Updated Net Spending after Jan

[tajjuk]

No you are deflecting, lets keep on track, how much do you think its going to cost us to get ahead of either

Arsenal

United

City

Spurs

Everton

Chelsea

Liverpool

They dont spend money do they?

£30 Million is chicken feed to them bar Everton but they have the pull of a bigger club and high wages, so how will we achieve this? We usually sell our players at the first opportunity (lets see about Shaw) so how will we improve?

And even before all of that we have to stay up with this poor buy squad.

 

You know that both Arsenal and Spurs have fairly low net spends? £30 million is not chciken feed to them, nor Everton nor Utd really. Only Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City will splurge that on players regularly.

 

I would imagine we will try and copy the Spurs model. Slow sustainable growth:-

 

- Increase off field revenues where possible (from our financial reulsts this seems to be already working)

 

- Invest in youth team development.

 

- Buy promising young players from home and abroad. If a really big club comes knocking for these and your youth players than drive a hard bargain. (which is where having decent financial backing helps, removes the need to sell) Spurs doubled their money on Modric, when they sell Bale they will most likely get £40+ million for a player bought for 5. Re-invest this money back in the team. We have already done similar this year though buying the likes of Clyne, Jay Rod and Ramirez. Clyne for example could become an England right back in the future, at some point a Chelsea or Utd will come knocking but they'll pay a lot more than the £2.5 million we paid for him

 

- Grow the first team year on year out, look to add quality not quantity. (our post 03 mistake)

 

- Stick to a sustainable and sensible wage budget. Get players on long term contracts to secure their values.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Your take us alittle misleading. We had to spend in the summer to compete so our outlay the first season in the prem is always going to be high. especially withour long term objectives I'd not ready much into it...

 

If we went Down lallana, sniederlin, gaston should net aleast 25m

 

We would be lucky to get £6m for Gaston and JRod. FACT.

 

 

 

They are both awful, TSW said so

[Barry Sanchez]

I agree, but I think it'll be down to us not wanting to pay agents fees rather than wages. However I'm quite happy with seeing how players like Clyne, Shaw, Rodrigeuz, Ramirez, Mayuka will develop with us.

 

Some others delude themselves into thinking Cortese is going to spend spend spend and we are AC Milan in the 80's, we are Southampton no more no less.

Every club in the top 7 are huge clubs in their own right regardless of money, their domestic and European pedigree was already there before the premiership.

We are nowhere near that and only Blackburn have ever got into via spending millions 20 years ago, we need to wake up.

[Barry Sanchez]

We would be lucky to get £6m for Gaston and JRod. FACT.

 

 

 

They are both awful, TSW said so

 

How much would you pay for Ramirez on his performances?

[Barry Sanchez]

You know that both Arsenal and Spurs have fairly low net spends? £30 million is not chciken feed to them, nor Everton nor Utd really. Only Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City will splurge that on players regularly.

 

I would imagine we will try and copy the Spurs model. Slow sustainable growth:-

 

- Increase off field revenues where possible (from our financial reulsts this seems to be already working)

 

- Invest in youth team development.

 

- Buy promising young players from home and abroad. If a really big club comes knocking for these and your youth players than drive a hard bargain. (which is where having decent financial backing helps, removes the need to sell) Spurs doubled their money on Modric, when they sell Bale they will most likely get £40+ million for a player bought for 5. Re-invest this money back in the team. We have already done similar this year though buying the likes of Clyne, Jay Rod and Ramirez. Clyne for example could become an England right back in the future, at some point a Chelsea or Utd will come knocking but they'll pay a lot more than the £2.5 million we paid for him

 

- Grow the first team year on year out, look to add quality not quantity. (our post 03 mistake)

 

- Stick to a sustainable and sensible wage budget. Get players on long term contracts to secure their values.

 

Sorry Spurs are huge, possibly the largest club in London, grow slow so are we going to sign a player like Bale from a top 7 side?

If we do are we then going to offer him £40 Million to stay for 5 years?

If Rodriguez/Ramirez is the next Bale I will personally buy this site and name it after anything you choose.

Edited 14 March, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Some others delude themselves into thinking Cortese is going to spend spend spend and we are AC Milan in the 80's, we are Southampton no more no less.

Every club in the top 7 are huge clubs in their own right regardless of money, their domestic and European pedigree was already there before the premiership.

