Updated Net Spending after Jan

[KelvinsRightGlove]

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.

 

What impact does that have now though?

 

That's like saying Preston are huge because they were the first club to do a league and cup double.

[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.

 

Yes yes you are and its quite amusing seeing you changing your argument to try and win an argument you cant on the success/size of clubs and you imediately snooker yourself and have done on the lack of ours as a club.

[Barry Sanchez]

What impact does that have now though?

 

That's like saying Preston are huge because they were the first club to do a league and cup double.

 

But they are huge as they have won things, well this according to peoples arguments? As the caveat for this when does the time run out and they become small again ha ha?

[Barry Sanchez]

What impact does that have now though?

 

That's like saying Preston are huge because they were the first club to do a league and cup double.

 

Are Swansea bigger than us?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Yes yes you are and its quite amusing seeing you changing your argument to try and win an argument you cant on the success/size of clubs and you imediately snooker yourself and have done on the lack of ours as a club.

 

Right, says the one claiming honours don't play a part, then quoting historical honours as an indicator. Top effort.

[tajjuk]

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.

 

And Celtic were the first British club to win a European cup, yet their most recent transfer saw players arrive from hotbeds of footballing talent and prestige such Australia's A-League, France's Lague-2 and the Israeli premier division.

 

There is no relevance to now with something that happened 50 years ago.

[Barry Sanchez]

Right, says the one claiming honours don't play a part, then quoting historical honours as an indicator. Top effort.

 

Where did I say that? I said it plays a part. Answer the question, I am laughing out loud here as I have read through page 2 and the contradictions are very funny.

 

 

Spurs 3rd biggest in London as they have not won as much as Chelsea and Arsenal recently.

 

Southampton bigger than pom*ey as we have won err hold on a minute

 

 

As a last belter, if Spurs win the European Cup are they bigger than Arsenal as they have not won anything for the last 8 years?

 

Does this change over happen straight away? They could hand over the 2nd placed baton on the bus parade ha ha! Classic.

Edited 14 March, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[Barry Sanchez]

And Celtic were the first British club to win a European cup, yet their most recent transfer saw players arrive from hotbeds of footballing talent and prestige such Australia's A-League, France's Lague-2 and the Israeli premier division.

 

There is no relevance to now with something that happened 50 years ago.

 

No the European Cup not a European Cup, Celtic are a huge World club Christ alive................

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Where did I say that? I said it plays a part. Answer the question, I am laughing out loud here as I have read through page 2 and the contradictions are very funny.

 

 

Spurs 3rd biggest in London as they have not won as much as Chelsea and Arsenal recently.

 

Southampton bigger than pom*ey as we have won err hold on a minute

 

 

As a last belter, if Spurs win the European Cup are they biiger than Arsenal as they have not won anything for the last 8 years?

 

Does this change over happen straight away? They could hand over the 2nd placed baton on the bus parade ha ha! Classic.

 

So you are just ignoring all the other things that Tajjuk listed and I am too lazy to re-list showing how Spurs aren't bigger than Arsenal?

 

Funny that.

[tajjuk]

But they are huge as they have won things, well this according to peoples arguments? As the caveat for this when does the time run out and they become small again ha ha?

 

 

 

Two words:

 

Continued success.

 

One cup 50 years ago is irrelevant.

 

As is one cup yesterday to a lesser degree.

 

Are Swansea bigger than Arsenal for winning that Legaue Cup and Arsenal not winning anything for 8 years? No, because Arsenal's superior fanbase, successful history, league status and finances give them a bigger boost than one cup win.

 

Between Swansea and us it's less clear cut, neither club has a very successful history. neither club has a massive following, they obviously currently have an edge over us as they can offer player's higher recent league status to build on, european football and recent success to build one. We can probably offer more money in wgaes.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Two words:

 

Continued success.

 

One cup 50 years ago is irrelevant.

 

As is one cup yesterday to a lesser degree.

 

Are Swansea bigger than Arsenal for winning that Legaue Cup and Arsenal not winning anything for 8 years? No, because Arsenal's superior fanbase, successful history, league status and finances give them a bigger boost than one cup win.

