Sport Football Thread 2011/2012

[Stig]

I used to have that cream and red one with the hug oval badge. Found it shoved at the back of a drawer last year, my god it really was aweful. Reebok really did make us some horrible kits. Then again they're still making shit ones, look at Boltons current home shirt.

I used to have a orange keeper top (not the one above) but I can't find a picture of it. If memory serves me correct it was all orange with little liverbirds all over it in a different shade of orange.

[bradigor]

I liked the Ecru one.

[Guest]

Chelsea lol

[Sirloin]

Dortmund have taken 18,000 fans to an away league game today. That's pretty impressive.

[Plissken]

I remember when being 5th in the League, losing just six games out of 25 and getting a replay in the 5th Round of the FA Cup was considered to be having a decent season.

[Elseb]

What a result for us against Chelsea!! We are still unbeaten since December.

[Dudley]

^^ And it was at least half Birmingham being good rather than Chelsea being feeble, your side was excellent to watch.

Erm, you can watch the ITV match on the TV.

Or indeed at itv.com or (better) Tvcatchup if you don't actually have a way to receive broadcast TV.

I think if Chelsea could get someone to rub out Torres and make it look like an accident they'd gladly go for it. It makes me sad just to look at him these days. He's just bloody awful.

I was at the match today, he was just limp.

When Drogba came on, him harassing the timewasting keeper and at least fucking TRYING made all the difference.

[toythatkills]

The keeper in this photo is making me laugh somewhat

[Headache]

The keeper reminds me of this

[Sirloin]

Great win for Leicester and well deserved. Was a cracking match as well.

[George Clooney]

While I'm late to the whole "shit kits" topic, I give you my entry from Stoke City's 93 season, this being their away shirt;

Not content with the hideous purple lie detector pattern, the gold trim makes it look like it was designed by someone who thinks my big fat gypsy wedding is a good indicator of class and style.

[Art Vandelay]

Looks like some Cheech and Chong lounge wear.

[DeadRussian]

Hypercolor football shirts - I like that idea.

[Dudley]

That's one empty stadium.

Especially as they were all but giving tickets away.

[Elseb]

^^ And it was at least half Birmingham being good rather than Chelsea being feeble, your side was excellent to watch.

Aye, Hughton has had us playing some fantastic football this season. To be fair though, any type of football is better than the type Mcleish played. Not a chance he would have got the Villa job if we'd lost the Carling Cup final.

[Guest]

That's one empty stadium.

Especially as they were all but giving tickets away.

The magic of the cup.

It's also a very dull game.

Kiss of death. Lolz

[Graham S]

Initials spell HMRC backwards

(from twitter)

[wev]

Sunderland more than deserve that result, Arsenal were atrocious, not a single positive to be taken from that performance. You'd think Wenger being critical in the press would make the players realise how shit they've been recently...

[SharkEnergy]

These days the players don't take any flack from the media so therefore don't react to their manager. The media will hound the board, and Wenger, and therefore the players know that they don't have to put an effort in until Wenger leaves and a new manager comes along. The media provide them their get out clause for bothering to live up to their wages.

[Wallace]

Had the pleasure of hospitality things at ibrox today, they actually had beer, and we wfycking won as well :-D that is all.

[Guest]

I'm sure some of the Arsenal players were a bit knackered from the midweek trip and hammering.

[Halo]

A long and interesting post on Reddit about Manchester City's impact on the Premier League:

I disagree with this. Players were going for £30m+ long before Chelsea and City were taken over. The only difference to now is the amount of players that the clubs have acquired in a short space of time.

For example, City bought Aguero, Nasri, Clichy, Pizarro and Dzeko in a very short time span. It would usually take clubs several years to purchase each of these without wealthy backers. The prices weren't really shocking for the players, it was how close it was to other transfers which was the kicker.

I don't believe that Chelsea are currently unbalancing the transfer market and I don't believe that they have done for a good few years now. Their spending is consistent with a club of their stature and achievements. City have also calmed down a lot recently, and didn't purchase anyone this past January but shifted a few players out. We have built the squad we need by buying all of those players quickly, you won't see another spending spree anything like that again from City now we are establishing ourselves as a team who is likely to qualify for the CL on a regular basis.

