Wums

[MarkoLUFC]

So why the rant about how the gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs is so large?

That's got nothing to do with us.

*facepalm* are you incapable of making connections between related information?

The gap is increasing and the sugar daddys aren't helping that. Only clubs lucky enough to get one for whatever reason are privileged enough to go toe to toe with the bigger teams. You're not closing the gap you're just joining the elitism.

 

[Emilio_Ivanhoe_Heskeynho]

*facepalm* are you incapable of making connections between related information?

The gap is increasing and the sugar daddys aren't helping that. Only clubs lucky enough to get one for whatever reason are privileged enough to go toe to toe with the bigger teams. You're not closing the gap you're just joining the elitism.

The gap has nothing to do with benefactors, it's do do with money yes, but the money isn't coming from outside sources, it's being built up by the constant success of the big clubs.

So I ask you again, what has the gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs got to do with us?

If anything, our money will help us close that gap, similarly to Manchester City.

 

[Proud Fox]

The money is coming out the owners pockets and they are part of the club. They are getting their money from King Power which is worth an estimated 3 Billion US dollars and Vichai Raksriaksorns own personal wealth is an estimated 140M US dollars

 

[MarkoLUFC]

The gap has nothing to do with benefactors, it's do do with money yes, but the money isn't coming from outside sources, it's being built up by the constant success of the big clubs.

So I ask you again, what has the gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs got to do with us?

If anything, our money will help us close that gap, similarly to Manchester City.

The gap was created by Sky and the Premier League, and exacerbated by the Champion's League. I can't believe you're stupid enough to believe that rich benefactors are not going to make the situation worse - only certain clubs are lucky enough to get into that situation. It's simply pulling you up to the top rather than reducing the angle of the ascent. If it were to help close the gap, you're implying that every club in the premier league would have a rich benefactor... so what about all the clubs outside the premier league? Expecting them to all get rich benefactors as well? Where does it end? Yes, more clubs can compete as a result, but there will always be a line drawn. A line somewhere that clubs cannot pass and successfully compete unless someone rich and bored decides "I'm going to take them to the top".

Every club in the PL gets a rich benefactor, why bother with promotion? Any team coming up won't be able to compete, any team coming down will be practically guaranteed to go back up. So every club in the Championship gets one, then what about League One? They can no longer compete. So League One gets rich benefactors... League Two?

Clubs will always have their maximum levels, yes. But this ridiculous practice will draw the line and not allow those clubs to cross it and compete at their maximum levels.

 

[Pull Your Fox Up]

Oh i do hope some rich benefactor attempts to purchase Leeds from that idiot Ken Bates.

Judging by this thread the Leeds fans will be in uproar demanding that Ken refuses to sell and instead spend the clubs income on a new hospitality sweet! Afterall the Leeds fans are the corner stone of the English game

 

[MarkoLUFC]

Oh i do hope some rich benefactor attempts to purchase Leeds from that idiot Ken Bates.

Judging by this thread the Leeds fans will be in uproar demanding that Ken refuses to sell and instead spend the clubs income on a new hospitality sweet! Afterall the Leeds fans are the corner stone of the English game

Out of the hypocracy of my heart, I will admit I'd be excited at first. But that would soon fade when I was overwhelmed with a feeling of "what's the point? It's not really competing properly". When a rich benefactor gets involved, it suddenly becomes their club, not yours. I can't believe you're so soulless that you can't feel hollow on that basis. I know I would because I always do when I feel I haven't earnt something.

 

[Monster-Leeds - I-Ate-A-Bee]

You lot stick to keepers more your standard like Paul Rachubka and Andy Lonergan.

Schmeichel is a quality keeper but any keeper would look poor with the defence you have.