 

Between Swansea and us it's less clear cut, neither club has a very successful history. neither club has a massive following, they obviously currently have an edge over us as they can offer player's higher recent league status to build on, european football and recent success to build one. We can probably offer more money in wgaes.

 

As I said, joined up thinking. Clear who isn't able to do this, isn't it.

 

How many times he needs telling 'THIS IS A PART OF IT', is completely beyond me.

[Barry Sanchez]

Two words:

 

Continued success.

 

One cup 50 years ago is irrelevant.

 

As is one cup yesterday to a lesser degree.

 

Are Swansea bigger than Arsenal for winning that Legaue Cup and Arsenal not winning anything for 8 years? No, because Arsenal's superior fanbase, successful history, league status and finances give them a bigger boost than one cup win.

 

Between Swansea and us it's less clear cut, neither club has a very successful history. neither club has a massive following, they obviously currently have an edge over us as they can offer player's higher recent league status to build on, european football and recent success to build one. We can probably offer more money in wgaes.

 

So you concede the point, your argument basing size solely on success is flawed?

[Barry Sanchez]

As I said, joined up thinking. Clear who isn't able to do this, isn't it.

 

How many times he needs telling 'THIS IS A PART OF IT', is completely beyond me.

 

 

No I believe I said that and now you are jumping on that bandwagon ha ha!

[Joensuu]

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/02/11/updated-premier-league-net-spend-table-201213/

 

Not sure if the above has been previously posted elsewhere but it is an updated net spending list for this season. It makes pretty woeful reading for QPR, unsurprisingly, but also for us and Villa. If any of those 3 go down after a top 6 net spend that's a pretty horrid performance.

 

Swansea, Everton and Spurs can be pretty chuffed, especially Swansea, the lowest net spend in the league this season after selling Graham, and in the process of having a hugely successful season including a cup. They are really turning into a bit of a blueprint for how to smash it in the top division IMO.

 

Apologies if posted before, just found it interesting.

 

Interesting link, thank you for posting it. I would like to see the figures for total spend though, as purchases from previous seasons, wages, loan repayments etc will all substantially alter this table. Then if you contrasted that to club income you'd see a very different picture.

 

As we saw the other week, we're pretty much breaking even this year. We have managed to keep our wage bill down, and have few other liabilities to service. Yes we spent a lot last summer, but that's only to be expected from any team being promoted (surprisingly West Ham have managed to do very well while keeping their transfer spend relatively low; Reading have approached this season in a very conservative way, avoid spending, hope for the best and rebuild if (when) we go down - actually not a terrible strategy).

 

Overall, I don't see anything too concerning in these figures. I think we would do quite well compared to some of the other teams if we go down. Yes some of you think that we'd loose our better players, sure we'll lose some, but I think we'd keep the nucleus of a excellent young team, and still have the spare cash to rebuild for a promotion push.

 

Anyhow, I see that Barry Sanchez has sidetracked this thread and turned it into a debate on how well we spent (as opposed to how much), what a surprise! When was the last time we had a decent thread that wasn't wrecked by the forum brow-beaters (Turkish, Barry, CB Fry, Hypo et al.) before it reached the second page? And people wonder why the better posters have stopped posting!

[tajjuk]

So you concede the point, your argument basing size solely on success is flawed?

 

As in you were wrong and should have probably shut up 2 pages ago?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So you concede the point, your argument basing size solely on success is flawed?

 

Neither of us at any point said this.

 

If you want to put words in our mouths as you cannot actually comprehend what we said, then go ahead.

[Barry Sanchez]

Interesting link, thank you for posting it. I would like to see the figures for total spend though, as purchases from previous seasons, wages, loan repayments etc will all substantially alter this table. Then if you contrasted that to club income you'd see a very different picture.

 

As we saw the other week, we're pretty much breaking even this year. We have managed to keep our wage bill down, and have few other liabilities to service. Yes we spent a lot last summer, but that's only to be expected from any team being promoted (surprisingly West Ham have managed to do very well while keeping their transfer spend relatively low; Reading have approached this season in a very conservative way, avoid spending, hope for the best and rebuild if (when) we go down - actually not a terrible strategy).

 

Overall, I don't see anything too concerning in these figures. I think we would do quite well compared to some of the other teams if we go down. Yes some of you think that we'd loose our better players, sure we'll lose some, but I think we'd keep the nucleus of a excellent young team, and still have the spare cash to rebuild for a promotion push.

