"Oh dear indeed, more intellectual ineptitude," Should this article be renamed "The idiocy/ignorance of Spanners" ?? What does Miggins think about the Newham gamble (the loan given for a speculative 35% of any stadium naming rights money offered in the future) ?? How much will Newham eventually receive, and when ??
James Tomkins: [video=youtube;WYsHh0R_RmI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYsHh0R_RmI[/video] Oh dear.
West Ham fans have always made me laugh. I guess it is because without us they only have Orient to compare themselves to locally - and even I admit WH are a bit better than them (no offence meant Orient) There are only 3 decent London clubs Ars*n*l, Ch*lski and Spurs. Wham fit in with Fulham and perhaps QPR as clubs that bounce around the top two tiers pretending they are not so bad occasionally but mostly proving that they are. For statistics look at the Premiership history. Total points earned since it started in 1992/3. Man U = 1755; Ars =1522; Chelski = 1477; Liverpool = 1392 and fifth are Spurs with 1158. West Ham don't make the top 10 I am happy to be in the top 5 English clubs and reckon that makes us a pretty big club. Oh by the way Man City are only on 862 points as they spent five years outside the Premiership in the days before they became a billionaires playground
To be fair they were the second best club in London in the 60s and had been roughly equivalent to Chelsea up to the 90s.
West Ham were extremely similar to Chelsea until Matthew Harding's injection of cash and Ken Bates' attempt to bankrupt them. They'd even won the same number of trophies.
I was pointing out that the supporters of the clubs mentioned all think their club is the best in the world. That is the nature of being a football fan Miggins. I imagine it even echos around the half empty discount ticketed terraces at the Boleyn. Our rivals are pretty clear. We've finished within a handful of points of them for the past few seasons especially in the case of Arsenal (our real rivals.) We have not been out of the top tier for 35 years even then only spending a season in the 2nd. As for your team? Being beaten by you is like being beaten by Stoke or Hull, unpleasant but nothing like being beaten by Arsenal. I am sure you don't want to hear it, but you are just not on the list of must see games we look for when the fixture lists come out. If you don't like that, or the opinions we hold on your club over here, maybe you should get back to your own board. Or is that empty too?
Don't know why muggins,er Miggins is arguing ,the fact is Spurs are,and have alway's been better than West Ham,end of argument!!!!
Not sure how you make that out - apart from some good players in 1966 Points totals forthe seasons 1959/60 to 1969/70 inclusive are: Spurs 504 Arsenal 441 Chelsea 419 (despite a relegation and one season in the second division) West Ham 395 Spurs finished above West Ham 11 times; Arsenal 8 and Chelsea 8 West Ham played attractive but not very successful football
Quite aside from AVB's merits or lack of them, the popularity of the "spent 100 million" line kills me. Nevertheless, one more time: Net spend = 0 = neutral (though really a slight to significant negative considering other top clubs spent millions) Turnover of club = massive = big negative AVB fell victim to some extent to the "spent 100 million" phrase, despite it not reflecting reality in any meaningful way. Saying there was massive turnover doesn't quite do justice to the fact that AVB had his key player yanked away from him at the last possible moment 2/2 years (Moutinho, Bale). Having said all that, a too-cautious style, and a series of lopsided losses could have and did turn many reasonable fans against AVB.
Good point - we are one point better off than last year and two points better from games against the same teams - not usually a sacking pedigree - but 5-0 and 6-0 humiliations and worse still 3-0 at home to West Ham of all rubbish..........
Me, too. I look at it in even simpler terms. Bale, and the other players we sold, were worth £100 million to the club, and when we let them go we replaced with another £100 million worth of players. Therefore, net lost/gain = £0. This whole "Spurs spent £100 million" bollocks is only ever bandied about by a certain Spurs-obsessed Gooner and other assorted wums, as a stick with which to keep beating their wum-drum.
Same goes for the "Spurs paid £30m for Lamela" line. We didn't - Soldado is our club record signing, Lamela won't cost us £30m until the add-ons come into effect, which will be next season at the earliest (and most likely a couple of seasons from now)
"Nevertheless, one more time:" NET spend : a measure of a club balancing its books. GROSS spend : a measure of the anticipated/expected ability/talent of players. Whether we have 100m odd of new talent, that is collectively at least as good as the outgoings, is up for debate. The fact it cost the club nothing in net transfer fees is the bottom line benefit.
Sorry Miggins, but what would be the point in taking the piss out of West Ham at the moment? We're not going to say anything that your own fans aren't already saying, bar the odd laugh.
