manorpark

I just meant, why select them to mention? Especially as he seems to have been principally talking in a financial context, and as there are really only five clubs to mention in that context (ie, with HIGH Turnover) you would expect he would mention us. After all, he did used to work here, so he should know . . even if he is not too involved in football now. It just seems odd. Thats all, didn't want to make too big a thing about it.

Triglett - why "from Spurs" ? Why mention that at all.

It is still the only way to get us anywhere Invicta - the only way. As I hope you will find out over the coming years.

The below figures are a couple of years old, they are the only ones I have, but I think the relative positions are still the same now - same top five English Clubs. The big gap is after us, down to Tottenham, as can be seen. 1 (1) Man Utd £171.5m 2 (4) Real Madrid £156.3m 3 (3) AC Milan £147.2m 4 (10) Chelsea £143.7m 5 (2) Juventus £142.4m 6 (7) Arsenal £115m 7 (13) Barcelona £110.1m 8 (6) Inter Milan £110.3m 9 (5) Bayern Munich £110.1m 10 (8) Liverpool £92.3m 11 (10) Newcastle £90.5m 12 (11) Roma £72m 13 (18) Celtic £69m 14 (16) Tottenham £66.3m 15 (15) Lazio £65.8m 16 (-) Man City £61.9m 17 (14) Schalke £60.5m 18 (-) Marseille £58.3m 19 (-) Rangers £57.1m 20 (-) Aston Villa £55.9m Source: Deloitte Previous season's position in brackets (LATER - Not sure where that smiley came from!!! I didn't put it there!)

But, as we know, the financial gulf is between the big (financial) five and the rest, not any mythical financial big 4. There is currently a fairly clear top four (in recent seasons) in the premiership - on performance. That is not what I (and the Keegan article) are talking about here though.

To me, the really "odd" thing about what Keegan says, is when he refers to "Tottenham as being the nearest to the current top four in the Premiership", citing the massive financial gulf, as the reason. In fact, over the last ten years, there have only been FIVE financially massive football clubs in this country, and they have been (always, over that time) in varying order, Manchester United, Arsenal, Newcastle United, Liverpool and Chelsea. The turnover (income) of these five clubs puts them in a financial bracket WAY ahead of the rest. There has always been a very large turnover gap between 5th and the rest. So why would he say what he said? I know a lot of people are easily duped by London-based hype (our so-called 'National' media, is really just London-local) but for him to refer to Tottenham and to do so for alleged "financial" reasons - is RIDICULOUS - for a football-aware person, as he is supposed to be. Just stupid. All of this is, of course, before the Ashley impact, which (as it drives up income, I'm not talking about any money of his own that he may put into the club) will only widen the huge gap of the last ten years (albeit less than 10, for Chelsea) between the BIG FIVE FINANCIAL CLUBS, and the also-rans.

JIMMY SMITH - he was the most exciting player to watch, you knew that he could do just 'anything he liked' with the ball, and often made the opposition look totally useless. I remember one midweek evening league game, against West Brom I seem to remember. It was a very 'competitive' match, and Jinky was in-the-mood, and totally dominated play. Fantastic to watch. I also remember going to a reserve game when he was making a comeback from injury. When I got there, I found there was about another 15,000 there already - for a reserve game!! All because Jinky was playing. It is absolutely true that the very first thing he did that reserve game (down by the Centre Paddock it was) was to put the ball through some poor blokes legs and run around him. Great stuff!!

38 years is not a very long time, really. Seems like only yesterday (38 years ago!!) that we were all at the airport on a hot summers day, getting the photos as the players came out of the terminal building, back from Ujpest Dozsa. I borrowed my dads camera - and got in trouble for that - then I got in trouble again (as he was also a fan) when none of the photos came out. Well, there was a reason for that, as I hadn't put a film in the camera. I was a youngun, and hadn't used his 'posh' camera before, and I thought there was a film in it. Anyway - while 38 years is NOT a long time, it is when you are a club like NUFC, and you haven't won a major trophy in all that time!! (Shouldn't be long now though . . . thank you Mr Ashley . . . I hope!)

M M M M U U U U C C C C H H H H stronger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's to announce there's only 45 Rod Stewart tickets left for sale..

The term "richer clubs" is certainly an unusual one to use. What is indisputable is that we are one of the tichest clubs in the world, and here in the UK we are one of the 'rich five', whose annual turnover puts them in a clear seperate group, well ahead of the 6th one and all those below 6th. It is success-on-the-field (translating all that money into winning trophies) that has been the problem. It is not for financial reasons, that we have not / perhaps 'will' not, buy the best players.

HTT says - "may as well, been waiting over 50 years, why not a few more" er . . . 38 years actually.

Everyone on here seems to think that what is "now" is what "will always be" I can understand the sentiment, but . . . . Nothing lasts forever.

Silly Monkey!!!!! Why do you never respond to discussion and questions?

kingdawson - it is ALL London (don't be ashamed now) Silly Monkey - Is f*** your fave jellied eel shop then? I need more details if I am going to go down ("DOWN") there for a treat . . . .

It's REALLY GRIM darn Sarf. "Have a plate of Jellied Eels Mite"

It's GRIM darn Sarf. "Have a plate of Jellied Eels Mite"

"from one of London's grimmest places" - Lived in Cockney-land for years mate. It is ALL Grim!!! It really is "Grim Down South"

Alex (and all) - It is so incredibly frustrating, as each "impossible that it has happened" year goes by! How often we achieve the impossible, is incredible!

Couldn't agree more Alex, but there are times when bizarre comments need to be responded to!

No response, silly Monkey?

Silly Monkey!!!!!!

This is a pointless argument. Until recently (VERY recently) I would have always classed us as a PERMANENT member of a 'Big Five' (Financially : which is the main thing and we still have that / and support/fame-wise / and "potential" (sadly, only POTENTIAL) to win loads of things and challenge for the Premiership season-in, season-out). We have slipped, even from this position, over the last two seasons (ONLY over the last two seasons). Remember, Chelsea are not, by any stretch of even the thickest persons braindead imagination, a "BIG" club. They are a JOKE. A joke that goes bankrupt (afresh) every year!!!!!!!!!! Bankrupt, out-of-business - GONE, afresh, every year - be it by "£85 Million" (2005) or by "£145 Million" (2006) or whatever it is, afresh, each year. They get "Russian Grants and Donations" that rescue them from bankruptcy, every year (at the moment). It will not last, the bloke will be off soon, then they will VANISH. Also, so many people confuse "Current successful T E A M" with "Large C L U B". Just because a small CLUB (like Chelsea, though they are an 'extreme' and artificial example) currently has a successful TEAM, that doesn't make them a part of any invented 'Big Four' There will be silly people who cannot (will not?) understand what I am saying. That sort of person always thinks that "whatever is NOW always will be" - they cannot see how 'transitional' (temporary) certain aspects of 'now' are!! Our status will never change, no matter how often little Monkeys decry it.

Isn't it 'pathetic' that Shepherd acknowledges the actual existence of the 'press-created' Big Four Clubs. My god, just how FAR have we fallen in the last two seasons. Hello - Aston Villa, Everton and Spurs.