 

Anyhow, I see that Barry Sanchez has sidetracked this thread and turned it into a debate on how well we spent (as opposed to how much), what a surprise! When was the last time we had a decent thread that wasn't wrecked by the forum brow-beaters (Turkish, Barry, CB Fry, Hypo et al.) before it reached the second page? And people wonder why the better posters have stopped posting!

 

Well for a poor thread it got quite a few replies, always tickles me that people reply yet moan about the quality of thread.

[The Kraken]

This thread is why this forum is so poor these days, you can see why none of the decent posters don't bother any more etc etc

[Barry Sanchez]

Neither of us at any point said this.

 

If you want to put words in our mouths as you cannot actually comprehend what we said, then go ahead.

 

If you recall this came about as someone scoffed at the purchasing of Manchester City and I stated they had pedigree and history, the same of Spurs, also people were arguing Spurs were smaller than Arsenal and Chelsea simply because they have not won anything recently (more recently than Arsenal but hey why let the facts can in the way of your own argument) and when I pointed out about us and them down the road the caveat came in about time and I mentioned Swansea etc etc, its all there are highly amusing.

[Barry Sanchez]

This thread is why this forum is so poor these days, you can see why none of the decent posters don't bother any more etc etc

 

Ha ha.

[Saint-Armstrong]

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.

 

Woah woah woah.....

 

You're moaning at Cortese for "gambling our future" and then also moaning at him for being "conservative".

 

Make your mind up Bazza.

 

Poor trolling on this one.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

If you recall this came about as someone scoffed at the purchasing of Manchester City and I stated they had pedigree and history, the same of Spurs, also people were arguing Spurs were smaller than Arsenal and Chelsea simply because they have not won anything recently (more recently than Arsenal but hey why let the facts can in the way of your own argument) and when I pointed out about us and them down the road the caveat came in about time and I mentioned Swansea etc etc, its all there are highly amusing.

 

YET AGAIN Barry, how many times need I remind you Tajjuks post listing all the other reasons Arsenal are bigger than Spurs. Which you keep ignoring.

 

I made the point about Chelsea's honours in relation to Spurs, once you had jumped from City to Spurs. Something you seem to do a fair bit when you're usually pretty thin arguments start to unravel.

 

It is hilarious that you claim Spurs are bigger than Arsenal & Chelsea because they won the UEFA Cup before any of us were alive.

[Barry Sanchez]

YET AGAIN Barry, how many times need I remind you Tajjuks post listing all the other reasons Arsenal are bigger than Spurs.

 

It is hilarious that you claim Spurs are bigger than Arsenal & Chelsea because they won the UEFA Cup before any of us were alive.

 

I think I said possibly, the size of the club is as we have discussed not done on success and success alone, or would you like another discussion on it? I stated that there are more fans in Enlgand and London that support Spurs than Arsenal (this may stem for the Nicholson era? Now I understand its subjective but we have discussed that, I have not closed any options on this, football did not start in 1992 as I have already said.

[Barry Sanchez]

Woah woah woah.....

 

You're moaning at Cortese for "gambling our future" and then also moaning at him for being "conservative".

 

Make your mind up Bazza.

 

Poor trolling on this one.

 

I think you can gamble on a future by being too conservative, maybe I am wrong....................

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I think I said possibly, the size of the club is as we have discussed not done on success and success alone, or would you like another discussion on it? I stated that there are more fans in Enlgand and London that support Spurs than Arsenal (this may stem for the Nicholson era? Now I understand its subjective but we have discussed that, I have not closed any options on this, football did not start in 1992 as I have already said.

 

What is based on? As I am certainly sceptical about this.

 

There certainly aren't more Spurs fans in London than Arsenal. Having spent the majority of my life living in North London, I can assure you of that. I wonder if Spurs could sell out a 60k seater stadium week-in week-out?

 

Who has said football started in 1992?

[Barry Sanchez]

What is based on? As I am certainly sceptical about this.

 

There certainly aren't more Spurs fans in London than Arsenal. Having spent the majority of my life living in North London, I can assure you of that. I wonder if Spurs could sell out a 60k seater stadium week-in week-out?

