Forum
{{ post.commentCount }}

Didn't find anything.

{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}

Who is the best team outside the Top 6?
Ledley 4 years ago Edited
Celtic, Australia 46 1310

The top 6 in the EPL generally being regarded as:

Man City
Man United
Arsenal
Spurs
Chelsea
Liverpool

Not necessarily in that order.

I've been thinking about who is the best team outside the Top 6 in the EPL? Making them the 7th team ;)


In one line vote your answer and why. I will start it off :

Should be: Newcastle - One club city. Sticking with: Everton. 9 titles always a raucous atmosphere.

Candidates:

1
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

The top 6 in the EPL generally being regarded as:

Man City
Man United
Arsenal
Spurs
Chelsea
Liverpool

Not necessarily in that order.

I've been thinking about who is the best team outside the Top 6 in the EPL? Making them the 7th team ;)


In one line vote your answer and why. I will start it off :

Should be: Newcastle - One club city. Sticking with: Everton. 9 titles always a raucous atmosphere.

Comments
the_bald_genius 4 years ago
10 1583

bournemouth, eddie howe with limited resources and the team he built for years in epl, played some attractive football too.

1
NovaRuk 4 years ago
Real Madrid/Barcelona, Malaysia 17 741

Couldn't really say, they've been really inconsistent

0
Ledley 4 years ago
Celtic, Australia 46 1310

I will add a poll if the mods let me Bournemouth a good call bc of the live ladder & Eddie Howe.

0
milanlamiavita 4 years ago
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

Aren't Man Utd AKA 'best team in the world because we have high revenue and a load of asian and irish fans' in 8th??

0
milanlamiavita 4 years ago
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

@the_bald_genius. Did you just say he's had 'limited resources'? LOL. Bournemouth spent just over 50 million euro this summer transfer window. In 2017-18, they spent over 20 million just on Nathan Ake. Transfer window before that, they spent another 50 million euro. 55 million euro the transfer window before that.

First season in prem, they finished 16th. second season - 9th. Third season - 12th.

0
SunFlash 4 years ago
Manchester United, USA 19 3245

@milan

For a Premier League team, they have incredibly limited resources. Compare and contrast them to the other sides in the league, particularly those who have been in the league since Bournemouth arrived, and this becomes abundantly clear.

As for the question, I would also go with Everton.

1
Emobot7 4 years ago
505 11033

Watford? Their momentum have started to collapse but their coach still did something damn incredible with them this season, they also got unlucky in certain of their game. Not too bad for a team which a lots of people expected to be relegated.

0
kyoekyar 4 years ago
12 163

on paper? I think Everton

1
tuan_jinn 4 years ago
Manchester United, Netherlands 198 6912

@Ladley: create it, let me see if I can help to push it up

0
Ledley 4 years ago Edited
Celtic, Australia 46 1310

Was going to extend this to teams in Championship like Leeds United, Nottingham Forrest and Aston Villa then I thought 💭 some of the responses coming my way. Here we go:

... tatata, Tuan puts it on the main thread ...

1
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

Was going to extend this to teams in Championship like Leeds United, Nottingham Forrest and Aston Villa then I thought 💭 some of the responses coming my way. Here we go:

amir_keal 4 years ago
Arsenal, Netherlands 66 2894

I think Leicester, they have a good side,

0
FrenchKiss 4 years ago
Juventus, Italy 3 689

Huddersfield Town

0
Greatone 4 years ago
Arsenal, Australia 19 708

wheres wolves? i really like sporting 2.0

0
milanlamiavita 4 years ago Edited
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

@sunflash.

Have palace spent more than Bournemouth? No. Have Newcastle? No. Have Huddersfield since promotion? No. Have Brighton? No. hAve Southampton? No. Have Burnley? No. will Cardiff be able to spend as much as they have if they stay up? Highly unlikely.

You see, you're stating opinions whilst I'm looking at each clubs' net spend! The reality is that Bournemouth have spent more than all those clubs. So to say they're somehow on limited resources is factually bs.

I've come to accept die hard repeated inaccurate drivel that is thrown around cheaply by numerous pundits. Like hailing Eddie Howe as the next best thing since sliced bread, despite his team conceding 61 goals last season. But limited resources, when they've averaged spending of 50 million in each season they've been in the top flight. 50 million by a team that haven't achieved european qualification, haven't finished above 9th and haven't been anywhere near a trophy.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

@sunflash.

Have palace spent more than Bournemouth? No. Have Newcastle? No. Have Huddersfield since promotion? No. Have Brighton? No. hAve Southampton? No. Have Burnley? No. will Cardiff be able to spend as much as they have if they stay up? Highly unlikely.