The important thing to note here is the knock on effect. Because City bought all of the players of a certain quality that became available in the past couple of years, clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool have struggled to rebuild their teams.

City pay the higher wages (though to be fair if one of the named clubs REALLY wanted a player, I'm sure they could match us), are a very attractive club in terms of future prospects and are playing at the top level in a famous league.

The real secret to City's success isn't that we have bought a load of players, it's that we have bought a load of players who otherwise would have been used by the traditional big four (who could have paid higher wages than anyone else) to keep themselves at the top. Our wealthy backer has evened the playing field. For the first time in a decades, United/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool don't have exclusive access to these top players and as such their structures for dealing with that are not altogether yet.

United dealt with this situation by buying the cream of British talent in the PL and supplemented it with some youth and experience. They never have bought the David Silva's of this world which is why they were never that concerned when Chelsea went on a buying spree - it isn't in their MO. Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea were the real losers here. Looking at City's players, it is REALLY so far fetched that Yaya might have gone to Arsenal? Or Silva at Liverpool? Or Aguero to Chelsea?

They had no option but to pursue alternative targets, and Liverpool especially, due to a mixture of believing hype on players too much and having poor negotiators have now spent a small fortune on players that are not up to their usual standards.

You know who the biggest winners of the City takeover are, outside of ourselves? Spurs.

Spurs were never in the market for the Agueros and Nasris in 2011 and weren't in the market for the Sylvinhos and Bridges in 2008. We never fought in the marketplace with Spurs thus they've been able to continue their impressive growth whilst watching us handicap the teams in front of them.

The "Big Four" apart from United grew pretty complacent. None of them had any plans for what would happen if their massive financial advantages suddenly disappeared. This combined with some very poor business moves (the sponsorship deal on the Emirates with no uplifts, the sale to Hicks/Gillet, the constant sacking of managers from Abramovich) left them in a situation whereby they are struggling to compete with City's wealth. Only United, with their structure setup in the 3 year wilderness when Chelsea did it, still managed to get their first choice transfer targets and continue to improve their squad within their budgets.

As with most things in football, there's no one thing that you can point at and say "this unbalances the market" apart from perhaps TV revenue, and it's a mixture of circumstance and happenplace.

I will say one thing though. I believe and have always believed, that the biggest imbalance in world football has always been the revenues from European competition. UEFA know this. They cannot do anything about it because if they evened out the playing field, the big clubs would argue that because they are the big clubs they should have a bigger pot and then breakaway to form their own league.

The difference between finishing 4th and 5th is £30m a season, or one Sergio Aguero every year. Once you are in that top four, you are part of the monopoly. The only real way that we could rebalance the market is to put CL money in a big pot and then distribute it evenly across every member associate in the ECA. This means that the Man United's would earn as much from the CL as the Wigans.

Is this fair? A marketplace whereby everybody is even and nobody has a financial advantage? Remember for those who say that X, Y or Z earnt their place at the top table that they were generally the biggest spenders before the new CL structure and revenues came in. They were WAY ahead of the Wigans in the stakes. Does this mean Wigan should be punished because they got bought a decade too late, or should we share the CL revenues across the whole league so that everybody has to earn more from their personal attendances and revenues? Then you would see your Evertons, Sunderland and Villas sneaking the top four every now and again.

If you believe that this is against the spirit of competition, I'd like you to examine why City's situation is against the spirit of competition. The Big Four have their "wealthy owners" in the huge injection of capital that they get from the CL every year. And they've done this for a decade. We have found a way to compete without the CL revenue (direct investment) and all of a sudden we're cheating? This doesn't make sense. They are the same thing. Either you're for everybody to be financially equal (which I am), or you're for people to have financial advantages. City now have a financial advantage. The Big Four had a financial advantage beforehand in the disproportionate finances they received.

I'd like to address the "worldwide support" argument before it crops up. Yes, I admit that the Big Four have a far better worldwide support than us, Spurs, or Wigan which generates another layer of capital outside of what we could hit. They have this following due to huge exposure through domestic TV and CL matches. It's a follow on. First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the bitches. This is exactly how football works too, you only have to look at the rapid rise of international attention that Spurs and City have received over the past two years due to their increased profile in domestic and European competitions. This will translate into money in the next set of accounts, and maybe a few will stick around and Spurs will show a net gain in supporter base?

