Manchester City

[smokie36]

1 hour ago, jellydog said:

City have an unfair advantage.

Dropping olive branches aint smart around here.

 

Some have the habit of fashioning sticks out of em to beat you with later. 

 

I'm perfectly happy with our squad this season btw.

[Bredbury Blue]

Carmine please read other people's posts will you. Mine was very clear "And when are you going to realise football has been the same for over a hundred years, the richer clubs dominate!".

So now you answer my question as to why do you spurs fans only come on here to go on about net spend and clubs being wealthier than yours but YOU NEVER go on about it on the chelsea or manu pages. Why is that? I have my theory why but I'm interested in your answer.

[carmine]

8 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Carmine please read other people's posts will you. Mine was very clear "And when are you going to realise football has been the same for over a hundred years, the richer clubs dominate!".

So now you answer my question as to why do you spurs fans only come on here to go on about net spend and clubs being wealthier than yours but YOU NEVER go on about it on the chelsea or manu pages. Why is that? I have my theory why but I'm interested in your answer.


 

So does that mean that you accept that City, United and little Chelsea have an unfair advantage?  Yes or no will suffice

 

With regards your question i don't bother will Chelsea because i regard them as a small club, with no history that simply won the lottery.  I've spent a lot of time on the United thread and if you didn't realize that you must be blind.

Edited October 5, 2017 by carmine

[Bredbury Blue]

And while I wait for carmine's answer, here's a reminder that Spurs aren't as badly off (revenue) as they try and make us believe - 12th richest club in the world:

12. Tottenham — £209.2 million. 

9. Liverpool — £302 million. 

8. Chelsea — £334.6 million. 

7. Arsenal — £350.4 million.

5. Manchester City — £392.6 million. 

1. Manchester United — £515.3 million. 

The 20 richest football clubs in the world

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-20-richest-football-clubs-in-the-world-2017-1

[carmine]

Just now, Bredbury Blue said:

And while I wait for carmine's answer, here's a reminder that Spurs aren't as badly off (revenue) as they try and make us believe - 12th richest club in the world:

12. Tottenham — £209.2 million. 

9. Liverpool — £302 million. 

8. Chelsea — £334.6 million. 

7. Arsenal — £350.4 million.

5. Manchester City — £392.6 million. 

1. Manchester United — £515.3 million. 

The 20 richest football clubs in the world

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-20-richest-football-clubs-in-the-world-2017-1
 

 

A simple yes or no will suffice

[Bredbury Blue]

No. ManU, City, Arsenal, chelsea and Liverpool have no unfair advantage over spurs.

But yes ManU, City, Arsenal, chelsea and Liverpool have more revenue than Spurs.

And yes while you spend time on the manu pages do you ever waffle on about net spend, etc..don't think so..why is that?

And your point "With regards your question i don't bother will Chelsea because i regard them as a small club, with no history that simply won the lottery" is embarrassing.

[carmine]

Just now, Bredbury Blue said:

No. ManU, City, Arsenal, chelsea and Liverpool have no unfair advantage over spurs.

But yes ManU, City, Arsenal, chelsea and Liverpool have more revenue than Spurs.

And yes while you spend time on the manu pages do you ever waffle on about net spend, etc..don't think so..why is that?

And your point "With regards your question i don't bother will Chelsea because i regard them as a small club, with no history that simply won the lottery" is embarrassing.
 

 

Calm down dear.  I think you live in dreamland, but, if you have managed to persuade yourself with the preposterous notion that you don't have a blatant advantage then well done, because thats quite a feat of delusion.

[Bredbury Blue]

1. Champions England =
Sp x 2 / Ch x 6
2. FA cup =
Sp x 8 / Ch x 7
3. League cup =
Sp x 4 / Ch x 5
4. Champions League =
Sp x zero / Ch x 1
5. Other European =
Sp x 3 / Ch x 2

Chelsea certainly the more successful club!

Pre-1970s Spurs may have been bigger, but in British and world football are Spurs still bigger?