 

Who has said football started in 1992?

 

Who said football started in 1992? the caveat that seemed to be created when I mentioned teams from history that had a successful past.

 

Spurs could sell out a 60,000 stadium or damn near it, Arsenal's lack of atmosphere may be something to do with their new found fans? They are after Chelsea the most middle class of the London teams, but too be honest Highbury was awful for atmospehere as well.

 

North london is only part of London.

[tajjuk]

If you recall this came about as someone scoffed at the purchasing of Manchester City and I stated they had pedigree and history, the same of Spurs, also people were arguing Spurs were smaller than Arsenal and Chelsea simply because they have not won anything recently (more recently than Arsenal but hey why let the facts can in the way of your own argument) and when I pointed out about us and them down the road the caveat came in about time and I mentioned Swansea etc etc, its all there are highly amusing.

 

No it started because I suggested that for a now established Premier League club Stoke should be at least progressing for their outlay, wherease yu stated that you need to spend £30 million a year just to stay in the league and 'do a Man City' to even vaguely compete.

 

I said that Spurs and Everton show that is plainly not true and that we should look at Spurs as an example model to grow the club, slowly and sustainably. Which you dismissed on the basis that:-

 

- Spurs are apparently a 'huge club', which they are not, they aren't even the biggest club in London, whichever way you look at it regardless of them wining a European Trophy 52 years ago.

 

- That they bought Bale from a 'top 7 club', which they didn't.

 

- And that it was ludicrous that we could be compared to Spurs as they pay him £150k a week, which they don't.

 

- Then you spouted something about 'yes players' whatever that meant.

 

- Then you went on about Spurs 'being pioneers of Europe' thus making them a bigger club than the far more successful, better supported, more well known Arsenal.

 

About the only thing you have got correct is the fact that Spurs won a european trophy and were the first british club to do this. (Which we all knew anyway.)

 

EDIT: BTW Why if Spurs could easily sell out a 60,000 seater stadium are they only building a 56,000 seater?

 

Also why has it taken them this long? IF there has been such a demand for tickets? Maybe it;s because in the mid to late 90's they weren't selling out every weerk?

Edited 14 March, 2013 by tajjuk

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Who said football started in 1992? the caveat that seemed to be created when I mentioned teams from history that had a successful past.

 

Spurs could sell out a 60,000 stadium or damn near it, Arsenal's lack of atmosphere may be something to do with their new found fans? They are after Chelsea the most middle class of the London teams, but too be honest Highbury was awful for atmospehere as well.

 

North london is only part of London.

 

...The part of London where they are both based.

 

I also work in Central London, and generally move around London a lot. Probably more, than a guy that lives in Liverpool, understandably. And I certainly meet, see and generally come across more Arsenal fans than Spurs. By quite some distance.

 

Seeing as you have ignored my question (again ), what is this based on? Actual figures, or you just making it up?

 

My word, I can't believe anyone is this stupid, suggesting you are just stubborn beyond recognition or just clutching at your final straw with unfeasibly white knuckles. I started by making the point about Chelsea's honours in the Spurs case, as one example, and it is relevant as it is recent. AT NO POINT did I say this is the only reason why Spurs are not the biggest club in London.

 

You then keep harking on about their history, and how they won a second tier competition way before most of us were born. And then claim everyone else has the flawed argument.

 

Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over, doesn't mean you are right. Your attempts at constructing an argument even remotely intelligent is once again shown up Bazza.

 

Stick to what you know mate, CORTESE IS EVIL!! I HATE CORTESE!! I COULD RUN A CLUB BETTER THAN HIM!!

[KelvinsRightGlove]

No it started because I suggested that for a now established Premier League club Stoke should be at least progressing for their outlay, wherease yu stated that you need to spend £30 million a year just to stay in the league and 'do a Man City' to even vaguely compete.

 

I said that Spurs and Everton show that is plainly not true and that we should look at Spurs as an example model to grow the club, slowly and sustainably. Which you dismissed on the basis that:-

 

- Spurs are apparently a 'huge club', which they are not, they aren't even the biggest club in London, whichever way you look at it regardless of them wining a European Trophy 52 years ago.

 

- That they bought Bale from a 'top 7 club', which they didn't.