We are nowhere near that and only Blackburn have ever got into via spending millions 20 years ago, we need to wake up.

 

Hear, hear Barry. Anyone that doesn't share your opinions is deluded.

 

Including me. Watch how deluded I am.

 

City, when taken over, were still A MASSIVE club. Everyone wanted to go there. The fact they were only just promoted, and had not all that long before been in League One is irrelevant.

 

Despite this, they had won the League Cup as recently as 1976!!!! And their European pedigree is undoubted, I mean, they won the Cup Winners Cup in 1970!

 

Even without the billions, they had players queuing round the block to join them.

[Doctoroncall]

Give anyone data and they'll interpret it in the way they want to shocker!

[Barry Sanchez]

Hear, hear Barry. Anyone that doesn't share your opinions is deluded.

 

Including me. Watch how deluded I am.

 

City, when taken over, were still A MASSIVE club. Everyone wanted to go there. The fact they were only just promoted, and had not all that long before been in League One is irrelevant.

 

Despite this, they had won the League Cup as recently as 1976!!!! And their European pedigree is undoubted, I mean, they won the Cup Winners Cup in 1970!

 

Even without the billions, they had players queuing round the block to join them.

 

Ha ha they won in Europe though and they have pedigree, we still have 76 get togethers so lets not go there on underacheivement, if City were that bad I am sure they would not of been taken over by one of the Worlds richest families, nevermind spend a billion on a stadium, training facilities and players win them the league and cup........................

Jesus you must be deluded.

[Barry Sanchez]

Give anyone data and they'll interpret it in the way they want to shocker!

 

The only data I know that can not be misinterpreted is

Gaston Ramirez = £12 Miilion = Value for money.

[Olallana]

No you are deflecting, lets keep on track, how much do you think its going to cost us to get ahead of either

Arsenal

United

City

Spurs

Everton

Chelsea

Liverpool

They dont spend money do they?

£30 Million is chicken feed to them bar Everton but they have the pull of a bigger club and high wages, so how will we achieve this? We usually sell our players at the first opportunity (lets see about Shaw) so how will we improve?

And even before all of that we have to stay up with this poor buy squad.

 

 

Yep, that IS the story about the club since Cortese came in....

And please don´t get started about Ox, we all (well at least the rest of us) know the story behind that transfer....

[dubai_phil]

The clappers wont see this and fail to recognise this fact, the other fact is we have spent on mediocre ****e and if we go down we have spent £30 million but lost £90 million, one hell of a gamble, he is a tactical genius that Cortese.

He is gambling our future by being a yet again conservative buyer, again the clappers dont see this fact.

 

What other more rational people can see is that the guaranteed TV income in the PL this season was 30mil and the 4 year parachute payments of 16mil a year means that by reaching the PL we earnt 108million and ONLY spent 30 of that on Transfer fees.

 

What we did NOT do is to bloat the squad (which had many L1 quality players on long contracts) by bringing in expensive Bosmans or loans.

 

As such our wages to Income levels are likely to be under 70% of income.

 

The ONLY arguments are

1) We should have bought more

2) We should have bought experience. (BUT experience often means age, at least players like Cork, Morgan, Adam, Shaw are worth far more than we paid for them and we'd probably make a profit on Clyne & Davis whereas the experience bought by QPR are probably worthless due to their salaries)

3) JRod is showing he could be worth what we paid and Ramirez will still be worth 8-10mil to a foreign club now he is older and more experienced

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Ha ha they won in Europe though and they have pedigree, we still have 76 get togethers so lets not go there on underacheivement, if City were that bad I am sure they would not of been taken over by one of the Worlds richest families, nevermind spend a billion on a stadium, training facilities and players win them the league and cup........................

Jesus you must be deluded.

 

Bored billionaires only take over big clubs. FACT.

 

Just look at Anzhi Mackhakalakalakalakalakakhakaca (correct spelling, fo' realsies).

 

Thems is some impressive arabs, spending on a stadium that City had years before they arrived.

 

See look how crap Cortese is, why didn't he invest before he was here FFS.

[Barry Sanchez]

What other more rational people can see is that the guaranteed TV income in the PL this season was 30mil and the 4 year parachute payments of 16mil a year means that by reaching the PL we earnt 108million and ONLY spent 30 of that on Transfer fees.

