Because it didn't involve us. Ron also moaned about ManU, but we didn't concentrate on that because Mane knuckled down. I think it comes back to our previous with Spurs (even before Poch)...our views of them are merely reinforced by subsequent actions. Our attitude to Liverpool is the new one...only happened since they starting rebuilding themselves into a pale copy of Saints.
Is this because Spurs seems to do this in the full glare of the press while others maybe far worse and do it underhand? Still think Chelsea are far worse than Tottenham re their fans and mind-numbingly boring football.
I suppose one reason why I respect Spurs is because years ago, I went to WHL to see Saints play in a League Cup tie. It could have been 1968. I was on a half term break from my boarding school and staying with my cousins in Luton. I travelled down to the game and queued to get on to the Shelf. A guy offered me a ticket for 12 shillings. I declined. A few moments later he came back and offered it for free. I was high up in the seats above the Shelf yelling my head off for the Saints. Nobody batted an eyelid. Saw the guy at the end of the game with a happy smile. I wasn't so happy but saw in that Saints performance that they would more than survive that year in the then First Division.
I don't like Chelsea because of Mourinho (who has lost his amusement factor for me), but they don't really affect me in my red and white striped mode. They have left us alone and even sold us a couple of good players....due to their strange policy of vacuuming up players.
And, to be fair to Utd, they were told 'no' by us, & then didn't follow it up with countless leaks. Spurs on the other hand.........
To be honest I am not sure what the heck went on there........Wasn't it Everton that made the enquiry from Chelsea public? Didn't they reply publicly that Stones wasn't for Sale without actually saying who the enquirer was? Im guessing the media and his agent then jumped onto the bandwagon trying to force it through.
Man Utd - dignified negotiators Arsenal - as above, a more studied approach but will pay the right price for players they actually want Chelsea - same as Arsenal but more prone to a spot of tapping up Liverpool - same as Chelsea but need to tap up due to lack of recent pedigree Spurs - the anomaly. Carving out a reputation for themselves which big clubs, as above, really don't want to have. All they're doing is alienating clubs like Southampton and WBA from entering into negotiations with them. Really cutting their nose to spite their collective faces.
Chelsea offered fair money for Stones. Tottenham use their underhand approach to try and back clubs into selling unhappy players for under their true value
It's not a strange policy, it's how they handle Financial Fair Play. Sign loads of young players relatively cheaply then loan them out, collecting sometimes substantial loan fees (supposedly Roma paid a £3.5m loan fee for Salah this summer), and hopefully sell them on at a profit. Selling on the likes of Bertrand, De Bruyne, Romeu, Thorgen Hazard, Kakuta etc has very little effect on their first team and brings in a fair chunk of money each summer to help them fund bigger signings.
Yeah you can slate it for whatever reason and that but you can't argue it's not clever, they have their model and it works for them, they buy loads of young talent, sell most for profit and also get the pick of the best for themselves.
Oh yeah I agree with that wholeheartedly, sorry if that wasn't clear I was just following up from Puck saying it's their policy to deal with FFP and was just making the point that they've got their model and it works well for them.
There should be a limited amount of loan deals every club can make in a single season, just to put a stop on hoarding talent. I don't mean a huge restriction, but 36 player on loan, that's way over the top.
This was my thought/hope. But then I remembered money talks. I guess we're all being a little naive applying moral criteria to a multi billion pound industry with rules made up by it's richest members. But at least we've got Sepp Blatter at the top to keep everything nice and clean.
Fair enough with American football, but are you saying women's football isn't proper football? It's a bloody fantastic thing #BritishRedcoats #SuperBowlChampions2022
Bad choice of words, perhaps. It's the same as men's football in term of game rules and such, but still different, lot less quality and intensity. A bit like comparing sunday league to Premier league.
Not Sunday League, more like Conference South/North imo, I've been to many women's games which have had a better quality of play than the Conference South. At least women's teams generally try to keep it on the ground. But why would you compare the two anyway? One's full of money, amazing facilities, top-notch training methods using the latest science and full-time players, and one isn't. It's like comparing Apples and Bananas, they're both fruit, but they're both different.
That and the fact that it will actually be in Tottenham, despite the club's best efforts to turn it's back on one of North London's most run down communities.
Wrong on all counts I'm afraid Ides, including singing Orange anthem "The Sash" on The Shelf back in the day. Spurs have always had a pretty unsavoury element in their support mate, and still do. Although they probably shouldn't be judged on that, anymore than Chelsea should. Or that lot at the wrong end of the M27
