Reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Us and Utd still have rich owners which allow us (if we wanted) to spend much more relative to most clubs in the Premiership. You're acting as if us and Utd are run as workers cooperatives, while Chelsea and City are run by evil capitalist businessmen. The reality is that all our clubs are run by affluent businessmen, so we can't assume the moral high-ground.

---

Rubbish, We have only Recently got Rich Owners Same with the mancs and even before we got them we were able to win the league through what we earned, City and Chavs were not its that simple.

Good points made.

I've heard people say the Spanish league is boring and uncompetitive because or the riches of Barca and Madrid, there is a massive gap between the quality there and most teams can only dream of winning the league. It would take a sugar daddy for them to be able to compete. And compete is the key word here not win.

Also, the smaller clubs in Spain that can't compete still manage to win Copa del Rey's or UEFA Cups. Look Atheltico Madrid, Sevilla and Valencia. We haven't been able to win anything in 7 years so money is no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jelgoon

Are you saying that the fair play rules wont change things? I think they will. Clubs cant make losses like before. And Man City are gonna make huge losses if they pay half their team £10million a year.

---

If - BIG IF - the fair play rules are used as intended and attempts to fudge or find loopholes are dealt with firmly, then yes, it will be great for clubs like ours. However, I will believe it when I see it. Having seen the wonderful 'caring about the sport' shit from FIFA and UEFA when it just remains as a few at the top lining their pockets - like Blatter and his followers - concentrating on irrelevancies instead of the important issues, I will only be convinced when teams running an insane deficit like Citeh really are banned from the CL. And would the FA have the balls to apply it to the PL? No chance.

It would be a nice dream - it is a nice dream - but I can't see it happening. For instance, since it is imminent, where is the warning from UEFA to Citeh that they will need to make changes in the next year to be ready? Or are they going to just chop them at the time the rule comes into place with no further warning. I doubt it.

We're complaining about football being boring because it's obvious who's going to win, but it's only been the first season that City have won the league, and at the end of the day it was on goal difference. If we had owners who cared about trophies and a more tactically astute manager, I think we could be challenging for the league, along with Man Utd, Chelsea, maybe Liverpool as well. The takeovers have increased competition in the Premier League, and that's got to be a good thing.

What do you think other teams were thinking from the the mid 90s until 2005, when it was only us or Utd winning the league? They probably felt football was becoming boring, with only two teams with a chance of winning the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

What do you think other teams were thinking from the the mid 90s until 2005, when it was only us or Utd winning the league? They probably felt football was becoming boring, with only two teams with a chance of winning the league.

---

Neither of us bought the league though. Everything was down to team building and how good the managers were

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

What do you think other teams were thinking from the the mid 90s until 2005, when it was only us or Utd winning the league? They probably felt football was becoming boring, with only two teams with a chance of winning the league.

---

Yes because teams still don't think this now. I mean there is so much Chance for Villa And Everton and Barcodes and Fulham to go and win the league no competition at all.

Are fans of these clubs Jealous moaners too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Neither of us bought the league though. Everything was down to team building and how good the managers were

---

Wenger had to introduce foreign players to win the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Wenger had to introduce foreign players to win the league.

---

Yes because Cantona, Kanchelskis were all English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Wenger had to introduce foreign players to win the league.

---

With money we as a club earned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

We're complaining about football being boring because it's obvious who's going to win, but it's only been the first season that City have won the league, and at the end of the day it was on goal difference. If we had owners who cared about trophies and a more tactically astute manager, I think we could be challenging for the league, along with Man Utd, Chelsea, maybe Liverpool as well. The takeovers have increased competition in the Premier League, and that's got to be a good thing.

What do you think other teams were thinking from the the mid 90s until 2005, when it was only us or Utd winning the league? They probably felt football was becoming boring, with only two teams with a chance of winning the league.

---

Sure, but that was because the other teams were not up to it. Some of them could have competed had they chosen to make the effort. Clubs like Liverpool and Newcastle, for instance, have a massive fan base and should have been able to compete on the financial side at the time (before the sugar daddy shit started) - but they did not invest wisely in getting good managers who could last over time.

I have said before that football was better when I started watching in the early 1970s where there were half a dozen teams who, at the start of the season, could have felt they had a realistic chance of making a title challenge, so when you won it, there was a big sense of achievement. At any one time there might be a couple of teams that are the more likely candidates but they used to come and go more often. Before the PL started up, only Liverpool dominated for a long period but at lease that was not based on cash. It was based on having Shankly and then Paisley build up a team and a mentality over a long period.

A lot of the failing clubs who should have been competing in recent years might take a look at how often they change their manager and have to pretty well start again, then wonder why they never win anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

Rubbish, We have only Recently got Rich Owners Same with the mancs and even before we got them we were able to win the league through what we earned, City and Chavs were not its that simple.