 

What we did NOT do is to bloat the squad (which had many L1 quality players on long contracts) by bringing in expensive Bosmans or loans.

 

As such our wages to Income levels are likely to be under 70% of income.

 

The ONLY arguments are

1) We should have bought more

2) We should have bought experience. (BUT experience often means age, at least players like Cork, Morgan, Adam, Shaw are worth far more than we paid for them and we'd probably make a profit on Clyne & Davis whereas the experience bought by QPR are probably worthless due to their salaries)

3) JRod is showing he could be worth what we paid and Ramirez will still be worth 8-10mil to a foreign club now he is older and more experienced

 

So by your reckoning we have lost £2 Million to £4 Million on Ramirez, good business Cortese.

[tajjuk]

Sorry Spurs are huge, possibly the largest club in London, grow slow so are we going to sign a player like Bale from a top 7 side?

If we do are we then going to offer him £40 Million to stay for 5 years?

 

They are bigger than us, but no way are they 'huge'. They have two league cups in the last 22 years. They have spent most of their premier league life as a mid table club. Bayern Munich, Barca, Man Utd, those are 'huge' clubs. Spurs are not in any sense a 'huge' club.

 

are we going to sign a player like Bale from a top 7 side

WTF? They bought him from us for just £5 million.

 

If we do are we then going to offer him £40 Million to stay for 5 years?

LOL Bale is not on £150k a week. There might be paper talk about Spurs offering him that contract now, but I don;t see the relevance to the point I was making, He's on a 5 year contract currently that's about £75k a week. Seeing as Gaston is on about £60k a week when we have just got promoted you don;t think we could't give say Shaw that sort of contract if he became an England regular for example?

 

If Real Madrid or someone come bidding then seeing as he has 3 years left on his contract and Spurs don't need to sell they could be getting £45 million for him. I didn't say in my post we were suddenly going to able to stop players singings for Real Madrid or offering them £150k a week.

[Barry Sanchez]

Bored billionaires only take over big clubs. FACT.

 

Just look at Anzhi Mackhakalakalakalakalakakhakaca (correct spelling, fo' realsies).

 

Thems is some impressive arabs, spending on a stadium that City had years before they arrived.

 

See look how crap Cortese is, why didn't he invest before he was here FFS.

 

? I think you need to look at how much they have spent on the stadium, and the rest of your post in obvious, bored people with money.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Sorry Spurs are huge, possibly the largest club in London, grow slow so are we going to sign a player like Bale from a top 7 side?

If we do are we then going to offer him £40 Million to stay for 5 years?

If Rodriguez/Ramirez is the next Bale I will personally buy this site and name it after anything you choose.

 

Yeah, Spurs are definitely bigger than the European Champions, who have won the league 3 times in the past decade, and also won 4 of the last 6 FA Cups.

 

I mean, they won the League cup in 2008.

[Barry Sanchez]

They are bigger than us, but no way are they 'huge'. They have two league cups in the last 22 years. They have spent most of their premier league life as a mid table club. Bayern Munich, Barca, Man Utd, those are 'huge' clubs. Spurs are not in any sense a 'huge' club.

 

WTF? They bought him from us for just £5 million.

 

LOL Bale is not on £150k a week. There might be paper talk about Spurs offering him that contract now, but I don;t see the relevance to the point I was making, He's on a 5 year contract currently that's about £75k a week. Seeing as Gaston is on about £60k a week when we have just got promoted you don;t think we could't give say Shaw that sort of contract if he became an England regular for example?

 

If Real Madrid or someone come bidding then seeing as he has 3 years left on his contract and Spurs don't need to sell they could be getting £45 million for him. I didn't say in my post we were suddenly going to able to stop players singings for Real Madrid or offering them £150k a week.

 

My point was are we now going to sign yes players from a top 7 club s with the prospects Bale showed?

 

If Ramirez is on that Cortese must be on crack.

 

Seeing as they have spent their life in the premiership (football existed and was actuaklly better before) and yet still have always wanted to expand their stadium to 60,000 and have waiting lists for season tickets shows how big they are.

Spurs I think you may need to research their history along with Wolves, United were European pioneers and have had some of the greatest players ever to play the game at their stadium.

[Barry Sanchez]

Yeah, Spurs are definitely bigger than the European Champions, who have won the league 3 times in the past decade, and also won 4 of the last 6 FA Cups.

 

I mean, they won the League cup in 2008.

