Football Focus

[titch juicy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can't say a draw wasn't a fair result this arvo,

> but still a sickener.

>

> How about Everton / City though? John Stones is

> shit. Never understood why people raved about him.

Stones and Sterling cost a combined hundred million. Astonishing when you consider that Alderweireld and Alli cost a combined ?17m.

United v Liverpool was dire. Lacking quality and thunder. Liverpool missing a couple of players (Clyne and Mane) but surely enough depth to be more effective than that. United resorting to long ball football.

Also, United fans- would you have started Mata?

[red devil]

No, I was happy with the starting line-up. More concerned as to why Shaw isn't starting games.

I don't have a problem with hitting long balls in the latter part of a game as an alternative. It worked. Stats show that Liverpool actually hit more long balls during the whole game...

[titch juicy]

I think Shaw might be finished as a top class footballer. Honestly.

I don't know if it's long term effects from his injury but what (little, admittedly) I've seen of him he has nothing like the athleticism to be a top class full back in 2017.

Speaking of young English players- how good did Tom Davies look for Everton?!

[Jah Lush]

Tom Davies looked blooming marvellous. He played a blinder and at only 18 showed real quality. Hope he makes it.

It's always good to see talented young home grown talent coming through the ranks especially at your own club and to have a manager prepared to put his faith and belief in them. We're seeing that at Spurs with Pochetino giving the youngsters a chance.

As for Luke Shaw with the awful injury he has had he's probably lost a yard of pace. He looks overweight. It could be a long time before he is anywhere near back to his best and full fitness. I also think Mourinho doesn't fancy him and if he feels he isn't good enough or fit enough to play he won't. He may have to move on or go out on loan to get fit and play regular football. It would be very sad to see such a talented player's career take a huge nosedive.

[red devil]

Good post Jah. In the modern game with all the money sloshing around, home grown players are one of the few things that fans can still relate to. Utd have a fantastic record of having at least one home grown player in a match squad since 1937. This should continue with Rashford & Lingard, and there are a couple of really good prospects in the current youth set-up.

Re. Luke Shaw, I would put it down to the injury, mentally as well as physically. Not too worried about his weight, like Rooney he's always had a bit of extra timber yet has a good engine. At least he's got age on his side to try and get back to his previous level, it's just a question of whether Mourinho will be patient with him...

[Jah Lush]

This worth thinking about too.

Lloris 10m, Walker 4m, Dier 4m, Vertonghen 10m, Toby 13m, Rose 1m, Dembele 15m, Wanyama 11m, Eriksen 11m, Alli 5m, Kane 0m.

Total ?84m.

Pogba ?89m.

[red devil]

Not a fair comparison Jah, many of those players were bought several years ago, the market and going rate has changed dramatically since then. How much would those Spurs players have fetched last summer? A lot more than ?84m...

[titch juicy]

The point is that the players were bought cheap and developed into players worth tens of millions.

Whereas United have been trying to follow the Chelsea/City method of buying success. Which, after last season and to an extent this one already, is proving innefective when compared to building a hungry squad invested in a manager's/club's way of doing things. United showed the way in the 90s with success based on a group of players developed at the club.

Paying players ludicrous overinflated wages seems to have the opposite to the desired effect. These players pick up their ?200k+ a week irrespective of how they play. How much do they really care about the club or their teammates?

[Jah Lush]

What Titch said.

This is well worth a look as well.

 

[red devil]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point is that the players were bought cheap

> and developed into players worth tens of

> millions.

You're ignoring the fact that the current skewed market has added a lot to their value regardless of their 'development'.

I notice that Lamella was conveniently left out of that list, not forgetting duds like Paulinho, Capoue and the Romanian defender's name no one cam remember.

I suppose I could list all of Spurs' squad and compare them to Rashford who cost zilch. But that would just be another poinless point-scoring exercise.

> Whereas United have been trying to follow the

> Chelsea/City method of buying success. Which,

> after last season and to an extent this one

> already, is proving innefective when compared to

> building a hungry squad invested in a

> manager's/club's way of doing things. United

> showed the way in the 90s with success based on a

> group of players developed at the club.