"YOU WHAT" you have spent a reported 8 mill on 3 centre backs and 2 full backs and yet you seem to have conceded 2 less than us. Your right he's class its just the back four he cant work with! IDIOT

 

[Proud Fox]

"YOU WHAT" you have spent a reported 8 mill on 3 centre backs and 2 full backs and yet you seem to have conceded 2 less than us. Your right he's class its just the back four he cant work with! IDIOT

Where are you getting 8M from

Mills cost 4M, Bamba 250K and St. Ledger 1.2M, Peltier 750K and Konchesky 500K

Do the maths

 

[MarkoLUFC]

Where are you getting 8M from

Mills cost 4M, Bamba 250K and St. Ledger 1.2M, Peltier 750K and Konchesky 500K

Do the maths

6.7 million. It's still a lot of money to be spending on a defense that is barely better than ours.

 

[Monster-Leeds - I-Ate-A-Bee]

Where are you getting 8M from

Mills cost 4M, Bamba 250K and St. Ledger 1.2M, Peltier 750K and Konchesky 500K

Do the maths

Mills cost you 5 mill with add on's rising to 5.5 mill - Peltier cost you 750k rising to 1 mill based on apps - St Ledger is correct and Konchesky and Bamba were both disclosed. But Konchesky didnt go for anywhere near 500k.

But seriously if your claiming our defence is ****, then i suggest you take a look at the goals against Leicester within the championship league table. Because, Southampton, West Ham, Boro, Palace, Hull, Birmingham, Brighton, Derby, Reading.

Have better defences than us!

 

[originallambrettaman]

According to the BBC, Sky, Wiki and every other site, Mills was £5m(possibly rising to £5.5m with add-ons) and Konchesky was £1.5m, which just about gives you your £8m.

 

[MarkoLUFC]

According to the BBC, Sky, Wiki and every other site, Mills was £5m(possibly rising to £5.5m with add-ons) and Konchesky was £1.5m, which just about gives you your £8m.

Recent reports suggest the total transfer fees including loan fees and addons and that was 20 mill.

 

[Monster-Leeds - I-Ate-A-Bee]

6.7 million. It's still a lot of money to be spending on a defense that is barely better than ours.

Exactly my point! And the only real reason why leicester havnt taken off yet, is because they have no width, and dont have a decent defensive holding Midfielder. Thats why i believe we will finish above them. Yes our defence needs sureing up but weve 2 cracking youth players who are outstanding and will go along way in the game!

 

[originallambrettaman]

Our defence, which had the best record in the league until we lost last night(I believe we're now second) cost £1.4m and ironically, most of that was to Leicester for Jack Hobbs(£800k) and he's the weakest of the four.

 

[Monster-Leeds - I-Ate-A-Bee]

According to the BBC, Sky, Wiki and every other site, Mills was £5m(possibly rising to £5.5m with add-ons) and Konchesky was £1.5m, which just about gives you your £8m.

Spot on fella

 

[Monster-Leeds - I-Ate-A-Bee]

Our defence, which had the best record in the league until we lost last night(I believe we're now second) cost £1.4m and ironically, most of that was to Leicester for Jack Hobbs(£800k) and he's the weakest of the four.

Its only like us when we took paddy off them. That season in league 1 and the win at O.T was all down to his leadership. Had a great 2nd half on sunday, so hopefully he might have a solid game 2nite against blackpool

 

[Emilio_Ivanhoe_Heskeynho]

The gap was created by Sky and the Premier League, and exacerbated by the Champion's League. I can't believe you're stupid enough to believe that rich benefactors are not going to make the situation worse - only certain clubs are lucky enough to get into that situation. It's simply pulling you up to the top rather than reducing the angle of the ascent. If it were to help close the gap, you're implying that every club in the premier league would have a rich benefactor... so what about all the clubs outside the premier league? Expecting them to all get rich benefactors as well? Where does it end? Yes, more clubs can compete as a result, but there will always be a line drawn. A line somewhere that clubs cannot pass and successfully compete unless someone rich and bored decides "I'm going to take them to the top".

Every club in the PL gets a rich benefactor, why bother with promotion? Any team coming up won't be able to compete, any team coming down will be practically guaranteed to go back up. So every club in the Championship gets one, then what about League One? They can no longer compete. So League One gets rich benefactors... League Two?

Clubs will always have their maximum levels, yes. But this ridiculous practice will draw the line and not allow those clubs to cross it and compete at their maximum levels.

