The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[easilee]

DAMN STRAIGHT !!!!!

 

 

[LC/FC]

25 minutes ago, easilee said:

DAMN STRAIGHT !!!!!

 

 

Unfortunately as Southgate is such a bottle job himself, he'll inevitably continue to base the England team on the Spurs bottle jobs, as he has done for years.

A winner Southgate is not. 

[trabuch]

46 minutes ago, LC/FC said:

Unfortunately as Southgate is such a bottle job himself, he'll inevitably continue to base the England team on the Spurs bottle jobs, as he has done for years.

A winner Southgate is not. 

We had the best chance we will ever have in present times to win the world cup in 2018 (mostly due to a phenomenally lucky draw). But Vs Croatia Southgate played an utterly lame and knackered old horse (because his club fits) and gave Vardy 8 mins. No wonder Vardy told England to eff off.  

 

That video is reasonable (except for shamichael!). The FA simply aren't.

Edited 14 November 2019 by trabuch

[treer]

what the FA should do, but won't is get a manager in, who  is of a higher tier than a failed Middlesborogh reject. but they will not because then they could not dictate to him.

[Nalis]

Its easy to slate Southgate based on tactical ability vs Croatia/not utilising Vardy but people forget that his man management is excellent, the only tarnish at the minute seems to be the Sterling / Gomez scenario.

 

Also easy to point towards the draw but a lot of big teams got beat by less renowed nations:

 

Spain got put out by Russia

Germany got put out by South Korea / Mexico

Italy and the Netherlands didnt even make it to the World Cup at all

 

Brutal reality is that there werent many other managers at the time who would even have got as far as the semi finals with that England squad.

[Dorkingfox]

6 hours ago, trabuch said:

We had the best chance we will ever have in present times to win the world cup in 2018 (mostly due to a phenomenally lucky draw). But Vs Croatia Southgate played an utterly lame and knackered old horse (because his club fits) and gave Vardy 8 mins. No wonder Vardy told England to eff off.  

 

That video is reasonable (except for shamichael!). The FA simply aren't.

Says it all really

[Dorkingfox]

41 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Its easy to slate Southgate based on tactical ability vs Croatia/not utilising Vardy but people forget that his man management is excellent, the only tarnish at the minute seems to be the Sterling / Gomez scenario.

 

Also easy to point towards the draw but a lot of big teams got beat by less renowed nations:

 

Spain got put out by Russia

Germany got put out by South Korea / Mexico

Italy and the Netherlands didnt even make it to the World Cup at all

 

Brutal reality is that there werent many other managers at the time who would even have got as far as the semi finals with that England squad.

He is tactically inept, may be a good man manager, no use if you cannot manage a game or chose the right players.

[Toddybad]

Southgate has done a decent job with limited talent at his disposal.

He must now play Madison.

His only real mistake was not sticking vardy on for extra time against Croatia as we needed an outlet upfield and Kane was just wandering aimlessly. Hard to argue with the rest of that campaign given where we reached despite not playing particularly good football due to the dearth of English talent.

[Oxfordfox83]

16 hours ago, Stoopid said:

While it's true that Manchester City have traditionally been a yo-yo club, there's a certain amount of revisionism going on here. 

They are traditionally the team of the city of Manchester (and its southern & eastern neighbours) - a massive, very densely populate)d area. 

And though obviously in the shadow of United they hardly came from nowhere.

They got lucky in their owners, but so did we - on moral and social grounds, you could say we got even luckier. 

Not to say we can't emulate their success, but we don't have to diminish them to do so.

Just the opposite, in my view...

I don’t think it’s denigrating them to say they weren’t anywhere near the top of the league until the Sheik Mansour era. There’s no revisionism to say that they spent a good half of the first 25 years of my life outside the top flight. In the Manchester vs Liverpool also-rans club, Everton were far more successful than Man City, and Everton never bothered the scorers much either. 

 

They've always been a well supported club in a big city, but they were never actually contenders until the last decade or so. ‘Came from nowhere’ is spot on IMO...

[Stoopid]

1 hour ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

I don’t think it’s denigrating them to say they weren’t anywhere near the top of the league until the Sheik Mansour era. There’s no revisionism to say that they spent a good half of the first 25 years of my life outside the top flight. In the Manchester vs Liverpool also-rans club, Everton were far more successful than Man City, and Everton never bothered the scorers much either. 

