You've already been more than supplied with them. However,you choose to ignore that, and still repeat the same old excuses.
You really are upset, must be awful for you not only are you slipping down the London rankings but along come City with a new stadium, bigger crowds and winning things, I feel your pain! in the meantime start getting your stats ready for QPR, once they see through Hughes and get a decent manager I think you are going to need them, then you have the Hammers with a new stadium, Fulham playing some good football, a picture is emerging that's not good for you, but on the bright side in 22years when it is 26-27 you will be able to say to your grandchildren we were once beating them 26-5!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to carry on this debate - but I've decided to leave it. I don't know why I get sucked into his sort of stuff TBH, anyway, I'm leaving it now, because it's just not worth it. EDIT I see DL has quoted what I wrote, but as I say I regret writing it now, because it's all so pointless. anyway, that's it for me on this subject. I retract all that I've written on this subject, City and Chelsea have never been in Spurs shadow, they always been on about our level, whatever makes people happy. I just get so wound up about things that don't actually matter, I don't know why I do it. Just stupidity on my part I'm afraid.
Chelsea and City were never in your shadow at all In United and Arsenals? Yes Everton and Liverpool? Yes. I don't think we lost a game against Spurs from about 1990 to 2006. 19 years unbeaten at your ground and 22 years and counting since defeat at SB. You can only really be in the shadow of a club that has endured significantly more success than you in which case Arsenal were winning league titles, nearly always beating us. United the same minus the latter. Being more successful doesn't necessarily make you bigger, when Liverpool were winning everything in sight people still considered United to be the bigger club and rightly. Nobody would consider Villa a bigger club than Everton or City or even Spurs
Be fair, i think most people over the last 30 years would consider Spurs to be a bigger club than City, the only difference now is spending power not world wide fame or support.
I think this should settle any argument about City getting within FFP regs anytime soon. http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2012/09/15/3376783/-
Domestically Spurs are a huge club with a solid fanbase. At a rough estimate I believe outside the old "Sky 4", Spurs are easily in the top 3 best supported clubs in the country. My only contradiction to GHoddle10's claim is that City nor Chelsea were in their shadow. To be in the shadow of a team is to see a team consistently win trophy after trophy whilst you flounder in mediocrity. Right now Spurs are not in Arsenal's shadow, Everton are not in Liverpool's shadow, City are not in United's shadow no matter what fans of the latter say. From 1985-2000 Chelsea won 2 FA Cups, Spurs won 1 Carling Cup. In that 15 year period I'd hardly say we lived in your shadow albeit you were a better team than us for half of it and more established. GHoddle10 (rightly IMO) believes Chelsea had a better season than Spurs because we won 2 trophies that's why I find his argument City were in their shadow a bit strange.
I didn't say we did, currently renting to see how things pan out but will probably need something bigger! how's your Olympic stadium bid doing?
8 million years of evolution and what do we get; My clubs bigger than yours! 2 million years ago the first man with a club bopped the other one over the head with it. Then we evolved?
