WhiteHorseRam Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Here's one .... Football is the greatest sport on the planet...... and a bunch of other UK sports need constant shoring up by TV etc to remain remotely on the map in the UK. Yes ... I mean cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 19 minutes ago, Andicis said: Foden is getting sporadic performances, it's not really enough to prove anything. It's far too little to actually help him as a player. Where is my proof they'd prefer to buy £50 million worth of players? How about the fact that they spent more in one window than any other club ever? City and Chelsea would always prefer to splash the cash than look at what they have. See Chelsea missing out on De Bruyne. Isn't that why Jadon Sancho left to Dortmund? Kane, you're forgetting Winks before he got injured, and a lot of academy graduates before that who got a chance, Mason, Bentaleb, Alli was signed from league 1 and given a chance as a youngster etc. Manchester United earned their revenue and are the biggest club in England. City have an oil sugar daddy. Different levels. Why is United even relevant in this discussion? United and Liverpool give youth a chance. That's proven. United spend, but also give youth players a chance. McTominay, Rashford, Lingard. Liverpool have Trent Alexander-Arnold. City ARE to blame for the spending, so I will quite rightly blame them. They escalated the fees in the first place. They're everything wrong with world football in one plastic club. Foden may get a loan move. The same can be said of Brahim Diaz. Angus Gunn spent last season out on loan. But let's not forget Foden is still 18. Why would he be a first-team regular for City, the best team in England? Who did City have to bring through before they spent £50m on players. It's easy to criticise them for going out and buying players, but if they don't have anyone at near world class standard in the academy, then what other alternative do they have? How did Manchester Unired earn their revenue? They were also bankrolled during SAF's early years. I'm not sure why people think it was OK for United to do it back then, but now City and Chelsea spend money it's suddenly wrong. What alternative do you want? That Chelsea and City don't spend anything, and United just turn the PL into another Bundesliga where one team wins every season and blows the rest out of the water financially? City and Chelsea's spending is everything that is wrong with football, yet they're the sole reason the PL is competitive and deemed the best league in the world. United is relevant because Lingaard is 25 for starters, and Rashford (20) and McTominay (21) are a few years older than Foden. Wait until Foden is 20 or 21 before making a fair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Bris Vegas said: Foden may get a loan move. The same can be said of Brahim Diaz. Angus Gunn spent last season out on loan. But let's not forget Foden is still 18. Why would he be a first-team regular for City, the best team in England? Who did City have to bring through before they spent £50m on players. It's easy to criticise them for going out and buying players, but if they don't have anyone at near world class standard in the academy, then what other alternative do they have? How did Manchester Unired earn their revenue? They were also bankrolled during SAF's early years. I'm not sure why people think it was OK for United to do it back then, but now City and Chelsea spend money it's suddenly wrong. What alternative do you want? That Chelsea and City don't spend anything, and United just turn the PL into another Bundesliga where one team wins every season and blows the rest out of the water financially? City and Chelsea's spending is everything that is wrong with football, yet they're the sole reason the PL is competitive and deemed the best league in the world. United is relevant because Lingaard is 25 for starters, and Rashford (20) and McTominay (21) are a few years older than Foden. Wait until Foden is 20 or 21 before making a fair comparison. So you're saying they only have one player in their academy? Foden isn't the only one in the City academy, and none of the others look like getting chances. Why is age even relevant? How can they know if they have world class players in their academy if they genuinely have never been tested at anything above under 23's levels? Some of their players surely have the potential? Man Utd weren't bankrolled to anything close to the same extent as City, you know that, and I know that. United earn huge revenue streams now and so are quite right to spend the money they earned. City and Chelsea were small nothing clubs, and now they're just plastic, awful clubs. They farm out young talent which they reel in with big nets, and generally speaking they just dump the players. They did everything the easy way. Come on Bris. It's not like if City and Chelsea weren't there United would win the league every year. That is complete and utter nonsense. United without City may have won the league this year, but the previous years since Fergie they haven't finished anywhere close to the top, it'd be more like clubs such as Spurs and Liverpool winning. City and Chelsea are not the solo reason for the Premier League being competitive. In fact, how was the Premier League competitive at all this year, City ran away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 53 minutes ago, Andicis said: So you're saying they only have one player in their academy? Foden isn't the only one in the City academy, and none of the others look like getting chances. Why is