Match Day Thread 2017/18 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnsonsbaby said:
I agree they are different. I thought Klopp's Manschaft was more upset about the buying success factor, which is exactly what city have done.
Click to expand...

All teams at some point have bought success. It’s just that football inflation make it look like City and Chelsea are the ones to have done it.
 
johnsonsbaby said:
I think if Silva doesn't perform as they hope he will, he will be gone by next season or before depending on just how badly he does perform. On the other hand if he does very well, he will be gone next season as another 'bigger' club turns his head. I'd be worried if I was a blue - it looks like lose/lose.
Click to expand...
agreed
i was quite impressed with Silva but thought his behaviour at Watford was seriously iffy after all it was only Everton FFS :bandit:.
The only slight mitigating factor is that Watford don't exactly earn loyalty with their turnover of managers & players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
Solid_Air 2 said:
agreed
i was quite impressed with Silva but thought his behaviour at Watford was seriously iffy after all it was only Everton FFS :bandit:.
The only slight mitigating factor is that Watford don't exactly earn loyalty with their turnover of managers & players.
Click to expand...

That’s my concern, he downed tools at the first sign and f interest from Everton. But he was only contracted to the end and f the season so could see why he would have wanted the possibility of some job security
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby and Solid Air
PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said:
All teams at some point have bought success. It’s just that football inflation make it look like City and Chelsea are the ones to have done it.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right it takes money to win things [Leicester excepted] I think the difference in this particular argument is that both those teams came from nowhere and won almost instantly once the money landed there was no steady build up like with other teams.
 
johnsonsbaby said:
I think if Silva doesn't perform as they hope he will, he will be gone by next season or before depending on just how badly he does perform. On the other hand if he does very well, he will be gone next season as another 'bigger' club turns his head. I'd be worried if I was a blue - it looks like lose/lose.
Click to expand...

No ‘bigger’ club in for him now except Everton.
 
at hull his team were great at home. especially as a **** team in relegation trouble. They were mean defensively... at home

They still got relegated.

at Watford... his team was big and strong and good attacking but **** at the back... then he ****ed off.

overall I am not all that impressed but think he could make goodison a fortress.
 
PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said:
That’s my concern, he downed tools at the first sign and f interest from Everton. But he was only contracted to the end and f the season so could see why he would have wanted the possibility of some job security
Click to expand...
You have a quiet word with the club tapping you up and say wait till the end of the season and we'll have a serious discussion. You then give your very best at the club you are currently contracted to. Very poor behaviour from him and Moshiri actually for instigating it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
johnsonsbaby said:
Yes you're right it takes money to win things [Leicester excepted] I think the difference in this particular argument is that both those teams came from nowhere and won almost instantly once the money landed there was no steady build up like with other teams.
Click to expand...

Chelsea is not a City, Chelsea were winning with the Bates/Harding development.

96/97 and 97/98 they won FA the league cup? Then the RA cash pushed that quickly forward. City had nothing noteable, until the cash came in.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
at hull his team were great at home. especially as a **** team in relegation trouble. They were mean defensively... at home

They still got relegated.

at Watford... his team was big and strong and good attacking but **** at the back... then he ****ed off.

overall I am not all that impressed but think he could make goodison a fortress.
Click to expand...
According to tobes over recent years - last incumbent apart - it already is.
 
johnsonsbaby said:
You have a quiet word with the club tapping you up and say wait till the end of the season and we'll have a serious discussion. You then give your very best at the club you are currently contracted to. Very poor behaviour from him and Moshiri actually for instigating it.
Click to expand...

It’s just the same as what players do, Lukaku, VVD.....
 
johnsonsbaby said:
Yes you're right it takes money to win things [Leicester excepted] I think the difference in this particular argument is that both those teams came from nowhere and won almost instantly once the money landed there was no steady build up like with other teams.
Click to expand...

have to disagree, ours was pretty quick (i guess unprecedented amount of money). For City it took them far longer to build it up as they couldn't really buy stars even though they were loaded. They took over in 08/09 and it took them 4 years to win the league which whilst pretty short is a pretty long time for a club with unlimited money.
 
there's a big difference between manager and players.

a manager has to build and drive improvement.

players just have to turn up and buy into the ethos

if a manager has one eye on the door... well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
BobbyD said:
have to disagree, ours was pretty quick (i guess unprecedented amount of money). For City it took them far longer to build it up as they couldn't really buy stars even though they were loaded. They took over in 08/09 and it took them 4 years to win the league which whilst pretty short is a pretty long time for a club with unlimited money.
Click to expand...

imo when Chelsea had been going for years with the viallis and gullits of this world with a number of fa cups and a cup.winners cup... and were 2nd under Ranieri... I couldn't call chelsea's first title as a shock or fast.

the luck was that you were bust and Bates got a buyer.

city with respect to them, really looked stupid under the thai lad buying all and sundry and then rebuilt the team 3 times. it was chaos and frankly until pep arrive they were a group of rich individuals not a team.

now they are a team
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peej and BobbyD
johnsonsbaby said:
Yes you're right it takes money to win things [Leicester excepted] I think the difference in this particular argument is that both those teams came from nowhere and won almost instantly once the money landed there was no steady build up like with other teams.
Click to expand...
That's basically my gripe.
Cannot abide clubs who launched themselves 10 steps forward through overspending and financial support from outside sources. I detest City and Chelsea for that reason, although I do concede that at least City fans backed their team through the low points and no doubt will continue so when the money dries up in the future <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back