Fair enough and I take your point. The mangling of our wonderful language with US nonsense such as 'hence why', 'awesome' and 'it was like', boils my piss.
I appreciate that, I agree and would never want to butcher our language.
The reason why your correction got my back up a little because it felt like my mistake was used as an excuse to shut down the conversation. I have no formal education beyond my mediocre GCSE results and a vocational college course (no one's fault but my own obviously), which means I do make grammatical mistakes now and again, and I would never want that to exclude me from a discussion about football.
I apologise for my glib question about Ligue 1. Or should I say apologize?
I'll accept Ligue 1 isn't crap, but again you miss my point that despite their mega riches, they aren't succeeding against the better competition in the CL, as the level of spending suggests they should.
It depends what metric you use to indicate success. If winning the champions league is the only way they can be defined as successful, then yes, they've failed. Don't forget though that Rome wasn't built in a day: QSI have only owned PSG for 8 years, in which time they've practically sewn up French football and are beginning to compete for the champions league. I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if they won the CL in the next 5 years.
I would also probabaly predict that if they don't win it, then it would most likely be one of the other teams with the biggest budgets; Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid. You could argue that teams like Juventus, Ajax and Tottenham make better use of their money than the big spenders, but I dont think that will be enough.
That's a risible comparison as AS have barely two bob to rub together so of course they won't compete with City, nor has anyone suggested they will.
I know you haven't suggested they will compete with City, and I know that the comparison is obviously extreme, but I feel it illustrates the point that the amount of money you spend is ultimately more important than the way you spend it.
If Accrington wanted to compete in the PL, they could spend their way there. It might take a while, but if they threw enough money at the project, they would eventually make it.
I don't think there is any scenario where the
way they spend money could reap the same results. That to me indicates that the amount of money you spend is unfortunately a bigger factor than the way it is spent.
The Manyoo point is much more relevant as they have a substantial budget anyway, which they have mismanaged. On the basis of how they've wasted the money they have spent, I'd suggest a substantial chunk of an extra £800m would be wasted on agents fees and overblown wages, to buy more Paul Pogbas.
I do however accept the general principle that more money means better players and some success, Wendy aside of course.
I think you're right in a sense that if Man Utd had an extra £800m they would "waste" a substantial amount under the current regime. (I wouldn't classify Pogba as a waste personally, but that's a different discussion.) My point about Man Utd was that, if had they had an extra £800m, they would have still been significantly stronger, even if they'd blown a good chunk.
www.transferleague.co.uk
