The whatever footie that's going on (with actual fans) thread

Stevo_666

tomisitt wrote:

Winning far more than any other club in the last 10 years is no great achievement when you have unlimited resources. TBH, it would be a disgrace if Chelsea didn't win everything, given the amount of money spent. And counting the Community Shield? Really?

If you think Chelski have unlimited resources (clearly wrong) then City also have unlimited resources. Bit difficult for them both to win everything? :roll:

And nicely dodging the question I asked before - who do you support?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Well done on third place. All the other stuff is just history, apparently.

Well done on coming so close to winning the league and letting it slip under Gerrard's foot. Though in the end City were worthy winners IMO becuase they were good attacking without forgetting that defence was important. Liverpool forgot about defending we forgot about attacking...

You can always argue you're only as good as your last season/game. Let's see how you do next season when you have as many matches to play as the big teams

tomisitt

Of course they can't both win everything, but with £2 billion spent between them, City and Chelsea have made it almost impossible for clubs without sugar-daddies to win anything. It's financial doping, pure and simple. Which is why so many football fans were willing Liverpool to win it. And win it playing an expansive and exciting style. Not playing the dreary pragmatic anti-football beloved of Mourinho. Hell, most of us would prefer City to win it...at least they look like they're enjoying themselves.

And, since you ask, I'm an Arsenal fan. Yes, it may be a long time until we win the league or the CL, but when we do I guarantee it will feel so much better for having won it, not having had it bought for us by a morally bankrupt oligarch,or sheik.

sloppyschleckonds

tomisitt wrote:

Which is why so many football fans were willing Liverpool to win it.

I don't think they were. Anything to back up that statement?

ballysmate

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

tomisitt wrote:

Which is why so many football fans were willing Liverpool to win it.

I don't think they were. Anything to back up that statement?

I wasn't.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

tomisitt wrote:

Which is why so many football fans were willing Liverpool to win it.

I don't think they were. Anything to back up that statement?

I wasn't.

Me neither. Most people were having a good giggle about the blubbing Scousers seen outside the Crystal Palace ground a couple of weeks back.

ballysmate

Laughed my c ock off when Gerrard dropped a bollock.
Couldn't happen to a better bloke.

Stevo_666

tomisitt wrote:

And, since you ask, I'm an Arsenal fan. Yes, it may be a long time until we win the league or the CL, but when we do I guarantee it will feel so much better for having won it, not having had it bought for us by a morally bankrupt oligarch,or sheik.

So what you're saying is Arsenal aren't as good as Chelski but they'll enjoy winning more because they rarely get lucky. A bit like a spotty teenage nerd who only gets laid once in a blue moon but is bl00dy grateful when he does?

And as for dodgy/massively rich owners, last time I looked Arsenal was about 97% owned by a combination of a multi-billionaire US tycoon who's married to the daughter of the Wal-mart co-founder and a Russian oligarch who is richer than Abramovich. Did you not even check who owned the club you support before you said that?

http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corporate-info/the-arsenal-board

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

tomisitt wrote:

And, since you ask, I'm an Arsenal fan. Yes, it may be a long time until we win the league or the CL, but when we do I guarantee it will feel so much better for having won it, not having had it bought for us by a morally bankrupt oligarch,or sheik.

So what you're saying is Arsenal aren't as good as Chelski but they'll enjoy winning more because they rarely get lucky. A bit like a spotty teenage nerd who only gets laid once in a blue moon but is bl00dy grateful when he does?

And as for dodgy/massively rich owners, last time I looked Arsenal was about 97% owned by a combination of a multi-billionaire US tycoon who's married to the daughter of the Wal-mart co-founder and a Russian oligarch who is richer than Abramovich. Did you not even check who owned the club you support before you said that?

http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corporate-info/the-arsenal-board

Arsenal is clearly run as a bootstrapped club unlike City and Chelsea. The net worth of the owners is irrelevant.

There is always going to be someone with the biggest chequebook though and I think both Liverpool and Athletico this year have shown that there is more to football than how much you can money you can blow on the team.

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

Arsenal is clearly run as a bootstrapped club unlike City and Chelsea. The net worth of the owners is irrelevant.

Yeah, boo hoo for Arsenal who could only scrape together £42m to buy Ozil this season.

nathancom wrote:

There is always going to be someone with the biggest chequebook though and I think both Liverpool and Athletico this year have shown that there is more to football than how much you can money you can blow on the team.

Atletico did, as they actually won something this season

pesky_jones

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

tomisitt wrote:

Which is why so many football fans were willing Liverpool to win it.