 

Ha ha you judge a club on what its won, are them down the road bigger than us?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

My point was are we now going to sign yes players from a top 7 club s with the prospects Bale showed?

 

If Ramirez is on that Cortese must be on crack.

 

Seeing as they have spent their life in the premiership (football existed and was actuaklly better before) and yet still have always wanted to expand their stadium to 60,000 and have waiting lists for season tickets shows how big they are.

Spurs I think you may need to research their history along with Wolves, United were European pioneers and have had some of the greatest players ever to play the game at their stadium.

 

It's a silly point.

 

Spurs didn't sign Bale from a top 7 club.

 

They signed him from a Championship club teetering on the brink of administration.

[Barry Sanchez]

Yeah, Spurs are definitely bigger than the European Champions, who have won the league 3 times in the past decade, and also won 4 of the last 6 FA Cups.

 

I mean, they won the League cup in 2008.

 

In England and London mostly Spurs have far more support than Chelsea.

[tajjuk]

Yeah, Spurs are definitely bigger than the European Champions, who have won the league 3 times in the past decade, and also won 4 of the last 6 FA Cups.

 

I mean, they won the League cup in 2008.

 

Obviously bigger than their north London rivals who have won the league 13 times, the FA cup 10 times and sell out a 60,000 seater stadium every other week depsite some of the highest prices around.

[Barry Sanchez]

It's a silly point.

 

Spurs didn't sign Bale from a top 7 club.

 

They signed him from a Championship club teetering on the brink of administration.

 

So how are we going to compete with them?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Ha ha you judge a club on what its won, are them down the road bigger than us?

 

So that has nothing to do with it no?

 

How do clubs become big? By having a large fanbase? Guess how that happens...by winning things! You think kids in africa and asia that support Man Utd and Liverpool, and increasingly Chelsea (oddly enough) do so because they like their shirts?

 

Spurs are at best the 3rd biggest club in London.

[Barry Sanchez]

Obviously bigger than their north London rivals who have won the league 13 times, the FA cup 10 times and sell out a 60,000 seater stadium every other week depsite some of the highest prices around.

 

I think you need to research Spurs as I have said, my guess is you are early 20's and think football started in 1992.

[Barry Sanchez]

So that has nothing to do with it no?

 

How do clubs become big? By having a large fanbase? Guess how that happens...by winning things! You think kids in africa and asia that support Man Utd and Liverpool, and increasingly Chelsea (oddly enough) do so because they like their shirts?

 

Spurs are at best the 3rd biggest club in London.

 

So by your definition we are smaller than ports*uth?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Obviously bigger than their north London rivals who have won the league 13 times, the FA cup 10 times and sell out a 60,000 seater stadium every other week depsite some of the highest prices around.

 

Winning things doesn't make you a big club.

 

In fact, not winning things does. FACT.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I think you need to research Spurs as I have said, my guess is you are early 20's and think football started in 1992.

 

Even pre-92 Arsenal were more successful than Spurs.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So by your definition we are smaller than ports*uth?

 

Winning one cup doesn't make you a big club, my point was doing it consistently does.

 

That would be like saying Greece are a bigger Footballing nation than Germany because they won Euro 2004.

Edited 14 March, 2013 by KelvinsRightGlove
typo

[tajjuk]

My point was are we now going to sign yes players from a top 7 club s with the prospects Bale showed?

 

If Ramirez is on that Cortese must be on crack.

 

Seeing as they have spent their life in the premiership (football existed and was actuaklly better before) and yet still have always wanted to expand their stadium to 60,000 and have waiting lists for season tickets shows how big they are.

Spurs I think you may need to research their history along with Wolves, United were European pioneers and have had some of the greatest players ever to play the game at their stadium.

 

'Yes' players? Again you make no sense, Bale was signed from us when we were in the Championship.

 

I said several times Spurs are bigger then us, they are not however a huge club, as usually you are talking out of your arse.

[Olallana]

Barry Sanchez.... is that anglosaxian for Baruch Sacher?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

'Yes' players? Again you make no sense, Bale was signed from us when we were in the Championship.

 

I said several times Spurs are bigger then us, they are not however a huge club, as usually you are talking out of your arse.

 

Nope, they are bigger than Arsenal and Chelsea.

 

So what if they don't win things, and don't have as big stadiums or fan bases.