The CL is absolutely everything to a football team. If you get it, you get more money and increased exposure which allows the best players around which allow you to qualify for the CL again which gives you more money and increased exposure. It is why Sheikh Mansour threw a billion pound at City, and why RA threw similar amounts at Chelsea. It's why the Glazers, Kronke, Joe Lewis and NSV are willing to throw a huge portion of their own money at the clubs which they fund.

The imbalance of the transfer market is a really complicated issue but pointing directly at City and Chelsea is simplistic and doesn't bear out. You need to look at the core of why some teams earn more than others despite smaller attendances and it comes down to various different factors, but I do feel that that CL money is still the biggest one by far.

[Art Vandelay]

That article makes some poor attempts to explain Arsenal's success, if you can call it that. Man City wouldn't be competing with us on transfers as there's no way we can afford either the fees or wages they pay. The suggestion that Yaya Toure would have joined Arsenal from Barcelona without being paid 200k a week is ridiculous. Bare in mind too that the highest transfer fee ever forked out is still £15m, for Arshavin. There's others that have come close but are bonus based, such as Chamberlain or Reyes. Van Persie is the highest earner on 80k a week.

Man City were able to unbalance the market not just by the ludicrous fees they paid, but also by adopting a policy of buying enough shit and hoping some sticks. They're able to run a club with no regard to running a business. Waste £25m on a striker we don't need anymore? Send him out on loan. Sell him for a third of the price, who cares? Bare in mind they've been doing this for longer than people remember too.

It's difficult to say Chelsea haven't paid stupid prices too, as although they're now off a rolling boil of transfers they still spent around £100m in the last year or so. Hardly chump change.

[SMD]

There's a lot of misinformed shite in that. United not in for the David Silvas of this world? By the way I hate that term, it's lazy.

But anyway, United? I don't know if this is a City fan mounting a defence of their spending or just someone without any strong affiliations who thinks it's 'good for the game' but United have always been trying to flex their muscles. In 1996, Ferguson pursued Nadal before putting his wallet away and getting Ronnie Johnsen. Then he got it out again for Jaap Stam (world record for a defender at the time, wasn't it?) in '98.

Ferguson chased Salas before he went to Lazio and signed Yorke for a similar fee instead. World record for a goalkeeper in Barthez. Ferdinand and Rooney were big signings from the Premier League but he also tried to sign Robben. He splashed out on van Nistelrooy and Veron, paying fairly sizeable amounts (at the time) for squad members like Quinton Fortune, Karel Poborsky, Eric Djemba-Djemba and Kleberson. Who remembers Jordi Cruyff? He was bought for the same amount that Liverpool would spend on defenders and he was considered an average signing for United.

Also the fact they bring up Chelsea as some sort of stalwart at the top shows just how much bollocks this is. First time in decades? Well, erm, how about Newcastle and Leeds in the 90s/early 00s? They were in the Champions League more regularly than Chelsea and Newcastle were big casualties of the Abramovich era. Spurs and Everton are another two who were big spenders up until the mid 90s and still competed for transfers until the Champions League money left them struggling. Villa were title challengers in the early 90s and still had some clout until 2000.

It doesn't even the playing field at all. Manchester City had one of the best paid footballers in the world kicking his heels in Buenos Aires because they could. They bought Wayne Bridge for £12m, paid him a shitload of money then couldn't be arsed playing him. Spurs are an outside bet for the title with a large part down to a striker they got on loan just because he's not as glamorous as the new ones City have. Not even Real Madrid and Barcelona are so frivolous with their money, Barcelona only loaned out Zlatan because they agreed to sell him and Milan didn't have the cash up front. And Milan still covered his wages.

Bellamy is at Liverpool because City are subsidising the part of his wages lost due to his move to us - and we got him for free when he'd be worth at least £8m on the open market.