---

So you're saying the Bracewell-Smith family, the Hill-Wood family, Danny Fizman, Richard Carr etc were not rich individuals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coney

Sure, but that was because the other teams were not up to it. Some of them could have competed had they chosen to make the effort. Clubs like Liverpool and Newcastle, for instance, have a massive fan base and should have been able to compete on the financial side at the time (before the sugar daddy shit started) - but they did not invest wisely in getting good managers who could last over time.

I have said before that football was better when I started watching in the early 1970s where there were half a dozen teams who, at the start of the season, could have felt they had a realistic chance of making a title challenge, so when you won it, there was a big sense of achievement. At any one time there might be a couple of teams that are the more likely candidates but they used to come and go more often. Before the PL started up, only Liverpool dominated for a long period but at lease that was not based on cash. It was based on having Shankly and then Paisley build up a team and a mentality over a long period.

A lot of the failing clubs who should have been competing in recent years might take a look at how often they change their manager and have to pretty well start again, then wonder why they never win anything.

---

Yeah i think the majority of people in the country/world would feel the same way. Guessing those days there was no pussy footing around just men playing the game they love and enjoying it.

I started watching footie in the late 80s But even that was not as bad as it is today. I Just have Faith in the game or the twats that run the sport and until Blatter and Platini Step down this sport will always be a shambles tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Wenger had to introduce foreign players to win the league.

---

PL teams have played with foreign players for years. When we won the double in 1971, we had Pat Rice, Frank McLintoch, George Graham and Eddie Kelly. Chavs were the first club to play a team of all foreigners. (Well, if you discount Cardiff in the 1930s who had a team of Welshmen).

Even Manu, with their record, had to buy a foreign manager and then bring in lots of foreigners. Ditto the big Liverpool period - Paisley build on what a scot had build, with a Welsh captain and welsh/scots to get his results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

So you're saying the Bracewell-Smith family, the Hill-Wood family, Danny Fizman, Richard Carr etc were not rich individuals?

---

Yes, but while they owned the club, they were not pumping their own money into it - they made it pay it's way by spending only what it earned.

Why is Russian/Arab petro money more morally offensive than the inherited wealth of the Eton elite who have owned the majority of our shares until recently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

So you're saying the Bracewell-Smith family, the Hill-Wood family, Danny Fizman, Richard Carr etc were not rich individuals?

---

They were as rich as most people on Boards of most teams tbh. Im sure they were as rich as the people at West ham.

And these people were not our Owners they were on a board. Not 1 person called the shots or had overall control. They are not as Rich as Roman or the Guy at city Hence why they sold their shares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Why is Russian/Arab petro money more morally offensive than the inherited wealth of the Eton elite who have owned the majority of our shares until recently?

---

I dont recall the Eton elite spending £400m in a couple of seasons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Why is Russian/Arab petro money more morally offensive than the inherited wealth of the Eton elite who have owned the majority of our shares until recently?

---

Lets just say these people did not get their money from being nice. The russian got his money from corruption and everyone in Russia will tell you that. Same for the Arab i guess Oil money but i doubt he worked hard to get that money tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

I dont recall the Eton elite spending £400m in a couple of seasons

---

Pretty much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

I dont recall the Eton elite spending £400m in a couple of seasons

---

Well, not on the Arsenal, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coney

Well, not on the Arsenal, anyway.

---

On prostitutes and drugs then?

Impressive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

On prostitutes and drugs then?

Impressive

---

Does PHW look like some who'd be saying:

"Id Wish these Hoes would back up off me"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

Does PHW look like some who'd be saying:

"Id Wish these Hoes would back up off me"

---

Never discount the old dudes. Biggest pervs around.

Just look at Coney. Old enough to be PHWs grandad and here he is perving on Pippas ass

Red blood still passes through my veins. Not necessarily everywhere, but it does flow. And to the important bits. Brain and dick. :good:

My first thoughts weren't about money yesterday. It was a flukey bunch of bus-parking ****s jamming their way to the big trophy. Reality is horrendous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner

My first thoughts weren't about money yesterday. It was a flukey bunch of bus-parking ****s jamming their way to the big trophy. Reality is horrendous.

---

At the time of the match, my thoughts were just on making sure that my burger was grilled right at the house-warming barbie I was at. We just glanced at the telly now and again to see what the score was. This had nothing to do with hanging around outside where all the cleavage was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coney

PL teams have played with foreign players for years. When we won the double in 1971, we had Pat Rice, Frank McLintoch, George Graham and Eddie Kelly. Chavs were the first club to play a team of all foreigners. (Well, if you discount Cardiff in the 1930s who had a team of Welshmen).

Even Manu, with their record, had to buy a foreign manager and then bring in lots of foreigners. Ditto the big Liverpool period - Paisley build on what a scot had build, with a Welsh captain and welsh/scots to get his results.

