Guest Hoop Blah Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 totally different as lerner (although he didn't own the club at the time) was the man behind getting o'neill in. Fair comment. The owner still removed (and a decent and vocal section of fans contributed to that action) one of the most successful British managers with a background of building a modern infrastructure at a club before giving him enough time to make an impact on the club or the team. I can see why he did it, and I can understand why the fans weren't more patient with Allardyce too, I just happen to think it was the wrong move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 totally different as lerner (although he didn't own the club at the time) was the man behind getting o'neill in. Fair comment. The owner still removed (and a decent and vocal section of fans contributed to that action) one of the most successful British managers with a background of building a modern infrastructure at a club before giving him enough time to make an impact on the club or the team. I can see why he did it, and I can understand why the fans weren't more patient with Allardyce too, I just happen to think it was the wrong move. oh he made an impact all right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Bottom 19... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingtablefeb08.jpg Different story this season tho... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/0708Premierleaguetransf.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Of course Wigan is special and unique to a Wigan fan, why would they want to judge their specialness against Barcelona or anyone else? Because the idea put forward by the media is that no club has a right to think of itself as being a bit different, more special, based on a different way of thinking than anyone else. Which is utter fucking shite. You obviously lap up whatever Martin Samuel wants to feed you. Do you boycott all of news international of just the sun? Apparently not as you seem to be just regurgitating his ill thought out and simplistic point of view. Clubs are different, fans are different, places have different affinities to their clubs. Bilbao, Napoli, Barcelona are just a few examples of why clubs are not created nor should be treated equally. It may seem a contradiction but you can only really see this when you are capable of objectively looking at the situation, rather than from a partisan point of view. Show me a Wigan fan who thinks they are just as special as Barcelona and i'll show you a retard. Good examples. More a way of life than a club. Cultural impact of such clubs and their hinterland is what makes them special. Those clubs are all intertwined with political strife though - Bilbao and the Spain / Basque issue, Napoli the Northern / Southern Italian economic and political divide, and Barcelona the Catalunya / Spanish issue. There are no English clubs which have this element to them - only Celtic and Rangers really have it in Britain. I'd tend to agree that these clubs are "more than football clubs" but that is because they are about more than football, not just because they've got lots of fans. Arsenal have lots of fans, and they're increasingly about little more than selling 'Premium Seats' and 8 quid portions of fish and chips to bankers and lawyers these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Of course Wigan is special and unique to a Wigan fan, why would they want to judge their specialness against Barcelona or anyone else? Because the idea put forward by the media is that no club has a right to think of itself as being a bit different, more special, based on a different way of thinking than anyone else. Which is utter f****** s****. You obviously lap up whatever Martin Samuel wants to feed you. Do you boycott all of news international of just the sun? Apparently not as you seem to be just regurgitating his ill thought out and simplistic point of view. Clubs are different, fans are different, places have different affinities to their clubs. Bilbao, Napoli, Barcelona are just a few examples of why clubs are not created nor should be treated equally. It may seem a contradiction but you can only really see this when you are capable of objectively looking at the situation, rather than from a partisan point of view. Show me a Wigan fan who thinks they are just as special as Barcelona and i'll show you a retard. Good examples. More a way of life than a club. Cultural impact of such clubs and their hinterland is what makes them special. Those clubs are all intertwined with political strife though - Bilbao and the Spain / Basque issue, Napoli the Northern / Southern Italian economic and political divide, and Barcelona the Catalunya / Spanish issue. There are no English clubs which have this element to them - only Celtic and Rangers really have it in Britain. I'd tend to agree that these clubs are "more than football clubs" but that is because they are about more than football, not just because they've got lots of fans. Arsenal have lots of fans, and they're increasingly about little more than selling 'Premium Seats' and 8 quid portions of fish and chips to bankers and lawyers these days. i reckon newcastle/sunderland/leverpool have as much in that scheme as napoli for the same reasons you ascribe to napoli.. the celtic/rangers thing i don't understand as they are scottish man utd's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 That's what I mean, Speccy, combined 06-07 and 07-08, MON's period in charge, we're amongst the lowest spenders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Of course Wigan is special and unique to a Wigan fan, why would they want to judge their specialness against Barcelona or anyone else? Because the idea put forward by the media is that no club has a right to think of itself as being a bit different, more special, based on a different way of thinking than anyone else. Which is utter f****** s****. You obviously lap up whatever Martin Samuel wants to feed you. Do you boycott all of news international of just the sun? Apparently not as you seem to be just regurgitating his ill thought out and simplistic point of