You see, you're stating opinions whilst I'm looking at each clubs' net spend! The reality is that Bournemouth have spent more than all those clubs. So to say they're somehow on limited resources is factually bs.

the_bald_genius 4 years ago
10 1583

@milan your comment is baseless. How bournemouth has done to stay competitive to survive in epl, they have the right to spend. You cant stay in epl too long of you dont spend at all. Even if you spent, there are others that spend as well, so spending itself doesnt guarantee survival either. As mou have said, you have to invest to give yourself a chance, yet some milan fans here trying to complain about net spend. If you dont want to spend move to ligue1 and bundesliga, where system allows talents to be babysitted. In epl, its simple, manager spend according to their beliefs according to their budgets. I dont spend a dime football is 80s mindset.

0
milanlamiavita 4 years ago Edited
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

@the_bald_genius.

Interesting that you label my comment as 'baseless', when I looked up Bournemouth's yearly spend and net spend. What I posted are the actual numbers regarding each of their seasons in the top flight.

'they have the right to spend'

  1. I don't recall me saying they didn't have the right to spend. BUT. Bournemouth aren't spending 50 million per season through success or expanding revenue. They're spending such amounts of money due to the new TV deal. A very good situation to have.

  2. My response was in relation to saying they're a club with 'limited resources'. This is the biggest pile of crap of a statement, when Palace, Newcastle, Burnley, Southampton, Huddersfield and Brighton are all spending less on average.

No one said they don't have the right to spend. I responded to your statement regarding limited resources. This is BS.

We're back to the usual pitiful response on this site. When found out, just attack the team the person support. The hell have Milan got to do with your inaccurate statement? I never complained regarding their spending. I said that what you've stated regarding 'limited resources' is pure fantasy and a pile of dung.

Stick to your original statement, instead of changing the goal posts when it doesn't suit your statement. 50 million per season on average is not 'limited resources'.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

@the_bald_genius.

Interesting that you label my comment as 'baseless', when I looked up Bournemouth's yearly spend and net spend. What I posted are the actual numbers regarding each of their seasons in the top flight.

'they have the right to spend'

  1. I don't recall me saying they didn't have the right to spend. BUT. Bournemouth aren't spending 50 million per season through success or expanding revenue. They're spending such amounts of money due to the new TV deal. A very good situation to have.

  2. My response was in relation to saying they're a club with 'limited resources'. This is the biggest pile of crap of a statement, when Palace, Newcastle, Burnley, Southampton, Huddersfield and Brighton are all spending less on average.

No one said they don't have the right to spend. I responded to your statement regarding limited resources. This is BS.

We're back to the usual pitiful response on this site. When found out, just attack the team the person support. The hell have Milan got to do with your inaccurate statement? I never complained regarding their spending. I said that what you've stated regarding 'limited resources' is pure fantasy and a pile of dung.

Stick to your original statement. 50 million per season on average is not 'limited resources'.

the_bald_genius 4 years ago Edited
10 1583

50 million is a limit lol, isnt that limited resources? your comment is just a spit of agenda, what bournemouth needs aren't the same what palace, brighton and southampton needs. not every team needs to buy a defender, not every team needs to buy a midfield, not every team plays like burnley, so your comment about how palace and southampton have less spending is baseless. oh right, I should agree with a milan fan who thinks 50 million = infinity.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

50 million is a limit lol, isnt that limited resources? your comment is just a spit of agenda, what bournemouth needs aren't the same what palace, brighton and southampton. not every team needs to buy a defender, not every team needs to buy a midfield, not every team plays like burnley, so your comment about how palace and southampton have less spending is baseless. oh right, I should agree with milan fans who thinks 50 million = infinity.

50 million is a limit lol, isnt that limited resources? your comment is just a spit of agenda, what bournemouth needs aren't the same what palace, brighton and southampton needs. not every team needs to buy a defender, not every team needs to buy a midfield, not every team plays like burnley, so your comment about how palace and southampton have less spending is baseless. oh right, I should agree with milan fans who thinks 50 million = infinity.

milanlamiavita 4 years ago Edited
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

@the_bald_genius

What they have in common is that they're operating in the same league, have similar levels of income due to their cut of the TV deal as well as similar prize money depending on where they finish in the league. What position each team strengths in what area is their own issue. They all have differing styles - that's the beauty of football. The reality is that when it comes to size, Bournemouth are similar to a crystal palace, burnley, brighton, huddersfield and not much smaller than southampton. Newcastle get bigger gate receipts, but their spending has been very very frugal, with Mike Ashley essentially wanting to spend the absolute minimum. So when you take into account the spending of teams in and around Bournemouth, they're actually spending more than all of those teams.

