Tottenham Thread

[MrRed]

One player i wouldn't mind having a punt on is this boy, only 20, already played 2 seasons in the Bundesliga, can play wide and up front, probaly cost 8-10m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNRY1nqscuQ

Similar to our sushi chef then Alfie

[rixalex]

10m with add-ons for performances. And he's not a teenager. Sound investment i'd say.

My apologies he's a few months out of his teens which makes all the difference i know!

On the basis that this is the most hyped kid in years it might well be a sound investment but only because Utd can afoord to throw that sort of cash at a largely unproven youngster.

Suppose it makes Bebe worth that punt does it? Afterall he was just 7m as a kid that played in the potugese eigth division under 15's that ferguson had never seen play!

Oh to be a rich club. I'm jealous

I don't think Zaha will be another Bebe but of course you never really know. Taking on players whose worth and value is mainly down to potential rather than achievement is certainly a much trickier business than going out and spashing 30m on a marque signing, which of course we have been known to do, but usually not much more than one every couple of years, which to my mind anyway, seems reasonable.

Yeah we've got money but i really don't think our net spend is anything spectacular. All relative i guess....h3ll of a lot of clubs that would consider Spurs well loaded. No?

Here we go, with regards spending in the January transfer window since 2003, Spurs are third biggest spenders having spent 91m. United are ninth having spent 36m. Not saying that the January window gives the full picture, but it does indicate you might not be quite the hard-up paupers you make out to be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21198560

[nev]

10m with add-ons for performances. And he's not a teenager. Sound investment i'd say.

My apologies he's a few months out of his teens which makes all the difference i know!

On the basis that this is the most hyped kid in years it might well be a sound investment but only because Utd can afoord to throw that sort of cash at a largely unproven youngster.

Suppose it makes Bebe worth that punt does it? Afterall he was just 7m as a kid that played in the potugese eigth division under 15's that ferguson had never seen play!

Oh to be a rich club. I'm jealous

I don't think Zaha will be another Bebe but of course you never really know. Taking on players whose worth and value is mainly down to potential rather than achievement is certainly a much trickier business than going out and spashing 30m on a marque signing, which of course we have been known to do, but usually not much more than one every couple of years, which to my mind anyway, seems reasonable.

Yeah we've got money but i really don't think our net spend is anything spectacular. All relative i guess....h3ll of a lot of clubs that would consider Spurs well loaded. No?

Here we go, with regards spending in the January transfer window since 2003, Spurs are third biggest spenders having spent 91m. United are ninth having spent 36m. Not saying that the January window gives the full picture, but it does indicate you might not be quite the hard-up paupers you make out to be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/21198560

Yes and divide those figures by trophy's won and

[alfieconn]

10m with add-ons for performances. And he's not a teenager. Sound investment i'd say.

My apologies he's a few months out of his teens which makes all the difference i know!

On the basis that this is the most hyped kid in years it might well be a sound investment but only because Utd can afoord to throw that sort of cash at a largely unproven youngster.

Suppose it makes Bebe worth that punt does it? Afterall he was just 7m as a kid that played in the potugese eigth division under 15's that ferguson had never seen play!

Oh to be a rich club. I'm jealous

I don't think Zaha will be another Bebe but of course you never really know. Taking on players whose worth and value is mainly down to potential rather than achievement is certainly a much trickier business than going out and spashing 30m on a marque signing, which of course we have been known to do, but usually not much more than one every couple of years, which to my mind anyway, seems reasonable.

Yeah we've got money but i really don't think our net spend is anything spectacular. All relative i guess....h3ll of a lot of clubs that would consider Spurs well loaded. No?

Here we go, with regards spending in the January transfer window since 2003, Spurs are third biggest spenders having spent 91m. United are ninth having spent 36m. Not saying that the January window gives the full picture, but it does indicate you might not be quite the hard-up paupers you make out to be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/21198560

Exactly, the Jan window doesn't give the full picture so why bother posting

[carmine]

10m with add-ons for performances. And he's not a teenager. Sound investment i'd say.

My apologies he's a few months out of his teens which makes all the difference i know!

On the basis that this is the most hyped kid in years it might well be a sound investment but only because Utd can afoord to throw that sort of cash at a largely unproven youngster.

Suppose it makes Bebe worth that punt does it? Afterall he was just 7m as a kid that played in the potugese eigth division under 15's that ferguson had never seen play!

