Jump to content

Premier League | 22/23 Season


Day

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 520
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Did Graham Potter just have an amazing scouting team at Brighton and top quality players? Or is he really a top coach? Brighton seem to be better with De Zerbi in charge, while Chelsea are garbage under him.

Meanwhile Arsenal are doing their usual second half of season drop off.

Will end up City and United top two at this rate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

And spurs fans moaning, but really they’re not doing that bad. They’ve got as much chance as anyone in the hunt for 4th, and have a fair chance of beating Milan at home. Anyone would think they’re in Everton’s position the way they’re moaning. 

I really don’t understand the hatred towards Daniel Levy there.

Since he became chairman they have finished top four multiple times, reached a CL final, broke transfer records, kept England’s best striker for years, finished 2nd in the PL and moved into a £1bn stadium.

Who were Spurs before? They were an Aston Villa or West Ham. Middle of the road club during the 90s and 00s but with a decent history (like many other clubs).

Since then they have become a super club, but one with limitations unlike City, United and Chelsea who could all spend what they wanted while Arsenal and Liverpool are bigger clubs.

I think Spurs have done brilliant to join that group and leave behind the likes of Villa, West Ham, Newcastle, Everton and Leeds who were all equally as big and traditional during the 90s and 00s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I really don’t understand the hatred towards Daniel Levy there.

Since he became chairman they have finished top four multiple times, reached a CL final, broke transfer records, kept England’s best striker for years, finished 2nd in the PL and moved into a £1bn stadium.

Who were Spurs before? They were an Aston Villa or West Ham. Middle of the road club during the 90s and 00s but with a decent history (like many other clubs).

Since then they have become a super club, but one with limitations unlike City, United and Chelsea who could all spend what they wanted while Arsenal and Liverpool are bigger clubs.

I think Spurs have done brilliant to join that group and leave behind the likes of Villa, West Ham, Newcastle, Everton and Leeds who were all equally as big and traditional during the 90s and 00s.

levy has set spurs up for the next 50 years with their stadium

 

i dont get it either. they are probably the best ran club in the country and are now starting to give managers more money to spend.

 

the grass isnt always greener especially when the alternative will probably be an american hedge fund or a petro state 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Why are they all going after the Saudis? Plenty of other dodgy owners in the Premier League with some also involved in human rights abuses. Strikes me as some of the other clubs not liking the increased competition in the league, so they're trying to stir up trouble. Either that or the Prem suddenly grew a conscience as a result of the new regulatory body rumours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GenBr said:

Why are they all going after the Saudis? Plenty of other dodgy owners in the Premier League with some also involved in human rights abuses. Strikes me as some of the other clubs not liking the increased competition in the league, so they're trying to stir up trouble. Either that or the Prem suddenly grew a conscience as a result of the new regulatory body rumours

it was the other top clubs that originally blocked the takeover then voted on rules changes instantly around sponsorships to stop them from growing.

 

i am not fighting the saudis corner but they are all acting with self interest & trying to protect their position

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GenBr said:

Why are they all going after the Saudis? Plenty of other dodgy owners in the Premier League with some also involved in human rights abuses. Strikes me as some of the other clubs not liking the increased competition in the league, so they're trying to stir up trouble. Either that or the Prem suddenly grew a conscience as a result of the new regulatory body rumours

They all want a bit of the pie at any cost as this gives them a profile...Chelsea cost £4billion and pi$$ loot on average players...wow some profile that. The Saudis are clearly sports washing(LIV Golf)it's shown in the USA courts that a Saudi official and on the board of Newcastle is alleged to be a Government official, This clearly goes against the EPL rules, Is he a Government official?, Were the EPL lied to...yet again with assurances all is good with the buying process...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alram said:

it was the other top clubs that originally blocked the takeover then voted on rules changes instantly around sponsorships to stop them from growing.

 

i am not fighting the saudis corner but they are all acting with self interest & trying to protect their position

Every rule change they make is designed to stop anybody else threatening their position.

The Saudis have done some awful things, but it has to be the same rule for everybody - not just for them.

29 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

They all want a bit of the pie at any cost as this gives them a profile...Chelsea cost £4billion and pi$$ loot on average players...wow some profile that. The Saudis are clearly sports washing(LIV Golf)it's shown in the USA courts that a Saudi official and on the board of Newcastle is alleged to be a Government official, This clearly goes against the EPL rules, Is he a Government official?, Were the EPL lied to...yet again with assurances all is good with the buying process...   

Yes obviously they are sport washing, but thats no different to Man City. Do the Premier League rules say you can't have government officials on the board? If thats the case you'd better let Man City know then. Why is it ok for Abu Dhabi to own a football club, but not for the Saudis to do the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Every rule change they make is designed to stop anybody else threatening their position.

The Saudis have done some awful things, but it has to be the same rule for everybody - not just for them.

Yes obviously they are sport washing, but thats no different to Man City. Do the Premier League rules say you can't have government officials on the board? If thats the case you'd better let Man City know then. Why is it ok for Abu Dhabi to own a football club, but not for the Saudis to do the same?

Interview with Premier League CEO Richard Masters...scroll down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64821422

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...