view. Clubs are different, fans are different, places have different affinities to their clubs. Bilbao, Napoli, Barcelona are just a few examples of why clubs are not created nor should be treated equally. It may seem a contradiction but you can only really see this when you are capable of objectively looking at the situation, rather than from a partisan point of view. Show me a Wigan fan who thinks they are just as special as Barcelona and i'll show you a retard. Good examples. More a way of life than a club. Cultural impact of such clubs and their hinterland is what makes them special. Those clubs are all intertwined with political strife though - Bilbao and the Spain / Basque issue, Napoli the Northern / Southern Italian economic and political divide, and Barcelona the Catalunya / Spanish issue. There are no English clubs which have this element to them - only Celtic and Rangers really have it in Britain. I'd tend to agree that these clubs are "more than football clubs" but that is because they are about more than football, not just because they've got lots of fans. Arsenal have lots of fans, and they're increasingly about little more than selling 'Premium Seats' and 8 quid portions of fish and chips to bankers and lawyers these days. i reckon newcastle/sunderland/leverpool have as much in that scheme as napoli for the same reasons you ascribe to napoli.. the celtic/rangers thing i don't understand as they are scottish man utd's No, they don't. The North East might have been an economically deprived area for a long time (in the past), but it is as nothing compared to the political, cultural and economic complexities of the north / south divide in Italy, which goes back a very long time, and runs very deep indeed. A quick visit to Milan followed by one to Naples would show you that, honestly. The Celtic / Rangers thing is about religious rivalry, and a little different, but there is no equivalent in English football. Of course, the irony in all this is the fact that English football is increasingly becoming more about the number of shirts you sell in Taiwan than it is about anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 That's what I mean, Speccy, combined 06-07 and 07-08, MON's period in charge, we're amongst the lowest spenders. 10th Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 That's what I mean, Speccy, combined 06-07 and 07-08, MON's period in charge, we're amongst the lowest spenders. 10th I'll take that as amongst the tightwads. *wink* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hoop Blah Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Bottom 19... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingtablefeb08.jpg Different story this season tho... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/0708Premierleaguetransf.jpg How are you getting those figures? The Villa ones do surprise me quite a bit as I think of them spending a lot more than that over the last couple of seasons. Just looking at Soccerbase it looks like a bigger net spend from 06-07, but only by a couple of million, but for this years spending I'd say your at least 10m out, but then I'm including the money they've apparently agreed to pay for Davies and Carson which might screw things up a bit. Looking at it though, O'Neil has done well to recoup so much through the sale of players he didn't really see as having a future at Villa. The figures for Reading don't ring true to me either. We didn't spend 5.5m net last season. Interesting tables though. (sorry for go off on a tangent there too by the way) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 How are you getting those figures? The Villa ones do surprise me quite a bit as I think of them spending a lot more than that over the last couple of seasons. Just looking at Soccerbase it looks like a bigger net spend from 06-07, but only by a couple of million, but for this years spending I'd say your at least 10m out, but then I'm including the money they've apparently agreed to pay for Davies and Carson which might screw things up a bit. Looking at it though, O'Neil has done well to recoup so much through the sale of players he didn't really see as having a future at Villa. The figures for Reading don't ring true to me either. We didn't spend 5.5m net last season. Interesting tables though. (sorry for go off on a tangent there too by the way) Those figures are probably more accurate than ones taken from Soccerbase alone - loads of transfers on SB are listed as 'undisclosed'. Where MON did well was offloading the fringe players (frequently ones everyone thought we needed, but we didn't actually need) at good money. Steven Davis for 4m to Fulham, Gavin McCann for 2m to Bolton, Aaron Hughes for 1.5 (I think) to Fulham, Ridgewell to Birmingham City for 2m. I don't think we should have sold Cahill, but 5m is a decent fee for him, too. That is why our net spend looks low. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hoop Blah Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 How are you getting those figures? The Villa ones do surprise me quite a bit as I think of them spending a lot more than that over the last couple of seasons. Just looking at Soccerbase it looks like a bigger net spend from 06-07, but only by a couple of million, but for this years spending I'd say your at least 10m out, but then I'm including the money they've apparently agreed to pay for Davies and Carson which might screw things up a bit. Looking at it though, O'Neil has done well to recoup so much through the sale of players he didn't really see as having a future at Villa. The figures for Reading don't ring true to me either. We didn't spend 5.5m net last season. Interesting tables though. (sorry for go off on a tangent there too by the way) Those figures are probably more accurate than ones taken from Soccerbase alone - loads of transfers on SB are listed as 'undisclosed'. Where MON did well was offloading the fringe players (frequently ones everyone thought we needed, but we didn't actually need) at good money. Steven Davis for 4m to Fulham, Gavin McCann for 2m to Bolton, Aaron Hughes for 1.5 (I think) to Fulham, Ridgewell to Birmingham City for 2m. I don't