[Bredbury Blue]

"Calm down dear"...555!

ManU were the richest club in the country and went 26 years without winning the championship. Liverpool. ..20 years. Arsenal. .? years. So being wealthy is helpful but your point is money guarantees success. But in the +50 years since Spurs won it, look at all the smaller teams who've won it: forest..derby. .Ipswich. .Leicester. .leeds..etc..etc.

[carmine]

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

1. Champions England =
Sp x 2 / Ch x 6
2. FA cup =
Sp x 8 / Ch x 7
3. League cup =
Sp x 4 / Ch x 5
4. Champions League =
Sp x zero / Ch x 1
5. Other European =
Sp x 3 / Ch x 2

Chelsea certainly the more successful club!

Pre-1970s Spurs may have been bigger, but in British and world football are Spurs still bigger?
 

You just don't understand.  You're sounding like an armchair Sky Sports generation football fan, so theres no point discussing further

[petermik]

7 hours ago, carmine said:

You just don't understand.  You're sounding like an armchair Sky Sports generation football fan, so theres no point discussing further

Somefolks would call that a "tactical withdrawal"....but to the more knowledgeable it reads "I don,t know what I,m talking about"..........

[alfieconn]

2 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Don't worry your little cotton socks about it Alfie. It's all in hand

It's been in hand for 9 years  

[carmine]

6 minutes ago, petermik said:

Somefolks would call that a "tactical withdrawal"....but to the more knowledgeable it reads "I don,t know what I,m talking about"..........

And somefolks would just say, bore off Peter you witless troll.

[Rc2702]

[smokie36]

1 hour ago, Bredbury Blue said:

1. Champions England =
Sp x 2 / Ch x 6
2. FA cup =
Sp x 8 / Ch x 7
3. League cup =
Sp x 4 / Ch x 5
4. Champions League =
Sp x zero / Ch x 1
5. Other European =
Sp x 3 / Ch x 2

Chelsea certainly the more successful club!

Pre-1970s Spurs may have been bigger, but in British and world football are Spurs still bigger?
 

 

Spurs shirts have appeared in Robinsons.

 

We're huge.

[smokie36]

34 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

 

If you are somehow insinuating any of the three of us remotely resemble the above figure and trying to get a raise out of us I can assure you it only raised the slightest of eyebrows.

 

Not even after my long swim or Alfredo's gym session are we able to catch mrboj and his bag of chips! 

[smokie36]

2 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Carmine please read other people's posts will you. Mine was very clear "And when are you going to realise football has been the same for over a hundred years, the richer clubs dominate!".

So now you answer my question as to why do you spurs fans only come on here to go on about net spend and clubs being wealthier than yours but YOU NEVER go on about it on the chelsea or manu pages. Why is that? I have my theory why but I'm interested in your answer.


 

 

We do it because the truth hurts. 

[Rc2702]

The Spurs fans are 100% correct but forget to include their neighbours Arsenal.

 

All other teams have an unfair advantage. When you have fans pushing you on it will help defeat opposition. If you do not have fans with expectations and who seem happier with the net spend figures, I'd think they were shareholders but in this case on this forum; complete mugs. 

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

It's been in hand for 9 years  

It's all in hand alfie. Bang on track

[smokie36]

13 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

The Spurs fans are 100% correct but forget to include their neighbours Arsenal.

 

All other teams have an unfair advantage. When you have fans pushing you on it will help defeat opposition. If you do not have fans with expectations and who seem happier with the net spend figures, I'd think they were shareholders but in this case on this forum; complete mugs. 

 

We've more points than your lot....and Villa can't even crawl back to the Premiership.

 

Tough times ahead for a windbag.

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, mrbojangles said:

It's all in hand alfie. Bang on track

Not according to this (see below) is it on track and seems people are singing off a different hymn  sheet  .

 

Telegraph

31 MAY 2017 • 11:49AM

City have had a poor record of academy graduates establishing themselves in the first XI since the Abu Dhabi takeover in 2008 and Guardiola has claimed opportunities are likely to be limited for the youngsters again next season.

