Man City Vs Tottenham: Match Thread
- Thread starter chrissivad
- Start date
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Hogwash.
Like you'd turn down the chance for a billionaire oilman or whoever to come and take over Spurs? Once the new stadium is built ENIC will sell and for the expected price it will be an American, Middle East or far East conglomerate or oil magnet that takes the club on.
Better go brush off your'e Millwall shirt if your'e looking for twentieth century football philosophy because your rhetoric defies modern day logic, i mean haven't Arsenal just celebrated their seventeenth straight CL qualification season without a drop of Castrol GTX in sight?
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Didn't we pay five million for Bale ( not quite sure on that one)? Big difference is signing what most on here have called "potential" for five of thirty million.
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Nice well balanced argument, you reached puberty yet or do you just excel at being immature?
parklane1
Well-Known Member
- May 4, 2012
- 4,390
- 4,054
Sums up my feeling as well, football and competition is slowly being killed by clubs like City and those who support what they have done.
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1,907
not sure whats up with people at the moment, but the abuse/insults to each other is not needed.
i'm sure i'm not the only one to be sick of seeing it
i'm sure i'm not the only one to be sick of seeing it
Spurger King
can't smile without glue
- Jul 22, 2008
- 43,881
- 95,149
I won't lie - I'd be happy to see us being in a position to compete at the very top. That's the key word though...'compete'. A lot of that comes down to being able to offer similar wages to clubs like Arsenal. Can't remember the exact figures but the difference in annual wages paid out by us and the gooners is massive.
Like Chelsea before them, Oil Money aren't really competing - they're just blowing the opposition out of the water by paying whatever they want. I'm under no illusions that we'd need considerable investment to give the top clubs a run for their money, and I have no problem with that. However, if we were suddenly massively outspending every other club it would quickly become nothing more than a hollow achievement.
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
I don't agree with that at all. It's the nature of the game and have been ever since i saw Greaves play back in the sixties. Go back to the winning Liverpool sides of the seventies, and the last Man Ure era over the past quarter century. The Clubs with the most money usually are more successful and remember that Man Ure won their last PL title without a single drop of oil money.
I think someone on here posted a league table of the richest PL clubs and Spurs were sixth or seventh i seem to remember, about the same as where we actually finished in the PL. That i think in a roundabout way proves that the money buys success and always has done going back decades.
Whether we like it or not is debatable, but it's here to stay for the foreseeable future so best get used to it, as what has happened to Man Citeh and Chel$ea will come to Spurs in the near future i feel. After all what other top six or seven Club aside from Arsenal is worth more than and has as much potential offering to a billionaire or two?
parklane1
Well-Known Member
- May 4, 2012
- 4,390
- 4,054
To be honest mate I do nor care if you agree with it or not, compering the differences in the amount of money City and Chelsea have over the rest of the clubs to the past is neither here or there.
Like you I was around when we bought the likes of Greaves and there is no comparison in the amount of money and the gaps between the clubs now and then.
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Well it's all relevant.
Didn't we set a record for buying Greaves at 99,999 pounds?
Without looking at demographics for that year a new house was, i think four thousand pounds and an E-Type Jag twelve hundred or so? Just comparing the two i think that the wealth gap for football clubs was as wide then as it is today aside from the fact that players wanted to play for their club whereas today there are few players aware of their clubs past history and traditions.
ExpatFan
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2005
- 1,878
- 1,680
UOTE="Gaz_Gammon, post: 4289000, member: 4349"]I don't agree with that at all. It's the nature of the game and have been ever since i saw Greaves play back in the sixties. Go back to the winning Liverpool sides of the seventies, and the last Man Ure era over the past quarter century. The Clubs with the most money usually are more successful and remember that Man Ure won their last PL title without a single drop of oil money.
I think someone on here posted a league table of the richest PL clubs and Spurs were sixth or seventh i seem to remember, about the same as where we actually finished in the PL. That i think in a roundabout way proves that the money buys success and always has done going back decades.