think we should have sold Cahill, but 5m is a decent fee for him, too. That is why our net spend looks low. Agree on the Soccerbase comments. We tend to deal a lot in undisclosed fee's Reading but the general consenus is that McCann and Hughes both went for a mill a piece, so I still figure the numbers above a bit out, especially as Davies is supposedly costing you £9million. That puts you close to Everton and Chelsea for this seasons spending. O'Neil has certainly wheeled and dealed extremely well though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Of course Wigan is special and unique to a Wigan fan, why would they want to judge their specialness against Barcelona or anyone else? Because the idea put forward by the media is that no club has a right to think of itself as being a bit different, more special, based on a different way of thinking than anyone else. Which is utter f****** s****. You obviously lap up whatever Martin Samuel wants to feed you. Do you boycott all of news international of just the sun? Apparently not as you seem to be just regurgitating his ill thought out and simplistic point of view. Clubs are different, fans are different, places have different affinities to their clubs. Bilbao, Napoli, Barcelona are just a few examples of why clubs are not created nor should be treated equally. It may seem a contradiction but you can only really see this when you are capable of objectively looking at the situation, rather than from a partisan point of view. Show me a Wigan fan who thinks they are just as special as Barcelona and i'll show you a retard. Good examples. More a way of life than a club. Cultural impact of such clubs and their hinterland is what makes them special. Those clubs are all intertwined with political strife though - Bilbao and the Spain / Basque issue, Napoli the Northern / Southern Italian economic and political divide, and Barcelona the Catalunya / Spanish issue. There are no English clubs which have this element to them - only Celtic and Rangers really have it in Britain. I'd tend to agree that these clubs are "more than football clubs" but that is because they are about more than football, not just because they've got lots of fans. Arsenal have lots of fans, and they're increasingly about little more than selling 'Premium Seats' and 8 quid portions of fish and chips to bankers and lawyers these days. i reckon newcastle/sunderland/leverpool have as much in that scheme as napoli for the same reasons you ascribe to napoli.. the celtic/rangers thing i don't understand as they are scottish man utd's No, they don't. The North East might have been an economically deprived area for a long time (in the past), but it is as nothing compared to the political, cultural and economic complexities of the north / south divide in Italy, which goes back a very long time, and runs very deep indeed. A quick visit to Milan followed by one to Naples would show you that, honestly. Maradona played for Napoli, thats why they are special. Any club that was graced by that player has a special status and rightly so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Of course Wigan is special and unique to a Wigan fan, why would they want to judge their specialness against Barcelona or anyone else? Because the idea put forward by the media is that no club has a right to think of itself as being a bit different, more special, based on a different way of thinking than anyone else. Which is utter f****** s****. You obviously lap up whatever Martin Samuel wants to feed you. Do you boycott all of news international of just the sun? Apparently not as you seem to be just regurgitating his ill thought out and simplistic point of view. Clubs are different, fans are different, places have different affinities to their clubs. Bilbao, Napoli, Barcelona are just a few examples of why clubs are not created nor should be treated equally. It may seem a contradiction but you can only really see this when you are capable of objectively looking at the situation, rather than from a partisan point of view. Show me a Wigan fan who thinks they are just as special as Barcelona and i'll show you a retard. Good examples. More a way of life than a club. Cultural impact of such clubs and their hinterland is what makes them special. Those clubs are all intertwined with political strife though - Bilbao and the Spain / Basque issue, Napoli the Northern / Southern Italian economic and political divide, and Barcelona the Catalunya / Spanish issue. There are no English clubs which have this element to them - only Celtic and Rangers really have it in Britain. I'd tend to agree that these clubs are "more than football clubs" but that is because they are about more than football, not just because they've got lots of fans. Arsenal have lots of fans, and they're increasingly about little more than selling 'Premium Seats' and 8 quid portions of fish and chips to bankers and lawyers these days. i reckon newcastle/sunderland/leverpool have as much in that scheme as napoli for the same reasons you ascribe to napoli.. the celtic/rangers thing i don't understand as they are scottish man utd's No, they don't. The North East might have been an economically deprived area for a long time (in the past), but it is as nothing compared to the political, cultural and economic complexities of the north / south divide in Italy, which goes back a very long time, and runs very deep indeed. A quick visit to Milan followed by one to Naples would show you that, honestly. The Celtic / Rangers thing is about religious rivalry, and a little different, but there is no equivalent in English football. Of course, the irony in all this is the fact that English football is increasingly becoming more about the number of shirts you sell in Taiwan than it is about anything else. so do lecce, foggia and bari have the same lustre based on the fact they're even more deprived and southern than napoli. what about cagliari who are on a totally different island. then there is messina, catania and palermo on sicily, even more different to northern italy than napoli. as chez says the location thing is just one small part of what makes them special (huge size of the