 

They've always been a well supported club in a big city, but they were never actually contenders until the last decade or so. ‘Came from nowhere’ is spot on IMO...

Yeah, well being an old git I remember the 60s - the Mercer & Allison era - when they were league & cup winners ( beating us in 69 of course). 

Football tends to be cyclical is the point I'm making. Man City have had their fair share of ups & downs, but they've always been a 'big' club in the context of English football.

I don't think the Mansours would have backed them otherwise. The potential was always massive. 

[Dorkingfox]

18 hours ago, Stoopid said:

While it's true that Manchester City have traditionally been a yo-yo club, there's a certain amount of revisionism going on here. 

They are traditionally the team of the city of Manchester (and its southern & eastern neighbours) - a massive, very densely populate)d area. 

And though obviously in the shadow of United they hardly came from nowhere.

They got lucky in their owners, but so did we - on moral and social grounds, you could say we got even luckier. 

Not to say we can't emulate their success, but we don't have to diminish them to do so.

Just the opposite, in my view...

Probably the difference is that Manchester City are owned by a country with limitless funds and are under a UEFA investigation into allegations of financial fair play irregularities, which could lead to a Champions League ban and has been sent for a final judgment at the governing body.

[Guest Markyblue]

7 minutes ago, Stoopid said:

Yeah, well being an old git I remember the 60s - the Mercer & Allison era - when they were league & cup winners ( beating us in 69 of course). 

Football tends to be cyclical is the point I'm making. Man City have had their fair share of ups & downs, but they've always been a 'big' club in the context of English football.

I don't think the Mansours would have backed them otherwise. The potential was always massive. 

Always remember man city as a good club with loyal fans but since the takeover they have won plenty but completely lost their soul, must be plenty of their fans who have mixed feelings about the present setup. 

[Dorkingfox]

13 minutes ago, Stoopid said:

Yeah, well being an old git I remember the 60s - the Mercer & Allison era - when they were league & cup winners ( beating us in 69 of course). 

Football tends to be cyclical is the point I'm making. Man City have had their fair share of ups & downs, but they've always been a 'big' club in the context of English football.

I don't think the Mansours would have backed them otherwise. The potential was always massive. 

Yes Man City had been an above average Div 1 team since the late the late 60's then they lost their way, found it again and became ripe for a take over as they had a good grounding, but the fan base was small compared to Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and Arsenal, maybe even to Chelsea and Newcastle.

Edited 14 November 2019 by Dorkingfox

[Stoopid]

18 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

Always remember man city as a good club with loyal fans but since the takeover they have won plenty but completely lost their soul, must be plenty of their fans who have mixed feelings about the present setup. 

I agree. I've got a soft spot for the club (as is fairly evident), having lived close to Maine Rd in the 70s and watching them fairly often.

But recent history is difficult to square with that. A cursory examination of their current ownership leaves a very unpleasant taste...and a lot of the Man City supporting mates I know aren't particularly comfortable with it.

Moving away from Moss Side was bad enough, but being in thrall to a corrupt state makes it worse.

[Stoopid]

28 minutes ago, Dorkingfox said:

Yes Man City had been an above average Div 1 team since the late the late 60's then they lost their way, found it again and became ripe for a take over as they had a good grounding, but the fan base was small compared to Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and Arsenal, maybe even to Chelsea and Newcastle.

Maybe compared to L'pool United & Arsenal, but they are comparable - or indeed bigger - than the other clubs you mention I would say. 

Mancunians ( not counting Salford , Stretford etc) tend to be Man City fans as do people from Stockport, Ashton etc) and that's an awful lot of people.

They've attracted a fair few glory-hunters in recent years of course, but their core support's always been massive.

[urban.spaceman]

17 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Calm down, it’s just a “purple patch”  don’t you know? 

Yeah, we haven't played anyone good yet.

[hackneyfox]

19 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

West Ham in particular is the only major club in a massive built up area and should easily be up there with Arsenal,Spurs and Chelsea. 

Arsenal isn't that far away from The Olympic stadium.

London is extremely easy to travel around, not difficult to live in East London and support teams in North,South or West London.

[urban.spaceman]

18 hours ago, Jobyfox said:

When I started watching football in the mid-eighties people often talked about a big 5: Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs and Everton.