I don't think they were. Anything to back up that statement?

Haha, I've seen the comments above, but they're to be expected. Loads of people I spoke to who didn't support Liverpool would rather Liverpool had won it, youre right. Maybe these guys just don't get out much?

pesky_jones

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

There is always going to be someone with the biggest chequebook though and I think both Liverpool and Athletico this year have shown that there is more to football than how much you can money you can blow on the team.

Atletico did, as they actually won something this season

Cor, can you imagine if you were one of the clubs with the big checkbook, and you didn't win anything?!? Now that would be embarassing

Stevo_666

Pesky Jones wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

There is always going to be someone with the biggest chequebook though and I think both Liverpool and Athletico this year have shown that there is more to football than how much you can money you can blow on the team.

Atletico did, as they actually won something this season

Cor, can you imagine if you were one of the clubs with the big checkbook, and you didn't win anything?!? Now that would be embarassing

Yep, imagine spending over £47m and still missing out on your first league title in 24 years:
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/09/09/number-crunched-premier-league-summer-transfers-by-club-country-age-and-position-090901/
That must be really gutting

bompington

Well, you might reasonably expect a team whose net transfer spend last summer was less than Swansea to fail to win the title, as of course did the second-highest net spending team.

fast as fupp

"THIS DOES NOT SLIP!"

oh yes it does!

city_boy

tim wand wrote:

My arguments more with the Chelsea and Man City fans who have only come to prominence in the last 5 years or so, to hear them speak of History really is Ironic.

OK, as a Manchester City supporter, I'll pick up the argument
City fans are renowned for many things but harping on about our history isn't one of them!

The club has been around since 1880 (6 years before Arsenal) and have won 4 top division titles (first being in 1936-7), 4 FA cups (first being in 1904 - the first club in Manchester to win a major honour), 3 league cups and a UEFA Cup Winners Cup. - Not a big list, admittedly, but successes all the same.

MCFC also set the record for the largest attendance ever at an English club ground in 1934. A record that still stands today!

Our recent success have been as a direct result of major investment, but with the exception of Arsenal (to a degree), success has historically gone to the teams that have spent the most on the best players. That's just the way it is, unfortunatley.

As I said, City fans don't go on about 'history (my little rant above being the exception )', but even if we did...why would it be 'ironic'?

tomisitt

The thing about City is that they have always had a large and passionate following, even when down in the old 2nd and 3rd divisions they averaged around 30,000 per match. City fans have, in the past, been genuine supporters and I find it hard to begrudge them their windfall (even though it's killing football). Not so Chelsea fans, who only turn out for the big "glamour" matches (less than 25,000 at The Bridge for some CL games) and who laud the likes of John Terry and Jose Mourinho and heroes, when all right-thinking football fans see them as a horrible stain on The Beautiful Game.

city_boy

tomisitt wrote:

The thing about City is that they have always had a large and passionate following, even when down in the old 2nd and 3rd divisions they averaged around 30,000 per match. City fans have, in the past, been genuine supporters and I find it hard to begrudge them their windfall (even though it's killing football). Not so Chelsea fans, who only turn out for the big "glamour" matches (less than 25,000 at The Bridge for some CL games) and who laud the likes of John Terry and Jose Mourinho and heroes, when all right-thinking football fans see them as a horrible stain on The Beautiful Game.

Why lay the blame at City's door for "killing football". They didn't invent the concept of spending silly amounts of money on players or the principal of 'buying success'. The likes of Man Utd were buying players for £27M plus over 12 years ago (Eg. Veron, Ferdinand etc.), Liverpool have spent big money on players and Real Madrid and Barcelona have invested obscene amounts of money on players for donkey's years!

I agree it's a sad state of affairs the way football has gone, but it's been that ways since long before City's windfall?

tomisitt

Not saying it's all City's fault, just that sugar-daddies in general have turned football into a wallet-waving contest, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, inflating transfer fees, and distancing the fans from their clubs.

In fairness to United, 12 years ago they were spending money they had earned (before Fergie lumbered the club with the Glazers). Similarly, Real and Barca were (mostly) spending money they'd earned, rather than being given £1 billion to spend by a sheik/oligarch.

It will be interesting to see whether Financial Fair Play will actually do anything to level the playing field. I won't be holding my breath.

nathancom

There is still some sensational football played and drama enacted so I don't think the money ruins the game, it has just made it different to 50 years ago.

Real and Barca got a lot of money from the government and banks.