 

- And that it was ludicrous that we could be compared to Spurs as they pay him £150k a week, which they don't.

 

- Then you spouted something about 'yes players' whatever that meant.

 

- Then you went on about Spurs 'being pioneers of Europe' thus making them a bigger club than the far more successful, better supported, more well known Arsenal.

 

About the only thing you have got correct is the fact that Spurs won a european trophy and were the first british club to do this. (Which we all knew anyway.)

 

EDIT: BTW Why if Spurs could easily sell out a 60,000 seater stadium are they only building a 56,000 seater?

 

Also why has it taken them this long? IF there has been such a demand for tickets? Maybe it;s because in the mid to late 90's they weren't selling out every weerk?

 

But, but, Spurs.....Huge!

 

City....something

 

Are we going to buy players from Top 7 clubs....

 

 

CORTESE IS EVIL!!!

[Barry Sanchez]

No it started because I suggested that for a now established Premier League club Stoke should be at least progressing for their outlay, wherease yu stated that you need to spend £30 million a year just to stay in the league and 'do a Man City' to even vaguely compete.

 

I said that Spurs and Everton show that is plainly not true and that we should look at Spurs as an example model to grow the club, slowly and sustainably. Which you dismissed on the basis that:-

 

- Spurs are apparently a 'huge club', which they are not, they aren't even the biggest club in London, whichever way you look at it regardless of them wining a European Trophy 52 years ago.

 

- That they bought Bale from a 'top 7 club', which they didn't.

 

- And that it was ludicrous that we could be compared to Spurs as they pay him £150k a week, which they don't.

 

- Then you spouted something about 'yes players' whatever that meant.

 

- Then you went on about Spurs 'being pioneers of Europe' thus making them a bigger club than the far more successful, better supported, more well known Arsenal.

 

About the only thing you have got correct is the fact that Spurs won a european trophy and were the first british club to do this. (Which we all knew anyway.)

 

EDIT: BTW Why if Spurs could easily sell out a 60,000 seater stadium are they only building a 56,000 seater?

 

Also why has it taken them this long? IF there has been such a demand for tickets? Maybe it;s because in the mid to late 90's they weren't selling out every weerk?

 

Few clubs were selling out in the mid 90's

Didn't Spurs win a European trophy in 1984 and in 1972.............................

I cant possibly comment on what Spurs are planning to do with a stadium, maybe they dont have enough space?

[Barry Sanchez]

But, but, Spurs.....Huge!

 

City....something

 

Are we going to buy players from Top 7 clubs....

 

 

CORTESE IS EVIL!!!

 

Er no.

[Bearsy]

I started by making the point about Chelsea's honours in the Spurs case, as one example, and it is relevant as it is recent. AT NO POINT did I say this is the only reason why Spurs are not the biggest club in London.

 

i sort of think it is! If Abramovich had bought spurs instead of chelsea they'd be as big as arsenal right now.

[Barry Sanchez]

Bearsy, these kids look at a shiny stadium and go well they must be massive ha ha, they dont have a clue of the history of the game.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

i sort of think it is! If Abramovich had bought spurs instead of chelsea they'd be as big as arsenal right now.

 

Recent history has no impact on how big your club is. FACT.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Bearsy, these kids look at a shiny stadium and go well they must be massive ha ha, they dont have a clue of the history of the game.

 

I thought we only looked at trophy cabinets Mr. Consistent?

[Barry Sanchez]

I thought we only looked at trophy cabinets Mr. Consistent?

 

Equally false and shallow and also part of the argument a big ground to you constitutes a big club, equally laughable.

[Barry Sanchez]

Recent history has no impact on how big your club is. FACT.

 

To your argument no history of the club has an impact? Or should the list of the largest club in London read

 

1) Chelsea

2) Spurs

3) Arsenal

 

 

HA HA sweet.

[Lord Duckhunter]

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/02/11/updated-premier-league-net-spend-table-201213/

 

Not sure if the above has been previously posted elsewhere but it is an updated net spending list for this season. It makes pretty woeful reading for QPR, unsurprisingly, but also for us and Villa. If any of those 3 go down after a top 6 net spend that's a pretty horrid performance.