The fact he equates a wealthy owner to competing in the CL shows a) how much he missed the point and b) how clubs miss the point. The Champions League is a competition. Whatever you think about it in its current guise, it's still an elite competition that relies on a modicum of success. Chelsea are EXACTLY like Manchester City so any comparison with them is out. So that brings us to Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs of the qualifiers in the last few years. As much as I don't like Spurs, they have spent within their means and relied on consistent squad building and Levy's steadfastness in the transfer market to get where they are. And that's how it should be.

Liverpool, well...ha. If anyone wants to claim our owners had a hand in getting us into the CL, I'll rant for hours. Our only sustained appearances in the CL came as a result of having a man whose tactical knowledge had a squad play above its station in Europe. Whatever you want to say about the league and domestic cups, Rafa knew how to get us playing in Europe and it only came to a halt thanks to Hicks and Gillett relentlessly siphoning off money from the club. As much as I love Kenny, I doubt we'll get to that level any time soon.

Arsenal. Lack of cups aside, Arsenal are pretty much the poster boys for sustainable development. Yeah they had an awful week and last year was a similar situation with the Barca tie and the Carling Cup final but they make it every year and do reasonably well. Wenger had a stroke of luck selling Anelka for a huge amount at the time and reinvesting it in Henry, then making a similar mint off Overmars and Petit. Wenger, by and large, finds players for less than their worth to the Arsenal side. He spent time and effort on a youth project.

United. PLC, big spenders but money making machine. Spent shitloads upgrading and expanding their stadium, hosted the Champions League final in 2003 and Glazernomics aside have never really spent outside their means. A period of huge success plus TV money and CL money means they've always competed there or thereabouts at the top.

Which brings us to Manchester City. 2 Paul Dickov goals away from spending more than a season in the old Division 2 and that's in the last decade. Being given a brand new stadium for practically peanuts. Not one but two takeovers in the last 5 years. Have a similar turnover in managers as they do with players. The FA Cup was their first trophy in fuck knows how long and for an outlay of the economy of a small nation. If they don't win the league this year, it'd be an utter travesty.

As the FFP rules stand, Chelsea and City don't qualify. Which is an indication of how much they've spent outside their capabilities on transfer fees and wages. And if that's how you're attracting footballers, it's hardly a glowing recommendation of how you've levelled the playing field.

The argument about Wigan is a fallacy. They were formed after many clubs who were in the top flight and aren't any more, if they even exist. Nottingham Forest have two European Cups in their trophy cabinet, yet Wigan are in the top flight and they're not. Sheffield Wednesday were competing for honours in the early 90s, now they're competing to be the best club in Sheffield. Derby, Oldham, Leeds, there are so many examples of clubs who had an advantage over Wigan but aren't even in the top division. Ipswich and Sunderland both went up and challenged for Europe, they're not exactly shaming Wigan are they?

Sport has always been about getting the most out of finite resources. When resources are infinite, it just makes it shit for everyone. I would hate it if Liverpool Football Club had someone who bought all the players in one go and paid them a ridiculous amount to turn up. One of the best things about Istanbul was how we had a group of players - old and new - that we had an emotional connection with. You had Jerzy Dudek, a Polish goalkeeper we signed from Holland but ultimately ended up having strong affections for the club. Steve Finnan who was nearly shipped out for having an awful debut season but rebuilt himself as a model of consistency. Sami Hyypia, an utter legend who sobbed on the pitch when he played his last game for us after ten years of fine service. Jamie Carragher, up through the youth ranks and utterly dominant at the back that year after a difficult few seasons at full back. I could honestly go on. As dross as some of the players were in that squad, almost all of them had developed an affinity - Luis Garcia had only been there a season when we won but even after just 3 seasons with us he's still a massive Liverpool fan and still comes back to the city.

City and Chelsea just come across as a group of footballers who'd be playing elsewhere if someone matched their wages. At least at other clubs you can feel that some of the players are there because they genuinely love the club. And if it's not about emotions then there's really no point in doing any of this.

[Plissken]

The top clubs have arrived there by different methods.

United have spent big, and always spent big. They owe nearly £1bn, but that is a result of the Glazers lumping the debt used to buy the club back onto the club. The club itself actually makes a slight profit despite that debt mountain - its commercial revenues are so vast - third behind Real and Barca. So while it has big debts, it is actually on top of them.

