthe, song, kaka, hleb, faubert etc tells us that's not always the case

Just to answer your quote, look at Liverpool and Spurs for example after getting massive windfalls of money from Suarez and Bale.

They basically made pretty bad purchases with the money.  Now when a La Liga side or French or teams from Portugal and Italy get a cash injection like that they generally invest in youth and a mix of proven players but don't go buy a guy like Benteke for 40 million dollars just because they have the money.

A comparison would be Atletico when they sell a superstar forward every couple years they replace them easily and generally have cash left over to spend.

I would rather see them spend the entire Sterling or Bale money on one superstar player if they could then buying a bunch of "good" players.  Spurs squandered that Bale money horribly and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

QPR were outspending teams in Europe from other leagues and they were relegated.

It's a systematic problem in the EPL and almost a race of who can be more insane with there money.  There is almost no thought into why there buying a player, where he fits in, the long term strategy of the purchase.  It's just we have money, he will come here let's pay him a boatload of money (which can kill a players drive) and just figure it our later or dump it on a new coach after we fire our next manager.

And it's not just 5 or 6 clubs in the EPL doing all the spending a lot of teams have terrible transfer policies which is reflected in Europe.

The league has all types of money, spend it like crazy yet can't compete in Europe with teams that have rational transfer policies. Since the spending spree in modern football started happening like 5 or 6 years ago the EPL has gotten worse in Europe while outspending there counterparts.

It should be the opposite.

I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

If you look at Gladbach, this season, they signed Lars Stindl for 3 mio Euros, Josip Drmić for 10 mio Euros, Nico Elvedi for 4 mio Euros, Thorgan Hazard for 8 Mio Euros and Tobias Sippel for free.

Very likely, none of these players would even be considered by any EPL team right now, but you can be sure they will give a good account of themselves and you will even see them play in the CL (okay, not Tobias Sippel as he was signed for the bench anyway).

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

The simple explanation is that spending money on players doesn't necessarily mean having a better team for European competition. While there's emphasis on building a team that can be successful in domestic competition, the tactical side of things and preparation for European games can be neglected. Whereas in other countries, I believe their domestic game more closely resembles the European game, so they're already better equipped regardless of which players they sign.

I think you're overexggarting it being a wide-spread issue in the Premier League. You've given Spurs, Liverpool and QPR as examples of teams with poor transfer policies but I can point to teams like Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and Everton who have good transfer policies. Chelsea have spent well recently in the market (and don't forget they won the CL in 2012 and the EL in 2013), City for the most part spent well in the market, Arsenal generally spend well in the market. The latter two haven't done well in Europe but as I've said, that's not down to poor spending - it's down to poor preparation and tactics. Time will tell if United have invested well and how well they'll do in the Champions League.

So there are clubs with good transfer policies, club with bad ones, clubs who have mixed success. It's basically the same as anywhere else in Europe, only it's more noticeable because of the amount of money involved. Until last season, Serie A clubs had a poor record in Europe, yet you didn't mention those, probably because they didn't have as much money to spend. What about the Turkish clubs who can spend more than their domestic rivals but regularly fail to impact European competitions?

rwo power wrote:I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

...

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

This isn't really the case, though. Yes, there's an initial skepticism when a player is brought in for much cheaper than a fee received for an outgoing player, but once that player proves to be a good player fans stop caring about how much he cost. And I believe that's the same anywhere in Europe.

What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one. Again, though, this preconception is cleared once the player proves he is a good player and again, I think this is the case anywhere else in Europe.

GoonerJay29 wrote:What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one.

Yeah, that's something that I noticed in quite some forums. As a matter of fact, this actually helps keep players in the Bundesliga more often than not as the clubs with lots of money prefer to go for the expensive solutions instead of snapping up bargain that might be as good (or maybe even better for the team as they don't feel like superstars, but more as team players).

When I see what amounts of money often is paid for players in the EPL which I wouldn't consider as too desirable, then I'm really dumbstruck as often one could get far more value for money elsewhere.

GoonerJay29 wrote:The simple explanation is that spending money on players doesn't necessarily mean having a better team for European competition. While there's emphasis on building a team that can be successful in domestic competition, the tactical side of things and preparation for European games can be neglected. Whereas in other countries, I believe their domestic game more closely resembles the European game, so they're already better equipped regardless of which players they sign.