United were big spenders way before the likes of Chlesea and City. We've always had a mixture of big money players and home grown talent, right back to the days of buying Denis Law from Torino for a then whopping ?100k. When we bought Bryan Robson for ?1.5m it was equivalent to 50% of our income (Note Pogba's oft quoted ?89m fee which happens to include add-ons and his agent's ?18m cut, is no where near 50% of our current income).

When the Glazers took over we stopped buying big, that's when Fergie came out with his classic ''no value in the market' comment when receiving ?80m for Ronaldo and spending a fraction of it on Valencia, Owen and Gabriel fooking Obertan. It was that period of a lack of investment in top quality players that I believe has contributed to our current situation just as much as the appointments of Moyes and LVG have.

It's only recently with the commercial deals and new TV money kicking-in that we can afford to service the debt the Glazers kindly bestowed on us and make big signings again.

All Spurs are presently doing is cutting their cloth to suit, just like Arsenal did when they moved to a new stadium.

When Spurs received ?80m+ for Bale they had no problem spending it willy nilly, so save us the moral lecturing. Once you move into your shiny new stadium, sell the naming rights, possibly receive the highest match day revenue for a club, lets see how prudent you are then.

I've no beef with Spurs or their fans, in fact I'd be very pleased if they won the league, but less of the 'we're morally superior' attitude please.

> Paying players ludicrous overinflated wages seems

> to have the opposite to the desired effect. These

> players pick up their ?200k+ a week irrespective

> of how they play. How much do they really care

> about the club or their teammates?

I duuno, try asking Gareth Bale and Luka Modric...

[Jah Lush]

Red Devil wrote: - less of the 'we're morally superior' attitude.

You invented that bit all by yourself. Bit touchy this morning RD. I suggest you go for a pint or three at lunchtime and chill the fook out.

[red devil]

What makes you think I'm not already am?...hic! :)

*Gives Jah a big, fat, sloppy, wet kiss...*

[maxxi]

We've got Carroll*

Andy Carroll...

:)

*barringtheinevitableinjurythatwillputhimoutuntiltheendoftheseason

[titch juicy]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The point is that the players were bought cheap

> > and developed into players worth tens of

> > millions.

>

> You're ignoring the fact that the current skewed

> market has added a lot to their value regardless

> of their 'development'.

> I notice that Lamella was conveniently left out of

> that list, not forgetting duds like Paulinho,

> Capoue and the Romanian defender's name no one cam

> remember.

> I suppose I could list all of Spurs' squad and

> compare them to Rashford who cost zilch. But that

> would just be another poinless point-scoring

> exercise.

>

>

> > Whereas United have been trying to follow the

> > Chelsea/City method of buying success. Which,

> > after last season and to an extent this one

> > already, is proving innefective when compared

> to

> > building a hungry squad invested in a

> > manager's/club's way of doing things. United

> > showed the way in the 90s with success based on

> a

> > group of players developed at the club.

>

> United were big spenders way before the likes of

> Chlesea and City. We've always had a mixture of

> big money players and home grown talent, right

> back to the days of buying Denis Law from Torino

> for a then whopping ?100k. When we bought Bryan

> Robson for ?1.5m it was equivalent to 50% of our

> income (Note Pogba's oft quoted ?89m fee which

> happens to include add-ons and his agent's ?18m

> cut, is no where near 50% of our current income).

> When the Glazers took over we stopped buying big,

> that's when Fergie came out with his classic ''no

> value in the market' comment when receiving ?80m

> for Ronaldo and spending a fraction of it on

> Valencia, Owen and Gabriel fooking Obertan. It was

> that period of a lack of investment in top quality

> players that I believe has contributed to our

> current situation just as much as the appointments

> of Moyes and LVG have.

> It's only recently with the commercial deals and

> new TV money kicking-in that we can afford to

> service the debt the Glazers kindly bestowed on us

> and make big signings again.