Chelsea also owe nearly £1bn, but to Abramovich and not the banks. They've gone down the sugar daddy model, bought fast, bought big. They make a loss. This is the model City are following.

Arsenal are prudent. They make money, they invest. They had a board who weren't in it for the cash, invested wisely in the Emirates et al. Financially they are doing well, but this model was always susceptible to another club finding a sugar daddy, which is why they look vulnerable. Also with that board gradually selling up to Kroenke and that Russian (or somewhere Eastern European, I forget which) then it will be interesting to see what happens.

Liverpool have also gone down a mix of the sugar daddy model and the Glazer route. They've bought big, but neither big enough nor fast enough (nor well enough) to match Chelsea or City. Hicks and Gillette lumped the club with a debt mountain that Fenway have just about got them out of, but they don't have really deep pockets like City or Chelsea. So they are stuck in a sort of second tier no mans land. They should have a look at...

Spurs who seemed to have set themselves up over the past few years to take a run at fourth place, hoping to have one of the CL perennials have a bad season. This is paying off for them in spades this year. However, they haven't done it on a shoestring - but they know that Joe Lewis will subsidise them if need be.

TL, DR: Many ways to skin a cat, and to say the top clubs got there the same way is wrong.

[Guest]

I loved Garcia. Yeah so sometimes he lost possession, yet that didn't matter when he was scoring some amazing goals. He was always such a happy chappy too, it was gutting to see him leave.

The leaving letter he wrote was wonderful too, it really showed the love he had for the club and the city.

As far as Man U not being able to spend - in 2001 they paid £28.1m for Veron and £19m for RVN along with £7m out on Forlan.

2002 £30m for Ferdinand.

That's all over ten years ago, when there wasnt as much money in the game.

It wasn't fair then, others couldn't compete. Yet it seemed to be excepted and no one was complaining.

Well, not until 2003 when Chelsea spent a staggering £150m on players.

Suddenly they were buying the premier league! No one else could compete. It wasn't fair!

Some clubs have now ended up with more money, bigger backers. While this "isn't fair" that other clubs had already strengthened their position by being able to attract top talent - resulting in a stronger team, more wins, and bigger support - they then gain more money from this too...and can continue to attract better players.

This isn't fair on more lowly teams who can't hope to compete. If Wigan could match the wages of anyone in the world, players still wouldn't go to Wigan. That's not fair either.

The whole complaining thing is a ballsack if you ask me. Most notably because it seems to be the bigger teams who complain.

Arsenal, Man U fans primarily. How can they even say that they're hard done by? Constant runs in Europe and winning trophies over the last 10 years is not being hard done by. There are a lot of other fans who support their local teams and put up with all sorts of shit, and they don't complain half as much as these big clubs; who feel like they have a sense of entitlement. It's pathetic.

At this point I feel for Wenger. He's been a victim of his own success. Had he not have had such a strong side during the earlier part of his reign his "failures" right now would not be cast as darkly as they were. Sure, perhaps he would have been replaced sooner too, and yet he's been great for Arsenal and the Premier League.

People may criticise his transfer policy and the way he brings younger players through, yet he's given as some fantastic players that have grown and excited in both the premier league and beyond.

Regardless I'm waffling now. All this talk is just horseshit. Football clubs are businesses and some are better backed than others. Just support your club and stop looking over the fence into the other garden. You should be tending to your own lawn.

[redbloodcell]

Spurs haven't been shy of buying at a good price, but our wage structure is incredibly strict to compensate.

[Stig]

I think the biggest difference is that it seems United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs spent years building up the clubs and earning the money and fanbase where as City and Chelsea have just been bought by Billionaires who don't blink twice at spending £150-£200m a year, not to mention the mental wages.

I understand the likes of United and Liverpool have rich owners but they see it more of a business (spend money to make money) where as Chelseas owner seemingly only wants the Champions League. Proven by the fact he sacked a double winning manager.

[Dudley]

Meanwhile over in Crawley Stoke are down to 10 after Delap forgot that going in studs up is probably a bad idea.

[Gambit]

I Wish Delap would just retire.

Waste of fucking space.