age even relevant? How can they know if they have world class players in their academy if they genuinely have never been tested at anything above under 23's levels? Some of their players surely have the potential? Man Utd weren't bankrolled to anything close to the same extent as City, you know that, and I know that. United earn huge revenue streams now and so are quite right to spend the money they earned. City and Chelsea were small nothing clubs, and now they're just plastic, awful clubs. They farm out young talent which they reel in with big nets, and generally speaking they just dump the players. They did everything the easy way. Come on Bris. It's not like if City and Chelsea weren't there United would win the league every year. That is complete and utter nonsense. United without City may have won the league this year, but the previous years since Fergie they haven't finished anywhere close to the top, it'd be more like clubs such as Spurs and Liverpool winning. City and Chelsea are not the solo reason for the Premier League being competitive. In fact, how was the Premier League competitive at all this year, City ran away with it. I've already listed a few players in City's academy which are in and around the first-team squad. They're not world class, and City were world class last season. The club want to win all the titles, they can't do that with players who aren't world class. Let's be realistic. Manchester United in the early years were spending, in those times, big money. How is that any different to City now? City didn't have the biggest wage bill last season, and they didn't have the biggest transfer fee either. You're making out they've bought the title but like I said before, they haven't bought a single player any of the other top six couldn't. Players like Danny Welbeck is earning more than Sane, Gabriel Jesus, Mendy, Stones, Bernardo Silva, Kyle Walker, Ederson... Are you sure it's City's spending you should be questioning, and not that wasted by other clubs? If City have world class youngsters they won't dump them. The youngsters that do get dumped are the ones who aren't good enough for the required level. The same goes for all clubs. How many youngsters do Derby dump every year? If it weren't for Chelsea and City, United would have won like 10 league titles in a row between 2004-2014. Nobody else has come close to challenging. The PL wouldn't be what it is now if United had just mopped up all the titles. They'd now be light-years ahead of everyone like Bayern Munich are in the Bundesliga. City and Chelsea's spending, and making the PL competitive, has allowed the PL to be awash with Sky money and other TV deals, which has thus allowed the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs to spend to keep up while also appearing attractive to all these other rich owners who have bought other PL clubs. Man Utd dominating and year-on-year outspending the rest would have killed it completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoetheRam Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 2 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said: Here's one .... Football is the greatest sport on the planet...... and a bunch of other UK sports need constant shoring up by TV etc to remain remotely on the map in the UK. Yes ... I mean cricket You could probably argue football is the sport most propped up by TV. It is the most popular by a way, but you only have to go back 25 years and all but Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal were struggling to get even 25k. And if not propped up, it has certainly been boosted dramatically by TV money in terms of its exposure and all round fashionable-ness more than any other. Unfortunately it's probably at the point now where football in the top two divisions could survive on TV money alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 7 hours ago, needles said: Mark Lawrenson is my favourite summariser. I miss Alan Hansen. Woooah. Boundaries mate, boundaries.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rample Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 On 05/06/2018 at 23:06, Andicis said: I disagree with every single point of this. Built around Carrick rather than Scholes, Lampard or Gerrard? You have to be on a wind up. Agree on 2 or 3 Jadon Sancho may have more skill/technique than some of England's current squad but after 7 top flight starts he wasn't ready for this tournament. I hope he can break through before 2020 but have a feeling Lookman will be ahead of him (and both are behind Rashford etc.) I give it 3 years and if he doesn't get recognised by us he'll elect to play for Trinidad & Tobago. John Terry was massively overrated - another example of how average players in the right place at the right time can achieve great success. Ledley King was quality, shame about the injuries. Can't say Hargreaves or Carrick were spectacular but surely balance called for one of their (or Parker's) inclusion. Gazza wasn't overrated, just wasted talent, take the bravado away and he could do things few others could. Glenn Hoddle however is possibly the best player of my lifetime, and would have had a shout of being a quality England manager if he didn't get lynched by the press. Not to mention he could have rivalled the lead singer of most 80's pop groups. Really intelligent player, his passing was sublime and effortless, the distance and weight usually perfect for their target. Great touch, exquisite finisher, and no-one could fire off a volley like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GadFly Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: What alternative do you want? As I already said earlier on... Some kind of enforced policy of selecting an academy graduate (preferably more than one) in each game, for every club. A spending limit/FFP rules that aren't utter bull with laughable ramifications if broken, would be good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Tottenham will never win the league with Pottichino in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 10 hours ago, JoetheRam said: You could probably argue football is the sport most propped up by TV. It is the most popular by a way, but you only have to go back 25 years and all but Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal were struggling to get even 25k. And if not propped up, it has certainly been boosted dramatically by TV money in terms of its exposure and all round fashionable-ness more than any other. Unfortunately it's probably at the point now where football in the top two divisions could survive on TV money alone. I agree with all your points ... Football was certainly looking up in the early 90s just before the Prem took off ... it's why they did the Prem project I guess. Does now seem to be too bloated with cash, and is just a vehicle for players and agents to amass great wealth - and many of the players not that special - just boosted by the deals the real talent gets. I certainly think English football has been well sold/marketed, but I do think there was a really good project to sell. I think they are always trying to get the same momentum with golf and tennis but they never quite lift off. On the subject of cricket, on a recent cinema trip I was bemused by an ad that appeared that was essentially masquerading as a high street bank ad but was really wheedling about how great cricket was. Looked desperate to me. The tinkering with the format and the out-dated county set up is slowly knackering it in the UK. I also think taking it off terrestrial after the 2005 Ashes euphoric win was a disaster - just at the moment it could have really regrouped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 17 hours ago, Andicis said: City ARE to blame for the spending, so I will quite rightly blame them. They escalated the fees in the first place. They're everything wrong with world football in one plastic club. I'd say Chelsea/Abramovich are the ones that moved the goalposts. Either way both Chelsea/City are just toys for egotistical owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Coutinho is the best midfielder in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Gnarly Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Christan Eriksen is the most underrated Midfielder in the Premier League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 On 06/06/2018 at 12:01, ramsbottom said: I think the problem was, the golden generation came about maybe 3-4 years to early. When they were at their peak Sven was still enamored with 4-4-2 and playing all the stars. Then Mourinho came along and brought about playing one up top. Imagine the below at Euro 2004 - ----------------------James Neville----------Campbell----Terry-------Cole A -----------------Scholes----Hargreaves Cole J---------------Lampard-------------Vassell ---------------------Rooney That team would've done a lot better. Sven killed any hope of those squads winning anything due to his devotion to Beckham and a tired system... Would have gone with James Campbell King Terry Beckham Carrick Cole Lampard Gerrard Scholes Rooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 On 07/06/2018 at 15:00, David said: Will Hughes will not be a regular in the England team. unless someone like Pep was the manager... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 On 30/06/2018 at 00:55, uttoxram75 said: unless someone like Pep was the manager... Pep would still try and sign someone for £50m if he was the manager of England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broderick Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Expanding the world cup was a great idea. The world cup always felt more like a global gathering than a display of the best football on the planet. Plus, it seems that football gains in popularity whenever a country qualifies for a world cup for the first time. USA and Japan are good examples of this. If Fifa wants to increase the popularity of the game worldwide, this would be a good way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 On 27 June 2018 at 08:06, G STAR RAM said: I'd say Chelsea/Abramovich are the ones that moved the goalposts. Either way both Chelsea/City are just toys for egotistical owners. Unlike Derby ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 3 hours ago, RamNut said: Unlike Derby ? Yes very unlike Derby. We have an owner who has been a lifelong fan of the club, not someone who just happened to be flying over our ground and decided he wanted it as a plaything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Broderick said: Expanding the world cup was a great idea. The world cup always felt more like a global gathering than a display of the best football on the planet. Plus, it seems that football gains in popularity whenever a country qualifies for a world cup for the first time. USA and Japan are good examples of this. If Fifa wants to increase the popularity of the game worldwide, this would be a good way to do it. If this is the way things are going, why bother with qualification at all? Just invite every single member of FIFA and have a parade and a big party rather than a competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.