club, passion and astonishing lack of success is another), likewise with Barcelona who have a lot more than just being a bunch of catalans. Espanyol aren't the same but they're in the same city, founded by the marginalised and poor rural spaniards who did menial jobs in catalan barcelona. UE Lleida aren't an exceptional case and they're even more catalan than barca. sociedad are basque like bilbao but dont attract the same cachet even tho theyve had the same rules on spanish players. i dont see how the old firm fit into this, they play in their own league. but then cardiff and swansea dont have a legendary and romantic air about them cos they play in the english league. agree with madras about newcastle and liverpool being the closest we have to that sort of thing in england (cornwall too but they dont have any clubs of note) and that translates into the clubs in the area but that's not the whole reason why the clubs are seen to be different or special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I'm claiming an assist on johnny's spectacular goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Bottom 19... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingtablefeb08.jpg Different story this season tho... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/0708Premierleaguetransf.jpg very interesting to note what happened when we started spending less than our rivals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Bottom 19... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingtablefeb08.jpg Different story this season tho... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/0708Premierleaguetransf.jpg Those figures are certainly way-off for Liverpool. For example, in 2003-04 our net spend was £5m, not the £16.25m quoted. I dare say the others are pretty wide of the mark, too, but I couldn't say by how much. I worked this out for LFC a while ago (I wanted to know the cost of our squad vs other clubs'). Liverpool Transfer Spending 03-08 SeasonNet Spend 2003-04£5m 2004-05£16.75m 2005-06£12.5m 2006-07£9.93m 2007-08£24.8m Total£68.8m I calculated current squad costs (before the Jan transfer window) as follows: ClubCost of current squad Chelsea£227.76m Man Utd£176.00m Liverpool£123.80m Spurs£94.6m Arsenal£73.59m Newcastle£65.60m and net spend: Net Transfer Spending by Club 2004-2007 ClubNet spend Chelsea£162.93m Man Utd.£79.17m Liverpool£65.43m Spurs£57.05m Newcastle£51.85m Arsenal£8.12m I believe they're based on pretty iffy numbers apart from the LFC ones, and the only conclusion I'd draw from them is that Wenger is a fucking genius in the transfer market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Allardyce did also spend a bit of money yes, I'm not trying to defend him, but was it that much relative to the current market place? You'll know the figures better than I will but I guess you were hoping for an impact similar to Sven's at City or O'Neil's at Villa but he didn't, from memory, have anywhere near the kind of money they had. That's not actually true. Thus far, O'Neill has spent very little money. If you looked at the net spend of clubs last season, I bet Villa are in the bottom 7 or 8. Bottom 19... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingtablefeb08.jpg Different story this season tho... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/0708Premierleaguetransf.jpg very interesting to note what happened when we started spending less than our rivals. almost as interesting as who was on the board when it happened ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShearMagic Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Alright, I haven't kept track of this thread but I will make one point that has been playing on my mind about KK. His British bias. I don't know if it's been brought up, but the team against Aston Villa was a joke. Carr instead of Enrique (Carr is British) Butt and Barton instead of Emre and Faye (former 2 are british) Smith instead of Viduka (Smith is British) It's an admirable thing, but we simply don't have enough quality British players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Do you really believe that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Alright, I haven't kept track of this thread but I will make one point that has been playing on my mind about KK. His British bias. I don't know if it's been brought up, but the team against Aston Villa was a joke. Carr instead of Enrique (Carr is British) Butt and Barton instead of Emre and Faye (former 2 are british) Smith instead of Viduka (Smith is British) It's an admirable thing, but we simply don't have enough quality British players. His British bias brought in Hottiger, Albert, Asprilla, and Ginola last time that I can think of, I'm sure he will have done the same at other clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Alright, I haven't kept track of this thread but I will make one point that has been playing on my mind about KK. His British bias. I don't know if it's been brought up, but the team against Aston Villa was a joke. Carr instead of Enrique (Carr is British) Butt and Barton instead of Emre and Faye (former 2 are british) Smith instead of Viduka (Smith is British) It's an admirable thing, but we simply don't have enough quality British players. His British bias brought in Hottiger, Albert, Asprilla, and Ginola last time that I can think of, I'm sure he will have done the same at other clubs. Ya...he bought a few more than that when he was here... http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/Keegansforeignsignings.jpg Plus 2 more that you may or may not have heard of. Also his captains included Benarbia, Schmiechel and Distin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Erich von Manstein Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 under keegan we are now playing better football. I stopped reading there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShearMagic Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I wasn't talking about last time..... How about this time around? Playing dud English players instead of quality foreign players. Good move eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now