I think you're overexggarting it being a wide-spread issue in the Premier League. You've given Spurs, Liverpool and QPR as examples of teams with poor transfer policies but I can point to teams like Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and Everton who have good transfer policies. Chelsea have spent well recently in the market (and don't forget they won the CL in 2012 and the EL in 2013), City for the most part spent well in the market, Arsenal generally spend well in the market. The latter two haven't done well in Europe but as I've said, that's not down to poor spending - it's down to poor preparation and tactics. Time will tell if United have invested well and how well they'll do in the Champions League.

So there are clubs with good transfer policies, club with bad ones, clubs who have mixed success. It's basically the same as anywhere else in Europe, only it's more noticeable because of the amount of money involved. Until last season, Serie A clubs had a poor record in Europe, yet you didn't mention those, probably because they didn't have as much money to spend. What about the Turkish clubs who can spend more than their domestic rivals but regularly fail to impact European competitions?

rwo power wrote:I think one of the problems of the EPL is that the fans of the clubs seem to demand "star signings" all the time, and currently they scoff at players are signed for below 20 mio Euros (or so) as they consider them not worthy of their teams.

...

Imagine an EPL club signing an AM for 3 mio Euros or a striker for 10 mio Euros - I bet the fans of that club would be outraged at the idea of such a cheap scrub being bought!

This isn't really the case, though. Yes, there's an initial skepticism when a player is brought in for much cheaper than a fee received for an outgoing player, but once that player proves to be a good player fans stop caring about how much he cost. And I believe that's the same anywhere in Europe.

What you might see is the logic that big money = great player being applied, whereby if a player is brought for a low fee, he is inferior to a similar player brought for a big one. Again, though, this preconception is cleared once the player proves he is a good player and again, I think this is the case anywhere else in Europe.

I mean you can say teams from other countries are much more set up for Europe with the style of play and I buy that to an extent but than the EPL it's self has been very poor the last two years so the signings aren't really even helping the league out.

I wouldn't consider Man City's transfer policy good with the amount of money there spending they are burning through players at an astonishing rate.  They released Jack Rodwell and Javi Garcia= 23 mill in transfer money not even accounting for salaries

Bony- 28 mill
Mangala- 40 mill
Navas- 23 mill
Negredo- 20 mill for one season
Fernandinho-30 mill
Jovetic- 26 mill - sold for like 8 mill and got nothing out of him
Sterling - 44 mill
There first couple windows were good but lately they have been awful in the market just buying to buy.  LOOK how much money that is for players who barely contribute outside of Fernandinho.

I mean Chelsea didn't lose money but they have such a massive squad and spent money on players who basically will never play for them.  They loan out like half there team.

Arsenal I said from the start has been restrained but they are also one of the only big teams who actually somewhat value a youth system.  That is where a lot of the insane spending starts IMO with the EPL is that the youth systems produce nothing at these bigger clubs.

And if you compare mid-table teams to there counterparts in other leagues they outspend by leaps and bounds yet again gain nothing from it.

City won the league though with Fernandinho, Navas and Negredo. Maybe that doesn't completely justify the expenditure on those players but if the aim of their policy was to sign players that would help them win the league, then it's been a success. Mangala had a dodgy first year but can get better, and Sterling is a young player. If they win the league again then arguably the outlay is justified, even more so if Mangala and Sterling become mainstays for a number of years.

We can't ignore either the likes of Kompany, Zabaleta, Clichy, Kolarov, Yaya Toure, David Silva, Milner, Nasri, Aguero or Dzeko. A few recent questionable deals doesn't undo the good work they did before.

As for Chelsea, true they sign a lot of players they don't ever use, but as far as I know (a Chelsea fan would know better) that's part of their strategy to raise funds for first team signings as they're attempting to become more self-sustainable and less reliant on owner-injected money. It's not much different to how Udinese sign a lot of players that inevitably end up at Granada or Watford without even kicking a ball in Serie A.

And if you compare mid-table teams to there counterparts in other leagues they outspend by leaps and bounds yet again gain nothing from it.

What are they supposed to be gaining? Premier League mid-table clubs are rich but the clubs finishing above them are richer and can outspend them. That's the same as it is in every other division, only on a much richer scale.

The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

GoonerJay29 wrote:The fact that Crystal Palace can outspend Espanyol doesn't mean anything.

I think it would mean something if the Crystal Palace guys would do proper scouting in the same hunting grounds were Espenyol fishes for players - in that case, Crystal Palace would be easily able to outbid Espanyol. Fortunately, currently the EPL clubs don't seem to scout in the areas where the poorer clubs have to look for players.