> All Spurs are presently doing is cutting their

> cloth to suit, just like Arsenal did when they

> moved to a new stadium.

> When Spurs received ?80m+ for Bale they had no

> problem spending it willy nilly, so save us the

> moral lecturing. Once you move into your shiny new

> stadium, sell the naming rights, possibly receive

> the highest match day revenue for a club, lets see

> how prudent you are then.

> I've no beef with Spurs or their fans, in fact I'd

> be very pleased if they won the league, but less

> of the 'we're morally superior' attitude please.

>

>

> > Paying players ludicrous overinflated wages

> seems

> > to have the opposite to the desired effect.

> These

> > players pick up their ?200k+ a week

> irrespective

> > of how they play. How much do they really care

> > about the club or their teammates?

>

> I duuno, try asking Gareth Bale and Luka Modric...

United never bought success in the same way as Chelsea or City. A rich sugar daddy throwing hundreds of millions at the first team for a quick fix.

We're cutting our cloth accordingly but Joe Lewis could just as easily have thrown massive money at the first team in the same way as Abrahmovic and the Sheikh. We're running the club sensibly - not running at a huge debt. It's been the same for a long time. We're building success (hopefully) slowly and carefully. Instead of throwing money at the first team for a quick and temporary blast of success we invested big money in the academy and training facilities.

The Bale money was spent, but at the end of the spend we had a zero net spend. That's the point.

As far as I'm aware Bale and Modric aren't earning huge wages in the premier league. Which is what I'm talking about. La Liga is a different beast. Same with the Bundesliga, where one or two teams have spending power and the rest of the league is less competitive.

[Jah Lush]

Arf!

 

[Mick Mac]

Go for it Rod.

[BrandNewGuy]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why Lewisham?s plans for Millwall?s Den really

> take the biscuit.

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/se

> p/09/lewisham-millwall-the-den

Lewisham have withdrawn their plans. Victory, albeit possibly temporary.

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/lewisham-councils-plot-force-millwall-off-land-today-scrapped/

[Otta]

This is good news. Although (and I don't expect football fans to see past football) Lewisham are expected by the government to build a certain number of homes each year, and they are running out of places to build them.

Of course Millwall shouldn't be forced out, but homes will end up being built around there, and so they should be.

[BrandNewGuy]

Although to be fair to Millwall, they did put up an alternative plan which included a housing element.

[????]

Being a juvenile twat I still fail to go past The New Den on the train without flicking the vs or doing a W*nker sign - so i am glad it's staying rather than moving to North Kent. Still not been to the New Den - I think I'll stay with my warm and cosy memories of the Old Den instead

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is good news. Although (and I don't expect

> football fans to see past football) Lewisham are

> expected by the government to build a certain

> number of homes each year, and they are running

> out of places to build them.

>

> Of course Millwall shouldn't be forced out, but

> homes will end up being built around there, and so

> they should be.

I don't think ? or at least my Millwall supporting friends assure me is the case ? there was ever any objection to housing, Millwall just wanted to be involved with the plans, to have their ground as part of them and keep the club at the heart of the community. It's very good news that what looked like borderline (or maybe not so borderline) corrupt plans have been scotched, a rare win for the little guy it seems.

[Parkdrive]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right in saying the new den was built on what used to be Senegal fields, public playing football pitches? I thought it was wrong then and have never changed my mind. North Kent would be appropriate for them as a new ground, most of their supporters moved out that way in the 70s and 80s

[Jah Lush]

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

North Kent would be appropriate for them as a new ground, most of their supporters moved out that way in the 70s and 80s.

****

Seeing as you're a supporter of the Woolwich Wanderers that opinion doesn't surprise me.

[Parkdrive]

You clearly missed my point. While others wring their hands and beat their chests over poor old Millwall being forced out of Lewisham, they seem to have conveniently forgotten that their current ground was built on a public park. That better oh bitter spurs fan?

[maxxi]

GOAL! 7500