There is a feeling now on my part that everything I've just written is a bit too complicated for you.

Milan fan...here he goes again.
50 million is most likely a small budget for a champions league chasing football club like a chelsea, man utd, man city, arsenal etc. But Bournemouth aren't chasing the champions league. Not even finished in the top 7, unlike a burnley. So the whole idea of them somehow seeing 50 million are limited resources is laughable. It isn't a small amount, when you can afford 20 million on just one defender. 15 million on just jordan ibe.

I'm all OK with you spreading opinionated drivel. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that here. But when smacked in the face with actual numbers, it is best to just keep banging your head against the same wall instead of changing the topic. It makes you look really silly.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

@the_bald_genius

What they have in common is that they're operating in the same league, have similar levels of income due to their cut of the TV deal as well as similar prize money depending on where they finish in the league. What position each team strengths in what area is their own issue. They all have differing styles - that's the beauty of football. The reality is that when it comes to size, Bournemouth are similar to a crystal palace, burnley, brighton, huddersfield and not much smaller than southampton. Newcastle get bigger gate receipts, but their spending has been very very frugal, with Mike Ashley essentially wanting to spend the absolute minimum. So when you take into account the spending of teams in and around Bournemouth, they're actually spending more than all of those teams.

There is a feeling now on my part that everything I've just written is a bit too complicated for you.

Milan fan...here he goes again.
50 million is most likely a small budget for a champions league chasing football club like a chelsea, man utd, man city, arsenal etc. But Bournemouth aren't chasing the champions league. Not even finished in the top 7, unlike a burnley. So the whole idea of them somehow seeing 50 million are limited resources is laughable. It isn't a small amount, when you can afford 20 million on just one defender. 15 million on just jordan ibe.

I'm all OK with you spreading opinionated drivel. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that here. But when smacked in the face with actual numbers, it is best to just keep banging your head against the same wall instead of changing the topic.

the_bald_genius 4 years ago
10 1583

you're the silly one here thinking 50 mil = infinity. bournemouth needs jordan ibe with eddie howe's tactic, so what's wrong with that? operating in the same league with similar levels of income doesn't mean a team is in the same state as the other lol. what? not finishing in the top 7 is a failure is it? survival comes first, europa league spots comes 2nd. bournemouth isn't playing the same style of football as burnley. 50 million isn't a small amount but it isn't a big amount either and saying 50 million isn't a limit come on, do you even know math?

0
milanlamiavita 4 years ago Edited
Bustese Milano City, Italy 4 3418

@the_bald_genius.

Please point out to me where I've stated 50 million euro as 'infinity'?

'50 million isn't a small amount but it isn't a big amount either and saying 50 million isn't a limit come on, do you even know math?'

You're going to have to assist me with some commas and full stops, as I fail to understand the above sentence.

'bournemouth isn't playing the same style of football as burnley'

So what? Burnley still finished above them last season and qualified for the europa league qualification round. Have they got some sort of moral high ground to spend more, because they try and play football but concede 61 goals in 38 games?

Atalanta's net spend in 2018-19 - 27 million euro. (Post qualifying for europa leaue - Absolutely ruined Everton the Europa league - won 5-1 and 3-0)

Atalanta net spend in 2017-18 - Made 9 million euro profit

Atalanta net spend in 2016-17 - Made 26 million euro profit

Atalanta net spend in 2015-16 - Made 13 million euro profit

There are clubs out there, spending much much less and achieving a whole long more. And here you are calling 50 million spend average 'limited resources'.

1
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

@the_bald_genius.

Please point out to me where I've stated 50 million euro as 'infinity'?

'50 million isn't a small amount but it isn't a big amount either and saying 50 million isn't a limit come on, do you even know math?'

You're going to have to assist me with some commas and full stops, as I fail to understand the above sentence.

'bournemouth isn't playing the same style of football as burnley'

So what? Burnley still finished above them last season and qualified for the europa league qualification round. Have they got some sort of moral high ground to spend more, because they try and play football but concede 61 goals in 38 games?

Atalanta's net spend in 2018-19 - 27 million euro. (Post qualifying for europa leaue - spanked everton in europa league)

Atalanta net spend in 2017-18 - Made 9 million euro profit

Atalanta net spend in 2016-17 - Made 26 million euro profit

Atalanta net spend in 2015-16 - Made 13 million euro profit

There are clubs out there, spending much much less and achieving a whole long more. And here you are calling 50 million spend average 'limited resources'.