I have never read so much ****. You're contribution to this thread is to post nonsense so that you feel that you and your club is morally superior.

The gap was NOT created by the Premier League and Sky and exacerbated by the Champions League, it was exacerbated by Sky, The Premier League and the Champions League.

Some clubs will never, ever close the gap, whether we had Sky, the Premier League or the Champions League, or none of the above. You have a delusion that if these things didn't exist that there would bea level playing field or that smaller clubs would have a chance of competing with the big boys.

The money in the game has been generated by it's popularity and in time the gap between the big and small clubs will inevitably get bigger and bigger. Whilst Sky and the Premier League and the Champions League have made it worse quicker, the gap will have continued to get bigger regardless. This is merely the effect of time. it's the same in any sport.

If players don't go to clubs for the money they'll go to the biggest club they can or the club who is currently the most successful. That is just the way things are, we cannot change that mentality. Therefore the big clubs will always get stronger and the smaller ones will find it harder to compete.

You still haven't answered my question though - how does us having rich benefactors contribute to this gap? It helps us close the gap but it doesn't make the gap any bigger.

 

[Emilio_Ivanhoe_Heskeynho]

Out of the hypocracy of my heart, I will admit I'd be excited at first. But that would soon fade when I was overwhelmed with a feeling of "what's the point? It's not really competing properly". When a rich benefactor gets involved, it suddenly becomes their club, not yours. I can't believe you're so soulless that you can't feel hollow on that basis. I know I would because I always do when I feel I haven't earnt something.

It's not any more Top's club than yours is Ken Bates', or Man Utd's is the Glazers, or West Ham's is Sullivan and Gold's, or Barnet's is to whoever owns them.

Our owner is richer than a lot of others', that's the only difference, and I won't feel any diminished sense of achievement if we go up, because I'll know that we needed a good manager to do it anyway.

 

[MarkoLUFC]

I have never read so much ****. You're contribution to this thread is to post nonsense so that you feel that you and your club is morally superior.

The gap was NOT created by the Premier League and Sky and exacerbated by the Champions League, it was exacerbated by Sky, The Premier League and the Champions League.

Some clubs will never, ever close the gap, whether we had Sky, the Premier League or the Champions League, or none of the above. You have a delusion that if these things didn't exist that there would bea level playing field or that smaller clubs would have a chance of competing with the big boys.

The money in the game has been generated by it's popularity and in time the gap between the big and small clubs will inevitably get bigger and bigger. Whilst Sky and the Premier League and the Champions League have made it worse quicker, the gap will have continued to get bigger regardless. This is merely the effect of time. it's the same in any sport.

If players don't go to clubs for the money they'll go to the biggest club they can or the club who is currently the most successful. That is just the way things are, we cannot change that mentality. Therefore the big clubs will always get stronger and the smaller ones will find it harder to compete.

You still haven't answered my question though - how does us having rich benefactors contribute to this gap? It helps us close the gap but it doesn't make the gap any bigger.

Oh my god I don't believe I've ever met anyone as stupid as you. Of course money plays a part, just it didn't play a big enough part pre-Premier League to have that much of an impact. Yes, there were still big clubs and small clubs and clubs that were never going to win the League and clubs that would always have a presence, but not to the extent that it exists now.

The wider the gap gets, the less range each club will have to compete in. This is when it gets boring, and the league might as well be arranged by club size and not bother playing any games.

A rich owner closes the gap for YOU, but widens it for every other club that doesn't have a rich owner, hence making the problem worse. But you can't see that because you're so short sighted and self involved. A common problem with your fans.

 

[Emilio_Ivanhoe_Heskeynho]

Exactly my point! And the only real reason why leicester havnt taken off yet, is because they have no width, and dont have a decent defensive holding Midfielder. Thats why i believe we will finish above them. Yes our defence needs sureing up but weve 2 cracking youth players who are outstanding and will go along way in the game!

It's true we have no width, and that's something we need to sort in January. Until then if we can play like we did last night we can manage without it until then.

But we have a holding midfielder.