Oh to be a rich club. I'm jealous

I don't think Zaha will be another Bebe but of course you never really know. Taking on players whose worth and value is mainly down to potential rather than achievement is certainly a much trickier business than going out and spashing 30m on a marque signing, which of course we have been known to do, but usually not much more than one every couple of years, which to my mind anyway, seems reasonable.

Yeah we've got money but i really don't think our net spend is anything spectacular. All relative i guess....h3ll of a lot of clubs that would consider Spurs well loaded. No?

Here we go, with regards spending in the January transfer window since 2003, Spurs are third biggest spenders having spent 91m. United are ninth having spent 36m. Not saying that the January window gives the full picture, but it does indicate you might not be quite the hard-up paupers you make out to be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/21198560

Well before i have a look Rix could you tell me if its NET spend because if its not its not really worth even looking at as a marker to the "big spending clubs"

In the transferleague table which shows the NET spend and is the perfect indicator to the "big spending clubs" we lie, i celieve, in 14th place.

Any table that shows expenditure without the sales that had to be made is not worth the paper its written on in the back up to your arguement i'm afraid and this is probably the reason that Utd fans and Chelsea fans on here only base their comment on our expenditure base on who we buy and not on who we have to sell in order to make those purchases.

Van Der Vaart and Modric kind of spring to mind

Edited January 27, 2013 by carmine

[rixalex]

Well before i have a look Rix could you tell me if its NET spend because if its not its not really worth even looking at as a marker to the "big spending clubs"

In the transferleague table which shows the NET spend and is the perfect indicator to the "big spending clubs" we lie, i celieve, in 14th place.

Any table that shows expenditure without the sales that had to be made is not worth the paper its written on in the back up to your arguement i'm afraid and this is probably the reason that Utd fans and Chelsea fans on here only base their comment on our expenditure base on who we buy and not on who we have to sell in order to make those purchases.

Van Der Vaart and Modric kind of spring to mind

Regardless of what you have sold, i don't think that third biggest spender in the January window, almost three times what United has spent, reflects particularly well when trying to make the case for being paupers. I appreciate why you think it's a complete irrelevance. I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn't be were you languishing down at the bottom of that table along with the West Broms and the Swanseas.

[carmine]

Well before i have a look Rix could you tell me if its NET spend because if its not its not really worth even looking at as a marker to the "big spending clubs"

In the transferleague table which shows the NET spend and is the perfect indicator to the "big spending clubs" we lie, i celieve, in 14th place.

Any table that shows expenditure without the sales that had to be made is not worth the paper its written on in the back up to your arguement i'm afraid and this is probably the reason that Utd fans and Chelsea fans on here only base their comment on our expenditure base on who we buy and not on who we have to sell in order to make those purchases.

Van Der Vaart and Modric kind of spring to mind

Regardless of what you have sold, i don't think that third biggest spender in the January window, almost three times what United has spent, reflects particularly well when trying to make the case for being paupers. I appreciate why you think it's a complete irrelevance. I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn't be were you languishing down at the bottom of that table along with the West Broms and the Swanseas.

I've sad my bit and my opinion wouldn't change. Shame we had to sell those two to finance our new purchases though because we'd be a much stronger team with those two in it. Sadly, most of us have to sell before we buy. Funny how the likes of Utd and Chelsea fans have a problem accepting this situation as being somewhat of a handicap!

Our situation i can accept because we have to wait for five years and our new stadium to bring in the revenues to finance player but i'd be really upset if i were an Arsenal fan.

Heres a question for you Rix. Where would Utd be if they were not in a position to spend 25m on a 29 year old Robin Van Persie? In avery different position perhaps? Its just economics and i have no complaints i just see it as it is. This is why Levy is so desperate to finish the new stadium because then we can properly compete.

Edited January 27, 2013 by carmine

[rixalex]

I've sad my bit and my opinion wouldn't change. Shame we had to sell those two to finance our new purchases though because we'd be a much stronger team with those two in it. Sadly, most of us have to sell before we buy. Funny how the likes of Utd and Chelsea fans have a problem accepting this situation as being somewhat of a handicap!

Our situation i can accept because we have to wait for five years and our new stadium to bring in the revenues to finance player but i'd be really upset if i were an Arsenal fan.