 

There were other clubs who were considered big due to other reasons like number of fans or historic success. These were clubs like Aston Villa or Newcastle.

 

Chelsea’s brand growth is a relatively recent phenomenon and took years for it to happen. It also took a massive amount of investment, but they are now considered and elite club.

 

Man City’s ascendency was most dramatic. A big club, but one that had been average for years and very much in the shadow of their illustrious neighbours. They announced their ambitions quite dramatically by buying Robinho from Real Madrid a day after they were taken over - paying £32m, which was an eye-watering amount then. Even then people laughed and dismissed them as noisy neighbours. A few billion more invested and nobody is laughing now.

 

Everton have proved that clubs can leave the elite group.

Man City and Chelsea have proved that you can join it. It’s not a thing that’s static in time.

 

The difference is that Chelsea and Man City have thrown billions at it. To do it in a sustainable way over a number of years is much more challenging. That’s what Leicester are up against. 

The best thing about this is that this argument can't ever be used against us. We won the league having spent a third of what Newcastle spent that season, and they got relegated. Not a single member of that title winning team cost us more than £9m. 3 of them were sold for £140m.

 

We've scouted excellently, picking up bargains and making a profit on most players we've sold. Where we have spent millions on players, it's never come directly from our owner's pockets, it's come from our earnings from winning the league (£93m, where we were the 5th highest earners), our earnings from getting the furthest of the English clubs in the Champions League (£75m), and from making huge profits on players we've sold (Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez and Maguire earned us £219m, making us a profit of around £195m - AND WE'RE CURRENTLY ABOVE ALL OF THEM IN THE LEAGUE). 

 

Even the new training ground can be funded with the sale of Maguire!

Edited 14 November 2019 by urban.spaceman

[Raw Dykes]

24 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The best thing about this is that this argument can't ever be used against us. We won the league having spent a third of what Newcastle spent that season, and they got relegated. Not a single member of that title winning team cost us more than £9m. 3 of them were sold for £140m.

 

We've scouted excellently, picking up bargains and making a profit on most players we've sold. Where we have spent millions on players, it's never come directly from our owner's pockets, it's come from our earnings from winning the league (£93m, where we were the 5th highest earners), our earnings from getting the furthest of the English clubs in the Champions League (£75m), and from making huge profits on players we've sold (Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez and Mahrez earned us £219m, making us a profit of around £195m - AND WE'RE CURRENTLY ABOVE ALL OF THEM IN THE LEAGUE). 

 

Even the new training ground can be funded with the sale of Maguire!

Did we sell him twice?

[urban.spaceman]

10 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Did we sell him twice?

He tried to get himself sold at least twice, let's be honest.

[turtmcfly]

https://www.football365.com/news/every-premier-league-clubs-biggest-summer-signing-rated

 

 

LEICESTER CITY: Youri Tielemans – £40.5million (A)
Has there ever been a more obvious ‘signing of the season’ before a season has actually begun? Great on loan and even better now. If his and Leicester’s superb form continues, he’ll be worth twice that come the summer, and other clubs that turned their nose up at Tielemans will no doubt be come sniffing more forcefully this time around

 

 

[Poznan34]

Even better, Tielemans was 'only' £32m, rather than the widely-reported £40m, according to John Percy 

[LC/FC]

2 minutes ago, Poznan34 said:

Even better, Tielemans was 'only' £32m, rather than the widely-reported £40m, according to John Percy 

Wasn't it first reported by Percy to be about 35 million before the entire media went and said it was for 40 million? 

The fact that it's 3 million less than the initial report says.. We're kinda good at this transfer lark. 

[LC/FC]

22 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

https://www.football365.com/news/every-premier-league-clubs-biggest-summer-signing-rated

 

 

LEICESTER CITY: Youri Tielemans – £40.5million (A)
Has there ever been a more obvious ‘signing of the season’ before a season has actually begun? Great on loan and even better now. If his and Leicester’s superb form continues, he’ll be worth twice that come the summer, and other clubs that turned their nose up at Tielemans will no doubt be come sniffing more forcefully this time around

 

 

Literally doubled his value!

Other teams can sniff as much as they want to sniff. 

That's probably because Youri smells like 'Joy' 

[Yes]

 

(not more than £40m) as backup to.. Emerson. 
 

“Top 6” fans are on another level of delusion.