 

 

 

 

It looks worse than it really is , because we were starting so far behind. I don't know if anyone has made this point, apologies if they have ( I haven't got the will to read all through the bigger club nonsense), but we needed to spend quite big to put us on a par with others. Reading didn't do so, West Ham had premiership players who underperformed in the Championship, and were also given Andy Carroll as opposed to paying for him. Playing the Dean Hammonds, Lee Branards and Billy Sharpes of this world, would have led to certain relegation. Other teams like Stoke and Villa were established premier league sides.

[Bearsy]

I'm not sure who is arguing what on this thread no more. Can someone give me notes?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Equally false and shallow and also part of the argument a big ground to you constitutes a big club, equally laughable.

 

So we only look at trophies, but also look at Stadiums.

 

Yet again Barry, you make no sense.

 

Funny that.

[Greenridge]

I'm not sure who is arguing what on this thread no more. Can someone give me notes?

 

Bazza summed it up quite nicely earlier in the thread

 

I really am lost here.

 

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of others, he still appears to be in this state of confusion.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I'm not sure who is arguing what on this thread no more. Can someone give me notes?

 

see post #127

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It looks worse than it really is , because we were starting so far behind. I don't know if anyone has made this point, apologies if they have ( I haven't got the will to read all through the bigger club nonsense), but we needed to spend quite big to put us on a par with others. Reading didn't do so, West Ham had premiership players who underperformed in the Championship, and were also given Andy Carroll as opposed to paying for him. Playing the Dean Hammonds, Lee Branards and Billy Sharpes of this world, would have led to certain relegation. Other teams like Stoke and Villa were established premier league sides.

 

It has been made, and it's a fair point.

 

Someone, no prizes for guessing who can't get his head around this. As again, it requires just a touch of thorough, and sensible thinking.

[Barry Sanchez]

Bearsy

 

In short the younger generation solely think that trophies are what constitute a big club, a shiny new stadiums helps, there are timeouts though from when you are a successful club though and a large one, ask one of the above as they seem to make the rules up as they go along.

First of all I stated Spurs were possibly the largest side in London and was given they have not won enough trophies, when I pointed out how they were pioneers, this was thrown out again as it was years ago, I have sonce pointed out they have won a trophy more recently than Arsenal, this too was thrown out as having been to modern, so modern in fact its a cutting edge futuristic trophy that even they dont know about yet..................

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Bearsy

 

In short the younger generation solely think that trophies are what constitute a big club, a shiny new stadiums helps, there are timeouts though from when you are a successful club though and a large one, ask one of the above as they seem to make the rules up as they go along.

First of all I stated Spurs were possibly the largest side in London and was given they have not won enough trophies, when I pointed out how they were pioneers, this was thrown out again as it was years ago, I have sonce pointed out they have won a trophy more recently than Arsenal, this too was thrown out as having been to modern, so modern in fact its a cutting edge futuristic trophy that even they dont know about yet..................

 

Show me a post where anyone said that trophies and trophies alone are the be all and end all.

 

Also, the example given on trophies was Chelsea, who won that tin pot Champions League, when? Last year?

[Barry Sanchez]

Your post 56.

[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.

 

 

Whats this.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Your post 56.

 

Right, at no point in that post do I say trophies are the only indicator of how big a club is. I used it as an example, amongst other points.

 

Hardly a resounding endorsement of your point.

 

Are you struggling to understand that making one point, doesn't mean it's the entirety of an argument? Shall I draw you a picture?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Whats this.

 

Yep, I can read.

 

Still doesn't say anywhere trophies are the only factor though does it?

[Doctoroncall]

Bearsy

 

In short the younger generation solely think that trophies are what constitute a big club, a shiny new stadiums helps, there are timeouts though from when you are a successful club though and a large one, ask one of the above as they seem to make the rules up as they go along.

First of all I stated Spurs were possibly the largest side in London and was given they have not won enough trophies, when I pointed out how they were pioneers, this was thrown out again as it was years ago, I have sonce pointed out they have won a trophy more recently than Arsenal, this too was thrown out as having been to modern, so modern in fact its a cutting edge futuristic trophy that even they dont know about yet..................

 

 

I think if you can be explicit in stating your big club formula, it will help enormously.

 

Big Club=x+y sort of thing