 

They are huge in some nonsensical twisted logic according the oracle Sanchez.

[Barry Sanchez]

Winning things doesn't make you a big club.

 

In fact, not winning things does. FACT.

 

Its a factor not the be all and end all, are Preston bigger than us? Burnley?

[Barry Sanchez]

Even pre-92 Arsenal were more successful than Spurs.

 

Really, what did they do in Europe?

[Barry Sanchez]

So by your definition we are smaller than ports*uth?

 

Still no answer, cheers ta.

[Saint Garrett]

Some of the posts on this thread, namely from BS, are ridiculous. Are we ever going to be in a position to compete with Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea.....no...but as long as we keep growing without gambling on the clubs future, and run on a solid base, we'll keep growing. I'm sure that if we were in the NPC this year chasing promotion, having finished mid table in that league last year, some people would be happy ? But because we got promoted '2 years early' people are moaning that we're going backwards...at the end of the day a lot of the signings we made probably couldn't have been much better, apart from Ramirez and J-Rod.

 

If Gaston was signed for 8m, instead of £11.8m, I'm sure people would be saying he's great business and a very promising player, but because he cost us a lot of money, suddenly people expect him to be world class. If you break down the fee, you're probably paying 7m for what he is now, and the 5m for the potential that he might show over the next few years.

 

J-Rod has been one of our best attacking players under MP.

 

Stating we should have spent a lot lot more and having a go at the chairman for 'going for the cheap option'...you speak to a lot of our fans and a lot can't believe that we've spent that much money. We had a relatively poor squad and have been improved by the new players. Also a lot of the players we have bought, would probably keep their value between them. (one or two would sell for a few million less, and some a few million more).

 

Just have some patience, why does everything have to be done now and if it isn't then everything is sh!t and a waste of money. The odd expensive player may be a flop, but if you're never going to take the gamble then who knows what you'll miss out on. Especially young players. It will be ok...

[tajjuk]

I think you need to research Spurs as I have said, my guess is you are early 20's and think football started in 1992.

 

lol, you're a real idiot.

 

Pre-premier league Arsenal were bigger than Spurs. Even ignoring their titles from the 30's they were still winning titles in the late 80's and early 90's.

 

Spurs last won the title in 1961, that's 52 years ago. They last won an FA Cup in 1991. Their highest finishes in the Premier League have come in their last 3 seasons.

 

The highest they managed before 2005 was 7th. Over the last 10 years they have grown under Levy from a regular midtable club to champions league place challengers whilst keeping a close control over the fianances. That's a good achievement for a club that is not one of England's traditional big boys, nor backed my mulit millions worth of tycoon money.

 

If you really think player's are influenced by what a club did 50 years ago you need your head looking at.

Edited 14 March, 2013 by tajjuk

[Barry Sanchez]

lol, you're a real idiot.

 

Pre-premier league Arsenal were bigger than Spurs. Even ignoring their titles from the 30's they were still winning titles in the late 80's and early 90's.

 

Spurs last won the title in 1961, that's 52 years ago. They last won an FA Cup in 1991. Their highest finishes in the Premier League have come in their last 3 seasons.

 

The highest they managed before 2005 was 7th.

 

If you really think player's are influenced by what a club did 50 years ago you need your head looking at.

 

Im sorry is there a time whereby a club becomes small again as you have failed to mention that caveat, are Blackburn bigger than us then?

 

Answer the questions, Spurs were pioneers in Europe, learn some history mate.

[Barry Sanchez]

Some of the posts on this thread, namely from BS, are ridiculous. Are we ever going to be in a position to compete with Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea.....no...but as long as we keep growing without gambling on the clubs future, and run on a solid base, we'll keep growing. I'm sure that if we were in the NPC this year chasing promotion, having finished mid table in that league last year, some people would be happy ? But because we got promoted '2 years early' people are moaning that we're going backwards...at the end of the day a lot of the signings we made probably couldn't have been much better, apart from Ramirez and J-Rod.

 

If Gaston was signed for 8m, instead of £11.8m, I'm sure people would be saying he's great business and a very promising player, but because he cost us a lot of money, suddenly people expect him to be world class. If you break down the fee, you're probably paying 7m for what he is now, and the 5m for the potential that he might show over the next few years.

 

J-Rod has been one of our best attacking players under MP.

