He is so good.

I hasten to add that I know nothing about football but every time I watch a game that he's in I see a very low key player who sets up an enormous quantity of goals and often hands the ball over to strikers. He is quite simply sensational.

You're right. If he has a fault it's not scoring many goals himself - he's not in the top 15 highest EPL players.

But, as you say, he makes goals for others - and I'd say Chelsea are very sorry they let him go, a few years ago.

A part from a casual glance at the Premier Table, I don't bother with the top leagues. Real English football is played in the lower leagues.
The Premiership is mostly run and owned by foreign big business, with very little of the original spirit of the British game left.

When I was a ten year old Arsenal fan with posters of Charlie George an Bob Wilson (and George Best of course), it was like a different planet. Now I'm more interested in Hampton and Richmond, or York City.

The flood of international player at top level has also damaged the National Team.

Wouldn't really disagree with any of that.

Over two thirds of EPL players are foreign - not good for the national side.


IMO, a few main factors influenced the changes:-

- First Division football in England was always very popular, internationally - from the days before Stanley Matthews.

- The EPL was formed at the same time as satellite television expanded worldwide.

- External investors saw the opportunities , with 75% of EPL teams now owned from China, USA and elsewhere.


Only a matter of time now before all EPL teams will have foreign owners - the annual £100 million (and growing) TV money, for each team, is too much to ignore.

Particularly when 4/5 clubs are available for 3 or 4 times that, alone...

I can never quite see the point of that argument; much like the Lib Dems banging on about PR. If the game is better, I don't care whether every player is foreign; it just means we ought to be training up our new players better. De Bruyne is Belgian; not a large country, not known for great footballers - but he is wonderful to watch; just as Bjorn Borg was in tennis (who cared what nationality he was?). Don't let's limit our clubs; like those stupid policies giving women jobs they are bad at or promoting people because of skin colour or sexual inclination; just be the best, acquire the best, train the best. Leicester City a couple of years ago; that was the way to do it (thank you Claudio - an Italian; and I do love Italians).

The Argument (or mine) is that the obvious and future profit potential of EPL clubs attracts foreign investors who are there for the money only.

By definition therefore - Man City should win most things, because of their unparalleled financial strength. 15/16 points ahead, now - in the EPL; thus in the Champions League again next season.

Even if the don't win it as well this year - when they're paying about £80 million for a full back!

And then - the Question. Is this fair and/or correct, or should all EPL teams be subject to financial/investment rules designed to precipitate a level playing field?

The EPL will soon replicate Formula 1 - when the Agnelli family bought the World Championship.

For 15 years - by superior Ferrari investment, nothing else.

Now Italian football fans just look for one thing on the sports pages.

'How much money will the family put into their club Juventus, this season?'

Second in Seria A - winners, if desired...

I am more intrigued that JK now knows more about football than I do.

I haven't watched any live game or an edition of the debacle called Match Of The Day.

I might watch the live game on Freesports but when I'm working I'm too busy serving than watching the big screens.

yes he is the best midfielder in pl by some margin, complete player and wonderful to watch. Also agree with jk that money is good! good to watch the best and if homegrown cant get into the best pl teams regularly, then what hope do England have anyway?

Sort the problem, dont moan about foreigners...And the money is not "obscene" the league pays for itself it is called free market economics, and is not a zero sum game...

Fair enough - but should team owners be allowed to spend whatever they want, to strengthen their teams, at the expense of less wealthy opponents?

Why not?

Because it would allow the wealthy to simply buy success!

Like the Agnelli family for years. Formula 1/Ferrari etc.

They'll just pay for the best players around - and win everything.

Skill, tactics, ability and guile - should be the key factors, not money.

But sometimes all those things need to be paid for. As a viewer, what's important for me is to see the best. I don't begrudge Andy Murray being great because he got rich doing it. I just enjoy watching him play (sadly it looks like a rare pleasure now).

Football is a team game where levels success are a direct consequence of the money invested.

Manchester City never won ANYTHING for nearly 50 years.

In 2008, they were bought by an Abu Dhabi conglomerate.

And in the last 5 years have won 5 major trophies - and are currently 15 points ahead in the EPL.

With a good chance of winning the Champions League.


I rest my case...

Just a few figures to illustrate my point - on the amount spent by EPL teams, on players.

In the year to August 2017, Southampton spent £5m and Stoke spent nothing.

Man City spent £212m and ManU £147m. Guess who's first and second - it's not Stoke!

I think we are coming from different positions; mine is watching great sport played at its best. Yes it's lovely when a low spending, low profile David (Leicester) beats Goliath but actually what really matters is terrific football; who cares what it costs who?

Who cares that foreign billionaires - only interested in the return on their investment - are taking over the EPL?

I do - one reason; they have no reason or incentive to promote the game at junior and youth levels.

They will just buy the best that's on offer - and yes, for now - it may well provide excellent sport.

But it's a short sighted approach - that has seen match tickets rocket in price. However, it's not unique to here.

PSG in France was bought by Dubai people and Monaco by Russians; now first and second!


One positive thing that has happened here is that - of a team's 25 registered players - only 17 can be foreign; this could well be reduced.

If billionares foreign or not bring the best here and this leads to great sport I'm happy! Maybe I dont know the facts but how does that directly detract from youth football etc?

Exactly; I would have thought any billionaire with a brain cell would want to train up cheap young local talent (on long term contracts).