---

Of course it's nothing new. But it a took a team of foreign internationals for us to win the league and break Man Utd's strong hold. We haven't grown from within and developed players. It's a mute point because we're still able to compete with Chelsea and Man City on the pitch. It's not as if we get thrashed each time we meet them. We just can't compete with the transfers. Under Wenger, I doubt we'd even be in contention for half of the players Chelsea and City sign. He doesn't sign players that are under the spotlight and involved in bidding wars. He can accuse clubs of inflating the market but only a fool would sell Wenger a good player for peanuts. We've bought undervalued players and sold them on for massive profits. That's no secret and clubs have taken note. He can't take advantage of the market in that way anymore so as much as he'd like to accuse clubs like City and Chelsea of inflating prices a lot of it has to do with his reputation. Now he has to rely on development and skills and coaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner

My first thoughts weren't about money yesterday. It was a flukey bunch of bus-parking ****s jamming their way to the big trophy. Reality is horrendous.

---

Same here. Chelsea Could have done better to win the thing thats why im not splaffing at their win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ernesto

What really irks me is the fact that we always point to this mental fragility that we have. It's plain as day, it's clear for all to see. Why do we suffer from this? It's not like we're getting mugged (literally) or violated and struggle to leave the house. We're on a football pitch, FFS. We're meant to be spurred on by defeat.

Yesterday, Chelsea, after offering next to nothing all game, equalised in the 89th minute having gone behind in the 82nd minute. Remarkable. It got me thinking, we haven't done anything of the like since Sampdoria in 1995. Going 3-1 down with barely a minute left in extra time and staring into the wilderness. Schwarz steps up and scores a free-kick and we go on to win the tie on penalties. From despair to joy within the short space of 10 minutes.

Who were we playing under on this great night of European football? Stewart Houston as caretaker boss. Has a comeback like yesterday's, or at Sampdoria in '95 ever happened under Wenger? I honestly can't remember one. Meaningless EPL games come to mind (equalising at Sunderland in injury time a few years back having gone a goal down in the 89th min)

We seem to be incapable of anything 'special' now. We have our excuses at the ready. The last 3 times an English team has won the Champions League against foreign opposition, they've either scored a late winner/equaliser (or both!) or come back from a massive deficit in 90 minutes of play. I honestly don't think we can do that....:(

---

What a night that was.

Look on the brightside

Spuds are out of the CL and Barca didnt win the CL. The latter happening would have been much worse for football

That is the reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Look on the brightside

Spuds are out of the CL and Barca didnt win the CL. The latter happening would have been much worse for football

That is the reality

---

Meh its not the worst thing in the world to happen tbh. Least this means the old boys will be fecking off soon. I guess it also means Chavs to Spend another Billion in the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

I've heard people say the Spanish league is boring and uncompetitive because or the riches of Barca and Madrid, there is a massive gap between the quality there and most teams can only dream of winning the league.

---

Quote:

---

Spain have provided the most champions, with thirteen wins from two clubs. Italy have produced twelve winners from three clubs and England have produced twelve winners from five clubs

---

Guess which 2 Spanish clubs? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coney

Guess which 2 Spanish clubs? ;)

---

That's not up for dispute but the lower sides that can't compete with the league still win the Copa del Rey and UEFA Cup. Money is a factor but you can't use that excuse to coat over our 7 trophyless years. Wenger isn't a good tactician and web he first came here he was able to take advantage of the transfer market and win the league but he was never able to win the Champions League because he's poor at adapting to over teams and he didn't have an advantage on the player side. Now he's struggling because most clubs have invested in their scouting networks and it's no secret of who the next big star is in this age.

The reality is we will never win the champions league with Wenger. We didn't with the two most talented teams in the 2000's, didn't make a impact at all ,so there is no chance with this team or any future team of Wenger's. As ernesto said its a mentality thing Wenger's teams aren't capable of taking the final step to greatness. I cant think of a great comeback either great sides usually have one united had plenty in 99, barcelona needed one in 09. In the biggest moments when it look lost they've never produced like chelsea have. Most of their luck they had was because of their belief do you think barcelona would miss all those chances against us nah they would bury most of them because Chelsea are a far more intimidating team to play against as well as basically much more organised. The table may say we're 3rd and their 6th but I still think they're a much better team than us.

Maybe Henry, bergkamp, pires etc were not as tough as drogba, lampard and co or scholes, rooney and others but I think its a combination of their mentalty and Wengers as well as his tactical and motivational ability.
We need change. Its been said before, but Chelsea winning the champions league (while wenger and team celebrated 3rd like it it was the first time ever) really hits home what a waste these years have been. Wenger is not going to change Chelsea winning the champions league wont bother him he'll excuse it to money he couldn't possibly compete but Tottenham could win it too and it would not bother him. When you see him agonizing on the touchline you think maybe he's had enough sees its not working. But then the next interview championing his time, listing all the excuses praising mental strength, crushing our hopes of a decent transfer comes as well his smug press conferences.
At the end of the day the man is working against us and is in it for himself and is a hypocrite. I don't think he loves the club or respects the fans that much. We have a board who are happy to do the bare mininum and charge the highest tickets in the world. The least we could have is a manger who fights to have the best available for his team