Jump to content

Spurs - Arry's gone but we still dislike them...


Jondaken

Recommended Posts

Being impartial, I expected there to be a kick out. I geniunally can't even see a kick out, it just looked like he rolled over??

Yes, he rolled over, but watch how he purposefully keeps his right leg extended out as he brings it round.

Are you **** serious geez... kept his right leg extended out?

You must be on a wind up... forensically analysing **** all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Being impartial, I expected there to be a kick out. I geniunally can't even see a kick out, it just looked like he rolled over??

Yes, he rolled over, but watch how he purposefully keeps his right leg extended out as he brings it round.

I think you'll find that Redknapp is a turd of a person with a potty mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(quoted from Citeh thread, posted here to not go OT)

As a Spurs fan it annoys me, as it makes a mockery of all the hard work we've done since 2003. We totally restructured the club and rebuilt our entire squad. It has taken years as we did it all through money generated via the plc. This is essentially the board doing an excellent job with the money they get from the fans pockets. City have done nothing like this. We've had to work so hard to fight for a CL spot and if it wasn't got City we'd probably be top 4 regulars for a few years. It's totally disheartenting and kind of makes you wonder what the point is.

Unless Villa get a sugar daddy, their only hope is to look at a club like Spurs and see it is possible with hard work and a good strategy from the board. But with City buying their was to success with money simply given to them, what hope do the likes of Villa have?

.

Can't agree Joey. Hard work or not, if you outspend everyone, then it's still not 'fair'. Since 2003 Spurs have spent nearly £300m (nearly twice as much as us) and only Citeh and Chelsea have spent more in that same period.

You can say it's not fair that they've had money handed to them and Spurs as a club have had to earn it, but then anyone can argue that it's not fair you're from London and generally speaking have a much higher chance of making money than clubs from other areas of the country.

Football isn't fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(quoted from Citeh thread, posted here to not go OT)

As a Spurs fan it annoys me, as it makes a mockery of all the hard work we've done since 2003. We totally restructured the club and rebuilt our entire squad. It has taken years as we did it all through money generated via the plc. This is essentially the board doing an excellent job with the money they get from the fans pockets. City have done nothing like this. We've had to work so hard to fight for a CL spot and if it wasn't got City we'd probably be top 4 regulars for a few years. It's totally disheartenting and kind of makes you wonder what the point is.

Unless Villa get a sugar daddy, their only hope is to look at a club like Spurs and see it is possible with hard work and a good strategy from the board. But with City buying their was to success with money simply given to them, what hope do the likes of Villa have?

.

Can't agree Joey. Hard work or not, if you outspend everyone, then it's still not 'fair'. Since 2003 Spurs have spent nearly £300m (nearly twice as much as us) and only Citeh and Chelsea have spent more in that same period.

You can say it's not fair that they've had money handed to them and Spurs as a club have had to earn it, but then anyone can argue that it's not fair you're from London and generally speaking have a much higher chance of making money than clubs from other areas of the country.

Football isn't fair.

If they've spent £300m since 2003 how much have they got back from sales? And £300m in 7 years is a bit different then £250m in 2 seasons. Football has never been 'fair' but the current City unfair is just going to kill off the rest of us, as we are already discovering. it's one thing I 100% agree with the spurs fan about. What is the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said what City are doing isn't bad, but it's a bit rich when a fan of the 3rd highest spending club over the last decade or so is complaining about other teams spending.

Spurs net spend since 2003 is only slightly lower than our total spend in the same period. On net spend, they're still the 3rd highest spenders in that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being impartial, I expected there to be a kick out. I geniunally can't even see a kick out, it just looked like he rolled over??

Yes, he rolled over, but watch how he purposefully keeps his right leg extended out as he brings it round.

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit.

Really really clutching at straws to try and defend that fat rubberfaced cockney prick.

I wish Pires had reached into Redknapp's chest, pulled out his heart and shat in the hole that was left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, Spurs outspent us because they generate more money.

Yes, they completely overhauled their squad by spending big - but so did we.

Our defense is currently a shambles. Yet O'Neill signed Luke Young, Collins, Davies, Shorey, Beye, Cuellar, Dunne, Warnock. That's 2 complete back 4's right there, and then there's Bouma too.

Spurs generate much more because they are a London club, their prices are higher and people pay it. They also pay more for corporate boxes - much more - and get more in advertising because overseas companies want to advertise in London. We can't really begrudge them for doing this.

I agree with what Joey is saying. Man City's spending is nothing like their earnings. Yes, Spurs have spent alot and certainly didn't spend within their means - but it was nothing like what Man City are doing. Spurs spent over a few season, slowly improving and building where needed. They now have the main core of their team and I don't expect them to make too many further signings. Man City are just throwing money at anything they think might work, if it doesn't they don't care and sell on at a loss, or worse still leave a player to rot.

It is disheartening. Spurs earnt their 4th place, as much as I dislike them. Man City will make the top 4 almost untouchable now, meaning no-one else has any chance of breaking in, and they've done that by spending money from outside resources. Man City aren't currently top of the league, an oil company are. And for all Spurs' efforts, this is likely to be their only year in the Champions League.

After that, how many of their players will want to stay? Will van der Vaart stay at a non-Champion League team? Not when Man City will probably offer him 140k a week to join them in the summer... And Bale might well fancy himself as the new Ryan Giggs at Utd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spurs generate much more because they are a London club, their prices are higher and people pay it. They also pay more for corporate boxes - much more - and get more in advertising because overseas companies want to advertise in London. We can't really begrudge them for doing this.

You can't really begrudge Citeh from wanting to spend all that money either, why shouldn't they spend it?

Football is just unfair, that's how it is and how it will always be. It's bollocks that Citeh have all that money. But it's just as bollocks that things completely nothing to do with football give Spurs an advantage over other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really **** me off about Spurs (I guess it does a lot of people) is how much coverage and chumming articles they get in the press. I mean you'd think Bale was the new Best and VDV Maradona. Redknapp is the best thing since sliced bread, when in reality he is good in the transfer market and average elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â