Heres a question for you Rix. Where would Utd be if they were not in a position to spend 25m on a 29 year old Robin Van Persie? In avery different position perhaps? Its just economics and i have no complaints i just see it as it is. This is why Levy is so desperate to finish the new stadium because then we can properly compete.

You speak as if you are the only club that has to sell in order to buy. Most clubs do to some degree, with the exception perhaps of the sugar daddy clubs. Our recent ability to spend has to a large degree been thanks to the fantastic business we did in selling Ronaldo. That released a lot of funds that otherwise wouldn't have been available.

[carmine]

I've sad my bit and my opinion wouldn't change. Shame we had to sell those two to finance our new purchases though because we'd be a much stronger team with those two in it. Sadly, most of us have to sell before we buy. Funny how the likes of Utd and Chelsea fans have a problem accepting this situation as being somewhat of a handicap!

Our situation i can accept because we have to wait for five years and our new stadium to bring in the revenues to finance player but i'd be really upset if i were an Arsenal fan.

Heres a question for you Rix. Where would Utd be if they were not in a position to spend 25m on a 29 year old Robin Van Persie? In avery different position perhaps? Its just economics and i have no complaints i just see it as it is. This is why Levy is so desperate to finish the new stadium because then we can properly compete.

You speak as if you are the only club that has to sell in order to buy. Most clubs do to some degree, with the exception perhaps of the sugar daddy clubs. Our recent ability to spend has to a large degree been thanks to the fantastic business we did in selling Ronaldo. That released a lot of funds that otherwise wouldn't have been available.

No i don't speak as if we are the only club. We are on the Spurs thread and i'm answering a distorted arguement about Spurs and our spending.

I would imagine that most on this thread were not even able to read yet if were going back as far as the Ronaldo sale but yes that was a perticularily good one off example. How many years ago was that btw? But then you look at the bigger picture over the years and your arguement falls apart. Veron Ferdinand, Rooney Berbatov, 16.5m for a fluffy little thing in goal!! the list goes on and on doesn't it.

However a better example of spending power is being able to take a gamble on an injury prone 29 year old striker with little sell on value.

Anyway this was a discussion about the only true validity of Spurs spending power which is net spent and we have digressed somewhat

Edited January 27, 2013 by carmine

[rixalex]

Bottom line is, sure, Spurs don't have the most money of all clubs, but they do have more spending power than at least 90% of the other clubs in England. Clubs financially beneath them might point to their lack of funds as to why Spurs are more successful than they are, but in my opinion, doing so overlooks the fact that Spurs didn't suddenly over-night become rich relative to them, but have built up the strength of the club over many many years. Those who have run the club over those years, managed the team, played for the team, cut the grass, made the tea, some of them anyway, have put a lot in, and is why the club is placed where it is today. Nothing to apologise about. Teams below them could be in the position Spurs are in, but over the years, haven't done as good a job. Spurs position is earnt, nobody gave it to them.

If you want to talk about giving the full picture, this is more like it, and in the exact same way as it applies to Spurs, it applies to United. United wasn't suddenly given the opportunity by some fortunate miracle to spend all that money on an injury prone 29 year old with little sell on value, it gave itself the opportunity by all the years that have been spent building the club up.

Edited January 27, 2013 by rixalex

[smokie36]

Bottom line is, sure, Spurs don't have the most money of all clubs, but they do have more spending power than at least 90% of the other clubs in England. Clubs financially beneath them might point to their lack of funds as to why Spurs are more successful than they are, but in my opinion, doing so overlooks the fact that Spurs didn't suddenly over-night become rich relative to them, but have built up the strength of the club over many many years. Those who have run the club over those years, managed the team, played for the team, cut the grass, made the tea, some of them anyway, have put a lot in, and is why the club is placed where it is today. Nothing to apologise about. Teams below them could be in the position Spurs are in, but over the years, haven't done as good a job. Spurs position is earnt, nobody gave it to them.

If you want to talk about giving the full picture, this is more like it, and in the exact same way as it applies to Spurs, it applies to United. United wasn't suddenly given the opportunity by some fortunate miracle to spend all that money on an injury prone 29 year old with little sell on value, it gave itself the opportunity by all the years that have been spent building the club up.

More than 90% of clubs? Well...there are 20 clubs rix.....5% each one might say.

In terms of spending power I would place you lot, Citeh, Chelski and the Arse ahead of us.

Liverpool could be said to be above us on those terms too.

Certainly given NET spend.