Whether we like it or not is debatable, but it's here to stay for the foreseeable future so best get used to it, as what has happened to Man Citeh and Chel$ea will come to Spurs in the near future i feel. After all what other top six or seven Club aside from Arsenal is worth more than and has as much potential offering to a billionaire or two?[/QUOTE]
With respect, I think you're missing the point that I and others (SK, PL1) are making. We're not objecting to wealthy clubs buying the best players and paying the highest wages. 'twas ever thus. The fact is that Manure and the Arse, for example, have - in my view - generated their revenue the right way: through attendances, sponsorship, advertising, commercialism, marketing etc., etc.
My objection to the Chavs and Oil Well FC is that their money - and therefore the trophies they've bought with it - hasn't been generated like that. Sheikh (ha, ha) Mansour and Abramovich have used other people's money to fund their "my dick is bigger than yours" ego trip. Their money is tarnished which means the trophies they've bought with it also are.
I too am a "Greaves generation" supporter and would love nothing more than to see my club win the title just once more in my lifetime. But if we did so, having to rely on an Abramovich or a Mansour, it would definitely, for me, take the shine off it.
I think someone on here posted a league table of the richest PL clubs and Spurs were sixth or seventh i seem to remember, about the same as where we actually finished in the PL. That i think in a roundabout way proves that the money buys success and always has done going back decades.
Whether we like it or not is debatable, but it's here to stay for the foreseeable future so best get used to it, as what has happened to Man Citeh and Chel$ea will come to Spurs in the near future i feel. After all what other top six or seven Club aside from Arsenal is worth more than and has as much potential offering to a billionaire or two?[/QUOTE]
With respect, I think you're missing the point that I and others (SK, PL1) are making. We're not objecting to wealthy clubs buying the best players and paying the highest wages. 'twas ever thus. The fact is that Manure and the Arse, for example, have - in my view - generated their revenue the right way: through attendances, sponsorship, advertising, commercialism, marketing etc., etc.
My objection to the Chavs and Oil Well FC is that their money - and therefore the trophies they've bought with it - hasn't been generated like that. Sheikh (ha, ha) Mansour and Abramovich have used other people's money to fund their "my dick is bigger than yours" ego trip. Their money is tarnished which means the trophies they've bought with it also are.
I too am a "Greaves generation" supporter and would love nothing more than to see my club win the title just once more in my lifetime. But if we did so, having to rely on an Abramovich or a Mansour, it would definitely, for me, take the shine off it.
Last edited:
millsey
Official SC Numpty
- Dec 8, 2005
- 8,735
- 11,504
Agreed on this. Prob I have is we have spent our club record on him! If we had 30 mill to does on a player to make us better we could have done do much better than lamela, who to me is a 8 million pound player or youth product. I really don't think Townsend given a run would do much worse. And it's a shame to say
Ribble
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2011
- 3,521
- 4,803
DIdn't get to watch the game yesterday so I'm doing so today. Thoughts:
1st half
Mason had a great chance but needed to get a bit of elevation on it to get it past a sprawling Hart.
Aguero's first was fantastic, threaded it through a tiny gap between 5-6 players and Lloris saw it so late there's no way he could have done anything about it.
Mason showing the efficacy of a high press for our goal, Eriksen fortunate as Hart got something on it but it was hard enough to squirm through.
Their first penalty - WALOB.
Man City getting more chances as the half goes on, Aguero is bloody awesome isn't he?
Bit more even again near the end of the half, nice shot from the edge of the area from Mason
2nd half
Competing well, heads still up and trying to compete with Man City.
Wasn't a penalty. fantastic shot and equally fantastic save a minute or so later.
Just too cynical from Fazio for it not to be punished.
Tried to counterpunch quickly but it just didn't happen, then Man City turning the screw.
another lovely laser of a goal from Aguero, up against Vertonghen who'd just come on.