 

Stating we should have spent a lot lot more and having a go at the chairman for 'going for the cheap option'...you speak to a lot of our fans and a lot can't believe that we've spent that much money. We had a relatively poor squad and have been improved by the new players. Also a lot of the players we have bought, would probably keep their value between them. (one or two would sell for a few million less, and some a few million more).

 

Just have some patience, why does everything have to be done now and if it isn't then everything is sh!t and a waste of money. The odd expensive player may be a flop, but if you're never going to take the gamble then who knows what you'll miss out on. Especially young players. It will be ok...

 

So who are we going to compete against if we cant compete against the teams you have mentioned to get into Europe?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Still no answer, cheers ta.

 

Ha, shall I dig up every question I have asked you and you ignored?

 

And I actually did answer. Perhaps you didn't understand.

 

What I said was, winning one cup doesn't make you a big team, it's doing it consistently that does. This is when I gave the example of Euro 2004, which Greece won. Germany haven't won an international tournament since '96? Does that make them a bigger footballing nation? No, of course not. Because Germany have won lots over a sustained period.

 

Like Chelsea and Arsenal, which is why they are bigger than Spurs.

 

Neither us or pompey have won a lot. So you need to start comparing other things too. Such as historical standings, which for the most part has seen us above them (probably for the foreseeable future too), a larger fan base, better facilities, a top notch academy, Premier League status and a bigger Stadium.

 

So no, they aren't bigger than us.

[Saint Garrett]

So who are we going to compete against if we cant compete against the teams you have mentioned to get into Europe?

 

Firstly Swansea, and one of Millwall or Wigan will be in Europe next season (there is no reason why we can't get into Europe via a cup competition. And such teams as Newcastle, Everton, Spurs, and every now and again one or two of the big boys have a poor season (Liverpool for example).

 

What were you expecting? Us to just get promoted and spend £100m and suddenly be aiming for Europe? Cortese isn't an idiot, he knows sustainable growth is the ideal situation.

[tajjuk]

Im sorry is there a time whereby a club becomes small again as you have failed to mention that caveat, are Blackburn bigger than us then?

 

Answer the questions, Spurs were pioneers in Europe, learn some history mate.

 

Typical BS from BS.

 

Learn some history yourself, everyone else knows Arsenal are a bigger club than Spurs and always have been, even the Spurs fans admit it. Big clubs regularly win trophies and leagues. Huge clubs have massive worldwide fanbases and have won multiple trophies throughout their history and regularly dominate their domestic competitions.

 

How a club that isn't even the biggest club in it's own city, that has barely won a major trophy for 50 years, that has spent most of it's recent league history in midtable obscurity can be huge only your stupidity knows.

Edited 14 March, 2013 by tajjuk

[Barry Sanchez]

Ha, shall I dig up every question I have asked you and you ignored?

 

And I actually did answer. Perhaps you didn't understand.

 

What I said was, winning one cup doesn't make you a big team, it's doing it consistently that does. This is when I gave the example of Euro 2004, which Greece won. Germany haven't won an international tournament since '96? Does that make them a bigger footballing nation? No, of course not. Because Germany have won lots over a sustained period.

 

Like Chelsea and Arsenal, which is why they are bigger than Spurs.

 

Neither us or pompey have won a lot. So you need to start comparing other things too. Such as historical standings, which for the most part has seen us above them (probably for the foreseeable future too), a larger fan base, better facilities, a top notch academy, Premier League status and a bigger Stadium.

 

So no, they aren't bigger than us.

 

 

But they have won more than us and thats what counts surely? Nothing else under these arguments or are you contradicting yourself and others from just above here?

 

Spurs are smalller than Arsenal and Chelsea as they have won less recently, I put it to you about other teams and our Island dwellers and you ignore it, you cant have it both ways.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Typical BS from BS.

 

Learn some history yourself, everyone else knows Arsenal are a bigger club than Spurs and always have been, even the Spurs fans admit it.

 

How a club that isn't even the biggest club in it's own city, that has barely won a major trophy for 50 years, that has spent most of it's recent league history in midtable obscurity can be huge only your stupidity knows.

 

Nottingham Forest won consecutive European Cups.

 

Nevermind it was over 30 years ago. They are still amongst the biggest clubs in England, and Europe. Even though they haven't been in the top flight for nearly 15 years.

[tajjuk]

But they have won more than us and thats what counts surely? Nothing else under these arguments or are you contradicting yourself and others from just above here?