We have an excellent young squad....but there is no way we can spend £20m without a resale value....if even Levy would risk £20m on one player which appears increasingly unlikely.

The difference between champions and fourth is a large one....and we have already seen with Leeds what can happen to even a big club.

Therefore I am happy enough. To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

It only takes one bad owner and any club can be facing the precipice....much as we will criticise Levy we know he's doing a fair job.

[rixalex]

Bottom line is, sure, Spurs don't have the most money of all clubs, but they do have more spending power than at least 90% of the other clubs in England.

More than 90% of clubs? Well...there are 20 clubs rix.....5% each one might say.

90% of the other clubs in England

Do you consider clubs not in the Premiership as not being clubs in England?

[rixalex]

To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

What was silly about that deal? If you look at how long he has stayed at the club, how much he has contributed in terms of goals, and how much he is now worth, i can't see too much silly about it. Far more deals for players for a lot less money, than have been a lot sillier. If you pay 15m for player who stays little more than a year, hardly ever plays, and you sell for 7m, that can be a lot sillier than paying double for player who does contribute something. Silliness isn't just about how much you spend on a player.

[smokie36]

To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

What was silly about that deal? If you look at how long he has stayed at the club, how much he has contributed in terms of goals, and how much he is now worth, i can't see too much silly about it. Far more deals for players for a lot less money, than have been a lot sillier. If you pay 15m for player who stays little more than a year, hardly ever plays, and you sell for 7m, that can be a lot sillier than paying double for player who does contribute something. Silliness isn't just about how much you spend on a player.

The point I was making is how much money you spent on one player....£30m at that time was a huge amount. Of course he's been good value...that's not the point.

No other English team at that time could have afforded to spend such an amount on one player.

[smokie36]

Bottom line is, sure, Spurs don't have the most money of all clubs, but they do have more spending power than at least 90% of the other clubs in England.

More than 90% of clubs? Well...there are 20 clubs rix.....5% each one might say.

90% of the other clubs in England

Do you consider clubs not in the Premiership as not being clubs in England?

Wires crossed there obviously.

[carmine]

To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

What was silly about that deal? If you look at how long he has stayed at the club, how much he has contributed in terms of goals, and how much he is now worth, i can't see too much silly about it. Far more deals for players for a lot less money, than have been a lot sillier. If you pay 15m for player who stays little more than a year, hardly ever plays, and you sell for 7m, that can be a lot sillier than paying double for player who does contribute something. Silliness isn't just about how much you spend on a player.

Paying Rooney 250k p/w <deleted>!! I suppose thats down to Utd fans to say whether thats silly or not. Nothing i've seen from him over the last few years tells me he's worth anything like that salary but then again i'm not a Utd fan.

[rixalex]

To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

What was silly about that deal? If you look at how long he has stayed at the club, how much he has contributed in terms of goals, and how much he is now worth, i can't see too much silly about it. Far more deals for players for a lot less money, than have been a lot sillier. If you pay 15m for player who stays little more than a year, hardly ever plays, and you sell for 7m, that can be a lot sillier than paying double for player who does contribute something. Silliness isn't just about how much you spend on a player.

The point I was making is how much money you spent on one player....£30m at that time was a huge amount. Of course he's been good value...that's not the point.

No other English team at that time could have afforded to spend such an amount on one player.

I think Chelsea could of done, but anyway, my point was, because United can afford players other teams can't, what are we supposed to do? Apologise? Does Spurs apologise to all the clubs below it financially when it buys a player they can't afford? Does Spurs feel like it is using its financial muscle to get an unfair advantage over them?

[carmine]

To say your spending at times hasn't been silly is nonsense though rix....£30m for Rooney was an absolutely massive deal....a good one for you at the time but your side has had money to spend for a long long time.

What was silly about that deal? If you look at how long he has stayed at the club, how much he has contributed in terms of goals, and how much he is now worth, i can't see too much silly about it. Far more deals for players for a lot less money, than have been a lot sillier. If you pay 15m for player who stays little more than a year, hardly ever plays, and you sell for 7m, that can be a lot sillier than paying double for player who does contribute something. Silliness isn't just about how much you spend on a player.

The point I was making is how much money you spent on one player....£30m at that time was a huge amount. Of course he's been good value...that's not the point.

No other English team at that time could have afforded to spend such an amount on one player.

