Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
CosbehFox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I'm quite relaxed about the league (not being a club accountant) but a cup would be sensational (even without fans). Hope that we treat Saturdays match with respect. 

I'd prefer it not to be this constricted down to about 12th though, I think top 4 is going to require at least 70-75 points which is a huge ask as it means we cannot have a poor period which bothers me given last seasons capitulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arriba Los Zorros said:

I disagree with this, I think the 'rich 6' get ripped into far more for poor performances, they are held to a higher standard, if we sunk to mid table it wouldn't be reported on or commented on much outside the local Leics media but compare that to a couple of losses for Lampard who is in the early stages of being hounded out....

That's why I said some of the media, Sky and BT often make excuses for the Rich 6, look how much attention Liverpool got for their injuries, when these teams get beat it's never because the opposition where better but because the rich ones were having an off day. 

Anyway I rarely take any notice of what Sky and BT pundits are saying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about fan base and marketability, it doesn't matter of Arsenal are 14th stories about Arsenal get more clicks and Arsenal games get higher viewing figures than Leicester, probably the same for Newcastle and Everton although we should be pushing them close.

 

We are a club outperforming our size and stature and that is great, but it is not going to turn into legions of fans lucrative sponsorship deals. Arsenal and Chelsea will always be a safer bet. It is the same reason Bournemouth were never really considered a premier league team, rather a league one side massively over performing. We all knew it would come crashing down around them. Fair play for staying in the top flight as long as they did but the likes of Villa and Leeds and a number of championship clubs are much bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, davieG said:

Too much attention is focussed on what Sky and BT are pumping out but if you look around the media including the newspapers we are getting plenty of plaudits and recognition especially taking into account how we collapsed last season after a good start.

I finally realised last month that I don't have to watch the preamble or the halftime and full-time 'analysis' and avoiding it has enhanced the experience. I wouldn't want to go to a match with Souness, Sherwood or any of the other pundits. The first 40 years of my football experience were pretty much pundit free and better for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The harsh reality is that it’s all about the clicks and hence the big six get the coverage. Then throw in the next set of Leeds, West Ham, Newcastle and Everton. 
 

It’s all about the biggest story - the only way we become that is to keep winning and nab trophies. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, onekeithweller said:

I finally realised last month that I don't have to watch the preamble or the halftime and full-time 'analysis' and avoiding it has enhanced the experience. I wouldn't want to go to a match with Souness, Sherwood or any of the other pundits. The first 40 years of my football experience were pretty much pundit free and better for it.

It was going on 40 years ago. I remember Central News very rarely featuring us on the Friday night preview and Star Soccer hardly ever venturing towards the East (apart from our crappy neighbours). Derogatory songs and banners about Jimmy Greaves, in fact I can remember singing something about him at Wembley after the Silence of the Rams. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Dont agree. We've lucked out with an incredible owner whereas they had the complete opposite. I'd argue they had all the ingredients for a Man City style takeover before FFP came in.

 

They're in that Everton / Villa / Leeds bracket of being a big name but shit. If you were a neutral and had to choose between having them and the likes of a non descript Brighton, Watford or Bournemouth in the premier league, the vast majority would choose to have Newcastle. 

If my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle. But she doesn’t, so she’s not.

 

To be honest, not sure on your second point either, a lot of premier league fans want to see excitement and goals. If you gave them the choice of Newcastle, who’s aim every game is to play for a nil nil, waste as much time as possible, then put on Andy Carroll on minute 80 when they’re losing or a club like Bournemouth/Brighton who at least try and play entertaining football - I think a lot would choose entertainment. When you’re sat at home watching it do you really, truly care about these ‘massive’ clubs like newcastle? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, onekeithweller said:

I finally realised last month that I don't have to watch the preamble or the halftime and full-time 'analysis' and avoiding it has enhanced the experience. I wouldn't want to go to a match with Souness, Sherwood or any of the other pundits. The first 40 years of my football experience were pretty much pundit free and better for it.

Big Match Brian Moore - “Entertaining one all draw there at Elland Road. Now off to the Dell where Southampton take on a struggling Leicester City.” and that was your lot.Golden.Modern football is god damn awful for so many reasons.Pundits are nearly top of my list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Would Forest get the Leeds treatment should they come up do you reckon? I reckon they would.

 

I don't think so, at least not to anywhere near the same extent. I know Leeds were down for ages but they were in the Champions League less than 20 years ago, Forest haven't even been in the top tier.

 

Nobody under the age of 30 thinks Forest are a big club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

I don't think so, at least not to anywhere near the same extent. I know Leeds were down for ages but they were in the Champions League less than 20 years ago, Forest haven't even been in the top tier.

 

Nobody under the age of 30 thinks Forest are a big club.

How many pundits are the under the age of thirty?  :cool:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Leicester City (redandwhitekop.com)

 

Liverpool fans caught in being non partisan shocker!!!

 

Didn't realise we had a lower net spend than Brighton. Couldn't mame you 3 "big money" transfers Brighton have made in the last 3 years, bar Alireza Jahanbkhsh.  

 

Edited by Koke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Koke said:

 

Didn't realise we had a lower net spend than Brighton. Couldn't mame you 3 "big money" transfers Brighton have made in the last 3 years, bar Alireza Jahanbkhsh.  

 

Was amazed by that, actually dismissed it as a false fact tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

Didn't realise we had a lower net spend than Brighton. Couldn't mame you 3 "big money" transfers Brighton have made in the last 3 years, bar Alireza Jahanbkhsh.  

 

Maupay, Webster and Trossard were all in the region of £20mn I think?

 

To be honest though, if their net spend is high, it must be due to not selling anyone for big money as other than those 3 and Jahanbaksch, I can't think of many for big money>?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I don't think so, at least not to anywhere near the same extent. I know Leeds were down for ages but they were in the Champions League less than 20 years ago, Forest haven't even been in the top tier.

 

Nobody under the age of 100 thinks Forest are a big club.

Fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Would Forest get the Leeds treatment should they come up do you reckon? I reckon they would.

And a few others, Derby, Sheff Wed, Sunderland, Ipswich, Portsmouth, even Cov as they won the FA Cup in the 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davieG said:

That's why I said some of the media, Sky and BT often make excuses for the Rich 6, look how much attention Liverpool got for their injuries, when these teams get beat it's never because the opposition where better but because the rich ones were having an off day. 

Anyway I rarely take any notice of what Sky and BT pundits are saying.

Agreed, I bother with some of the better newspapers articles - Times, Telegraph, etc, and the Athletic is good, and to an extent Match of the day, but the tabloids and the Sky/BT analysis as well as radio stations like Talksport / 606 is just for increasing viewers / readers and pandering / creating controversy rather than well thought out analysis and opinion, no point in getting upset over it, its nothing more than business.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

And a few others, Derby, Sheff Wed, Sunderland, Ipswich, Portsmouth, even Cov as they won the FA Cup in the 80's.

Coventry would get more coverage than us because they won the cup 30 odd years ago? Do you really believe that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Would Forest get the Leeds treatment should they come up do you reckon? I reckon they would.

 

Nah they wouldn't. Leeds have a huge fan base. Forest simply don't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...