Liverpool are still one of the biggest spenders and have outspent Man U during the entirety of Fergie's reign. Chelsea are a bunch of plastics though.

city_boy

Let's not be too fair to the likes of United. They along with Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Spurs were key protagonists in forcing through changes to the rules with regards to the distribution of wealth (gate receipts, TV money etc.) to ensure that they maintained their position as wealthy clubs at the expense of all the others.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/culture/footballturnedpremier/

The reason they could spend 'what they earn' (allegedly) is because they bullied their way into a position where they would always earn more than everyone else. In the same way the likes of RM and Barca negotiated their own TV deals.

And in the same way the 'big clubs' (G14) have influenced the FFP rules to protect their position at the exclusion of all others!

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

tomisitt wrote:

The thing about City is that they have always had a large and passionate following, even when down in the old 2nd and 3rd divisions they averaged around 30,000 per match. City fans have, in the past, been genuine supporters and I find it hard to begrudge them their windfall (even though it's killing football). Not so Chelsea fans, who only turn out for the big "glamour" matches (less than 25,000 at The Bridge for some CL games) and who laud the likes of John Terry and Jose Mourinho and heroes, when all right-thinking football fans see them as a horrible stain on The Beautiful Game.

Why lay the blame at City's door for "killing football". They didn't invent the concept of spending silly amounts of money on players or the principal of 'buying success'. The likes of Man Utd were buying players for £27M plus over 12 years ago (Eg. Veron, Ferdinand etc.), Liverpool have spent big money on players and Real Madrid and Barcelona have invested obscene amounts of money on players for donkey's years!

I agree it's a sad state of affairs the way football has gone, but it's been that ways since long before City's windfall?

I don't have a problem with the City money situation. In any event we did the double over you this season so money isn't everything

It does make me laugh though when fans of teams like Arsenal and Liverpool - who are among the best funded clubs around - get chips on their shoulder about the handful of teams who have even more money than them. I guess they think it's OK that hundreds of clubs have less money than them and that's completely fair :roll:

That's life and if they don't like it, tough titty.

Stevo_666

BTW, did anyone else get confused by the news about Louis van Gaal today? He said he was proud to be in charge of the biggest club in the World: I thought he'd signed up for Man United.

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't have a problem with the City money situation. In any event we did the double over you this season so money isn't everything

You also (deservedly) beat Liverpool at Clanfield, thereby putting the title back in City's hands, so thanks for that

pinno

The Beeb on the subject of Van Gaal's appt. >

"...he has signed a 3 year contract..."

Since when has a contract in Football Management ever been worth the paper it's written on?

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't have a problem with the City money situation. In any event we did the double over you this season so money isn't everything

You also (deservedly) beat Liverpool at Clanfield, thereby putting the title back in City's hands, so thanks for that

Credit where credit's due I suppose, though we weren't the only ones:



We couldn't win it at that point and there's nothing worse than a cocky scouser so it would have been rude not to

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

The Beeb on the subject of Van Gaal's appt. >

"...he has signed a 3 year contract..."

Since when has a contract in Football Management ever been worth the paper it's written on?

I only wish to point out that is only half the term that Davie Moyes signed. Not much of an endorsement.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

The Beeb on the subject of Van Gaal's appt. >

"...he has signed a 3 year contract..."

Since when has a contract in Football Management ever been worth the paper it's written on?

I only wish to point out that is only half the term that Davie Moyes signed. Not much of an endorsement.

Yes, and Moyes apparently left on 'mutual terms'. Bollox to that, I would have wanted 5 years and 7 months pay.

tim_wand

Okay, What a great premiership season!

Congratulations Man City.

Thank you for something different and hard luck Liverpool.

Welcome back Mourinho and thanks for making it "interesting" by being "boring"

Spurs thanks for showing everyone how to blow £100 million (priceless)

Man U just thanks for the best laugh I ve had in Years

Everton (probably my favourite team of the season) except when spanking Arsenal 3-0

I m a goner and will take 4th ( why not we're used to it now) and a F.A cup (Unlucky Hull you were amazingly scary)


The point I want to make is so many top level sports bring in a handicap system to create a level playing field, And I do think its getting a bit too much now with the likes of Man City, Chelsea. Arsenal Liverpool et al, will always have budgets beyond 75% of their league competitors as with P.S.G in France or Barca and Real in Spain and Bayern in Germany so will Financial Fair Play ever work when the punishments for non compliance are mainly financial?

verylonglegs

Yaya Toure crying over his employers failure to recognise his birthday. Is this real or media bullshyte ffs?

Hey Yaya, you just play football you self-centred pr1ck, if you stopped breathing tonight the world would keep on turning and you would be forgotten by August.

*...and relax*