I think Chelsea could of done, but anyway, my point was, because United can afford players other teams can't, what are we supposed to do? Apologise? Does Spurs apologise to all the clubs below it financially when it buys a player they can't afford? Does Spurs feel like it is using its financial muscle to get an unfair advantage over them?

The answer to that is yes i do think its unfair and i don't think it should be allowed either. But its the way of the world. Why do you have a problem with this?

[rixalex]

The answer to that is yes i do think its unfair and i don't think it should be allowed either. But its the way of the world. Why do you have a problem with this?

A problem with what?

You don't think it is fair that some clubs have spend decades growing and developing, and now get the benefits from that hard work, and think that clubs that haven't grown or developed, or haven't grown and developed as much, should have exactly the same spending power?

[carmine]

The answer to that is yes i do think its unfair and i don't think it should be allowed either. But its the way of the world. Why do you have a problem with this?

A problem with what?

You don't think it is fair that some clubs have spend decades growing and developing, and now get the benefits from that hard work, and think that clubs that haven't grown or developed, or haven't grown and developed as much, should have exactly the same spending power?

Man City and Chelsea haven't spent decades developing though have they! They just woke up one morning and realised that from now on come what may they will be challenging for the title. Utd just have more money than anyone bar these two and have spent big whenever they have needed to because the monies always there if needed. And the next time you need a particular player another 30m+ will be slapped down and MrRed will start barking on about your talented youthful players.What else is there to say. As i've already stated its the way of the world.

MJJ called it right when he posted on the chave thread that as long as finances stay the way they are its always going to be a three way race and he's absolutely correct.

So again i reiterate i do think its unfair, wrong whatever you wish to call it and its a great shame that we cannot have wage capping transfer capping etc etc so that we are playing on a more level playing field rather than listening to the same sets of fans going on about a team they've just beaten and how well they've played when that particlar side probably has over half their team joint salary being less than Rooney's.

The only question Cit Utd chelsea fans should be thinking about is how utterly appalling it would relect on them if they didn't occupy the top three slots.

When we have our new stadium our spend will increase. Will that again make for a better league. Ofcourse not. Its just a continuation of the downhill spiral thats created an uncompetitive league

Edited January 27, 2013 by carmine

[MrRed]

The answer to that is yes i do think its unfair and i don't think it should be allowed either. But its the way of the world. Why do you have a problem with this?

A problem with what?

You don't think it is fair that some clubs have spend decades growing and developing, and now get the benefits from that hard work, and think that clubs that haven't grown or developed, or haven't grown and developed as much, should have exactly the same spending power?

Man City and Chelsea haven't spent decades developing though have they! They just woke up one morning and realised that from now on come what may they will be challenging for the title. Utd just have more money than anyone bar these two and have spent big whenever they have needed to because the monies always there if needed. And the next time you need a particular player another 30m+ will be slapped down and MrRed will start barking on about your talented youthful players.What else is there to say. As i've already stated its the way of the world.

MJJ called it right when he posted on the chave thread that as long as finances stay the way they are its always going to be a three way race and he's absolutely correct.

So again i reiterate i do think its unfair, wrong whatever you wish to call it and its a great shame that we cannot have wage capping transfer capping etc etc so that we are playing on a more level playing field rather than listening to the same sets of fans going on about a team they've just beaten and how well they've played when that particlar side probably has over half their team joint salary being less than Rooney's.

The only question Cit Utd chelsea fans should be thinking about is how utterly appalling it would relect on them if they didn't occupy the top three slots.

When we have our new stadium our spend will increase. Will that again make for a better league. Ofcourse not. Its just a continuation of the downhill spiral thats created an uncompetitive league

But a few months ago you said we had no money and we couldn't afford to buy anyone?.......make your mind up Arkwright?

What a wonderful team of youngsters we are building at the moment......don't forget the Celtic midfielder who is only 20 also

[rixalex]

Man City and Chelsea haven't spent decades developing though have they! They just woke up one morning and realised that from now on come what may they will be challenging for the title.

I wasn't talking about them. I thought that would have been obvious from all my comments about not having just woken up with more spending than other teams, but having spent years and years of hard work with the club generating its own income. I do think there is a problem with clubs that spend large sums of money that the clubs themselves could not possibly generate.

MJJ called it right when he posted on the chave thread that as long as finances stay the way they are its always going to be a three way race and he's absolutely correct.