 

Spurs are smalller than Arsenal and Chelsea as they have won less recently, I put it to you about other teams and our Island dwellers and you ignore it, you cant have it both ways.

 

No Spurs are smaller than Arsenal because they won a lot less throughout their history, have less fans, have a worse record in the league over their history, have a bigger worldwide appeal, have a much bigger stadium, pay more in wages and any other reason you care to mention to grade the size of clubs.

 

Nottingham Forest won consecutive European Cups.

 

Nevermind it was over 30 years ago. They are still amongst the biggest clubs in England, and Europe. Even though they haven't been in the top flight for nearly 15 years.

 

Biggest ever, huge in fact. I can certainly see a host of player's turning down club's in the Premiership for that very reason.

 

I can see it now, "nah sorry Everton, you are challenging for a Champions League spot, offering me £50k a week, and playing in front of 36k passionate Scousers but the mighty Forrest won the European cup, not once but twice, nearly 40 years a go, so really my long term future is better here, as such a massive club will be back on top soon. Eh? What do you mean they haven't been in the top flight for 15 years and onl 22k turned up last week, How is that possible for such a giant of the game?"

Edited 14 March, 2013 by tajjuk

[KelvinsRightGlove]

But they have won more than us and thats what counts surely? Nothing else under these arguments or are you contradicting yourself and others from just above here?

 

Spurs are smalller than Arsenal and Chelsea as they have won less recently, I put it to you about other teams and our Island dwellers and you ignore it, you cant have it both ways.

 

I never said that's ALL that matters, but it certainly plays a part. Especially when you are talking about clubs that are often found near the top end of the tree battling for honours. This isn't the case for teams such as Saints or Portsmouth. So a lot of the other factors become a lot more relevant.

 

It's not about having it both ways Bazza, it's about joined up thinking. I know that is something you struggle with, in a world where everything is black or white, the colour grey must be ever so scary.

 

Also, what is this Spurs being 'European Pioneers' rubbish? They have never even been runners up in the European Cup/Champions League, let alone won the thing.

[Barry Sanchez]

Nottingham Forest won consecutive European Cups.

 

Nevermind it was over 30 years ago. They are still amongst the biggest clubs in England, and Europe. Even though they haven't been in the top flight for nearly 15 years.

 

Sorry I dont know what you are saying, firstly if you win things you are bigger? Your argument for Chelsea and Arsenal being bigger SPURS (I did write possibly and there is scope for debate as I believe I added there are many factors into determining the size of a club but people think its solely upon success) and now you are saying Forrest are what exactly?

 

I really am lost here.

[Greenridge]

I really am lost here.

 

That is very apparent to everyone watching.

 

I like you Barry. You're much funnier than dune ever was.

[Barry Sanchez]

I never said that's ALL that matters, but it certainly plays a part. Especially when you are talking about clubs that are often found near the top end of the tree battling for honours. This isn't the case for teams such as Saints or Portsmouth. So a lot of the other factors become a lot more relevant.

 

It's not about having it both ways Bazza, it's about joined up thinking. I know that is something you struggle with, in a world where everything is black or white, the colour grey must be ever so scary.

 

Also, what is this Spurs being 'European Pioneers' rubbish? They have never even been runners up in the European Cup/Champions League, let alone won the thing.

 

Bill Nicholson? Christ this forum really is all about nothing other than premiership football?

Spurs were the first British club to win a European honour, I think this constitutes them as pioneers for the British game.

[Barry Sanchez]

That is very apparent to everyone watching.

 

I like you Barry. You're much funnier than dune ever was.

 

I am lost here as nobody seems know anything about football ha ha its amusing.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Sorry I dont know what you are saying, firstly if you win things you are bigger? Your argument for Chelsea and Arsenal being bigger SPURS (I did write possibly and there is scope for debate as I believe I added there are many factors into determining the size of a club but people think its solely upon success) and now you are saying Forrest are what exactly?

 

I really am lost here.

 

Awww, is someone struggling to keep up.

 

I gave examples of clubs winning things in the pretty recent past. Which does elevate their footballing standing.

 

You then start talking about what clubs did 50 odd years ago.

 

I agree other factors have a role to play also, but all these other factors suggest you are wrong. Such as the Spurs example, just look at Tajjuk's post. What else do you need to be proved wrong?