Great tackle from Rose at around 80, reminds me of the one he did (that was equally as good) that resulted in him getting sent off.
11 v 10 - they're more comfortable with each other and their style of play and it shows. We can't compete with them without the equal numbers.
Overall I think there were still plenty of positives to take from the game, our style of play is coming on and we created some really good chances against one of the two sides that are the clear title contenders. At 2-1 11v11 it was still an even matchup and both teams looked like they could have scored again, unfortunately Man City's was accompanied by a sending off which took away our chance of staying with them until the end.
Also watching Ryan Mason not looking at all out of place against the Champions and working Joe Hart twice warmed my cockles.
1st half
Mason had a great chance but needed to get a bit of elevation on it to get it past a sprawling Hart.
Aguero's first was fantastic, threaded it through a tiny gap between 5-6 players and Lloris saw it so late there's no way he could have done anything about it.
Mason showing the efficacy of a high press for our goal, Eriksen fortunate as Hart got something on it but it was hard enough to squirm through.
Their first penalty - WALOB.
Man City getting more chances as the half goes on, Aguero is bloody awesome isn't he?
Bit more even again near the end of the half, nice shot from the edge of the area from Mason
2nd half
Competing well, heads still up and trying to compete with Man City.
Wasn't a penalty. fantastic shot and equally fantastic save a minute or so later.
Just too cynical from Fazio for it not to be punished.
Tried to counterpunch quickly but it just didn't happen, then Man City turning the screw.
another lovely laser of a goal from Aguero, up against Vertonghen who'd just come on.
Great tackle from Rose at around 80, reminds me of the one he did (that was equally as good) that resulted in him getting sent off.
11 v 10 - they're more comfortable with each other and their style of play and it shows. We can't compete with them without the equal numbers.
Overall I think there were still plenty of positives to take from the game, our style of play is coming on and we created some really good chances against one of the two sides that are the clear title contenders. At 2-1 11v11 it was still an even matchup and both teams looked like they could have scored again, unfortunately Man City's was accompanied by a sending off which took away our chance of staying with them until the end.
Also watching Ryan Mason not looking at all out of place against the Champions and working Joe Hart twice warmed my cockles.
dontsalebale
Active Member
- May 12, 2011
- 441
- 571
when i said a few weeks ago that i didnt rate lamela i was roundly lambasted. I have seen nothing to change my mined he is an accident waiting to happen. he also always overplays. We should cash him in as soon as possible.
Nebby
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2013
- 3,363
- 6,377
Not sure he should be sold just yet, as this is effectively his first season in the Premiership, but I really don't get the love. Needs to quicken things up significantly if he's going to do anything in this league.
Syn_13
Fly On, Little Wing
- Jul 17, 2008
- 14,852
- 20,661
Firstly, he ain't a passenger, he does get involved. He doesn't shy from the ball and does put a shift in more often than not.
Secondly, in a 4-2-3-1 the holding mids are the one that need to help the defence. Yes, the wide 2 out of the attacking mid trio need to track back when the team as a unit are defending and pressing to try and win the ball back, but it's the holding mids that need to help out at the back. I don't recall Silva and Navas being tasked with that job yesterday, it was Milner and Fernando who were helping out the defence.
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Where do you get the idea that "their money is tarnished" from?
Man Ure are some eight hundred million in debt, so hardly a bastion for footballing prudence, at least the billionaires are spending their own money and not borrowing on the scale of the Glaziers.
Gaz_Gammon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 16,047
- 18,013
Read any book about any top manager or coach and it is quite clear that they breed a "defend as a team" ethos, not defend if your'e a defensive midfielder or wide player. Look at any great side and all ten outfield players defend when they do not have the ball.
prawnsandwich
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 6,035
- 4,064
Is there a book that says falling over and looking with doe eyes at the ref afterwards is a good example of team play?
Similar threads