But finances won't stay the way they are. Things change.Some clubs will get richer, others will get poorer .Nothing is set in stone, and it's not always about who your owner is. It's possible for clubs to strengthen financially, without just being given money. They can do it just like any other business does. And if they do, they'll reap the benefits. if you had it your way, they wouldn't.

[smokie36]

A lot depends upon the management of a club. Take a lower premiership side....has a young striker come through...scores 30 goals in his first season then an offer comes in for £25m.

Chairman cashes in and who do they buy? £5m worth of replacements...maybe a couple of free transfers alongside.

Where did the money go?

That is the real problem within the game.

[carmine]

Man City and Chelsea haven't spent decades developing though have they! They just woke up one morning and realised that from now on come what may they will be challenging for the title.

I wasn't talking about them. I thought that would have been obvious from all my comments about not having just woken up with more spending than other teams, but having spent years and years of hard work with the club generating its own income. I do think there is a problem with clubs that spend large sums of money that the clubs themselves could not possibly generate.

MJJ called it right when he posted on the chave thread that as long as finances stay the way they are its always going to be a three way race and he's absolutely correct.

But finances won't stay the way they are. Things change.Some clubs will get richer, others will get poorer .Nothing is set in stone, and it's not always about who your owner is. It's possible for clubs to strengthen financially, without just being given money. They can do it just like any other business does. And if they do, they'll reap the benefits. if you had it your way, they wouldn't.

Can't see things changing regards money. As long as the world needs oil City are ok and in chelsea case, well theres organised crime, and thats recession proof.

[alfieconn]

The answer to that is yes i do think its unfair and i don't think it should be allowed either. But its the way of the world. Why do you have a problem with this?

A problem with what?

You don't think it is fair that some clubs have spend decades growing and developing, and now get the benefits from that hard work, and think that clubs that haven't grown or developed, or haven't grown and developed as much, should have exactly the same spending power?

Man City and Chelsea haven't spent decades developing though have they! They just woke up one morning and realised that from now on come what may they will be challenging for the title. Utd just have more money than anyone bar these two and have spent big whenever they have needed to because the monies always there if needed. And the next time you need a particular player another 30m+ will be slapped down and MrRed will start barking on about your talented youthful players.What else is there to say. As i've already stated its the way of the world.

MJJ called it right when he posted on the chave thread that as long as finances stay the way they are its always going to be a three way race and he's absolutely correct.

So again i reiterate i do think its unfair, wrong whatever you wish to call it and its a great shame that we cannot have wage capping transfer capping etc etc so that we are playing on a more level playing field rather than listening to the same sets of fans going on about a team they've just beaten and how well they've played when that particlar side probably has over half their team joint salary being less than Rooney's.

The only question Cit Utd chelsea fans should be thinking about is how utterly appalling it would relect on them if they didn't occupy the top three slots.

When we have our new stadium our spend will increase. Will that again make for a better league. Ofcourse not. Its just a continuation of the downhill spiral thats created an uncompetitive league

But a few months ago you said we had no money and we couldn't afford to buy anyone?.......make your mind up Arkwright?

What a wonderful team of youngsters we are building at the moment......don't forget the Celtic midfielder who is only 20 also

Is building another word for buying ?

[mjj]

As you guys know I'm a Chelsea fan, so as long as Roman is the boss, we will just buy, buy, buy because we can. So on the face of it I'm a happy camper.

But it's obvious the way football is set up as a business that the rich poor divide will just grow every year. Sure, there will be the occasional anomaly, but the man with the gold will always be near the top.

Personally I would like a better division of the money. For the epl to carry on its success you need 20 teams, so all 20 should be compensated equally. I know many of you don't like this idea, but its a catch 22 for most teams. For success you need to spend big, to be able to spend big you need success. Yes, the occasional Michu comes up, but overall you need to spend big.

[SantiSuk]

Spuds just pulled one of two back against giantkillers Leeds. I like our EPL competitors to keep a diversionary interest in Cups so here's hoping you get a draw

[SantiSuk]

Damnit. Lets hope that Leeds get Man U next round (anyone but us please).

[MrRed]

Damnit. Lets hope that Leeds get Man U next round (anyone but us please).

I hope we get them!

Can't wait for the three stooges assessment of Spurs fading season in the morning

[uptheos]

Damnit. Lets hope that Leeds get Man U next round (anyone but us please).

I hope we get them!

Can't wait for the three stooges assessment of Spurs fading season in the morning

They played poorly, but society is to blame.