But Mubarak has backed academy prospects Jadon Sancho, Phil Foden and Brahim Diaz to become first team players at City and wants to see at least one youngster successfully graduating to the senior side every year.

 

Guradian

Monday 8 December 2014 11.00 GMT

 

Since Sheikh Mansour bought City in the summer of 2008 not one English player developed by the club has started in the Premier League. “This is true and I hope in the next few years we can see some of the young players from the academy come into the first team and have a chance to play regularly,” said Zabaleta. “It means that the quality of the young players what we have in the squad has to improve to have a chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is for BB

 

While City's senior side vie for superiority in a six-team Premier League title race, the competition is fierce at youth level, too. The U18s title triumph was a welcome success, but at the CFA style is every bit as important as winning."It's nice to get accolades along the way, that's all part of development, but the ultimate barometer will be the amount of players who play first-team football," says Allen. 

 

 

 

 

[alfieconn]

[Bredbury Blue]

"You just don't understand." And who says debate is dead.

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

Not according to this (see below) is it on track and seems people are singing off a different hymn  sheet  .

 

Telegraph

31 MAY 2017 • 11:49AM

City have had a poor record of academy graduates establishing themselves in the first XI since the Abu Dhabi takeover in 2008 and Guardiola has claimed opportunities are likely to be limited for the youngsters again next season.

But Mubarak has backed academy prospects Jadon Sancho, Phil Foden and Brahim Diaz to become first team players at City and wants to see at least one youngster successfully graduating to the senior side every year.

 

Guradian

Monday 8 December 2014 11.00 GMT

 

Since Sheikh Mansour bought City in the summer of 2008 not one English player developed by the club has started in the Premier League. “This is true and I hope in the next few years we can see some of the young players from the academy come into the first team and have a chance to play regularly,” said Zabaleta. “It means that the quality of the young players what we have in the squad has to improve to have a chance.

 

Yep, all on track. Contingency plans have already been put into action to get the young lads experience at a higher level playing in front of bigger crowds. Thanks for your concern though alfie.

[Rc2702]

It really is groundhog day here.

[alfieconn]

5 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Yep, all on track. Contingency plans have already been put into action to get the young lads experience at a higher level playing in front of bigger crowds. Thanks for your concern though alfie.

Ok so i'll look forward to seeing at least one of them playing in the first team in a Premier league game this season  being as it's on track 

 

P.s. obviously i'll bookmark this post for the end of the season for further discussion 

[Bredbury Blue]

Flick back 2 or 3 pages and I predicted the spurs fans would bring up youth after net spend...yawn..it's dejavu time again. Maybe it'd be more interesting to talk about winning championships, how about it Alfie, ever seen Spurs win one? Ever likely to?

[BangrakBob]

"For anyone who still doesn’t believe that money plays a key role in determining where a club finishes, look at the following two graphs. They detail the average squad cost (the top graph) and the average £XIs (the bottom graph) for each finishing position since the turn of the millennium. (This being the point where squads started getting larger, and just before Roman Abramovich pitched up.)

While there are almost always clubs that under and over-perform in any given season, the 13-year average shows a perfectly descending scale, from 1st to 10th, in terms of money spent on the squad, and the cost of those who made it onto the pitch. (Remember, all the figures are converted to 2013 prices.)" Paul Tomkins. 2013

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

Ok so i'll look forward to seeing at least one of them playing in the first team in a Premier league game this season  being as it's on track 

 

P.s. obviously i'll bookmark this post for the end of the season for further discussion 

Bookmark all you want alfie. I didn't set a timeline, you did.

 

Stop worrying about our youth coming through. All in good time my friend, all in good time.  

[owl sees all]

Been away in Laos for two days. Just caught up on a few pages of posts. Very interesting! What is considered success? I'm sure Saints and Watford would say they are. But what of Everton?

 

Is it all about winning the big ones? Just being regarded at permanent top 6 would seem successful to some clubs.

Edited October 5, 2017 by owl sees all