malkie
Well-Known Member
Redknapp = Ass hat: One who has their head up their ass. Thus wearing their ass as a hat. Ass hat
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Redknapp is a disgrace
- Thread starter Graceyboy
- Start date
TCIB
Well-Known Member
FCBarca said:BlueSiam said:bluemanc1994 said:He is right in what he's saying though, if we do only win the League Cup this year, it is a failure. We are so much better than just that for show, messing up on Sunday, and in the PL away games at the start of the season has really cost us.
I don't think you can simply categorize it as PASS/FAIL. New Manager, learning experience, etc. We have been in 4 Competitions, which takes its toll. Wigan was a f*** up, there's no getting away from that. But, although we may end up winning only one trophy, categorizing the season as a failure because of that is short term thinking. I don't believe our owners can be accused of that.
We are a step further up the ladder. We have seen the potential of this team and in my personal opinion it is a step above where Mancini could have taken us. One top central defender could have made a huge difference and we all know it. That will get sorted in the summer. this project is ongoing and there is much, much more to come.
Perhaps but you can't really slate a pundit from concluding the season will be a failure if the Capital One Cup is the only trophy to be won after the money spent on the team...That's not really going out on a limb, to be fair
He's a terrible pundit, in general, however...Never quite understood why he is on air as much as he is but nepotism and a look that works well for TV plays a large part in it
I thought his general lack of knowledge, especially about the players was poor...Implying that Barcelona were unfamiliar with Yaya's attacking midfield prowess suggests he never saw Touré play much...Same goes regarding him overhyping the battle of Sergio/Negredo against our back line...I mean, most of your team are former La Liga players who have played often against Barcelona...There were few surprises in that regard so hard to conclude there was trepidation on anyone's part...He covered the match like he had no background info on either club or it's players and so it's a massive fail for that alone
Hi bud,
Just wanted to say your posts are well reasoned from what i have seen, nice to have you on the forum :)
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
2 points 1) in Reference to the constant mention of City and "Money" 2) cost of Tickets
In regard to the constant mention of City and Money in the media. It does get a little tiring. I was listening to City v Wigan on radio Manchester and the Wigan commentator Paul Rowley said on several occasions about the cost of Wigans whole team being only a few million, versus for example the cost of Citys' 3 substitutes that were used ( over £ 77million).
Chelsea, Utd etc never seem to get this.
Did Utd not spend £ 34 million recently on Mata, £ 27 million on Fellaini in the Summer and of course have spent vast amounts on Van Persie, Rooney, Ferdinand, Veron, Berbabtov, Ferdinand, Anderson, Nani, Valencia, Young, etc over the last 10 years, but during that time did commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Utd were on TV on the radio or in the press or say Utd have bought titles ? No
Did Chelsea not spend big on Matic, Zouma, Saleh etc in January even though the recouped some from the Mata sale.The same Chelsea who in the last decade bought Shevchenko, Torres, etc and many others at a hefty price, but during that time did commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Chelsea are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Chelsea have bought titles ? No
Did Real Madrid not this summer spend over £ 85 million on Bale and before that vast amounts on Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema, Modric to name a few ? but do commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Real are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Real have bought titles ? No
Did Barcelona not this summer spend well over £ 50 million on Neymar ? but do commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Barcelona are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Barca have bought titles ? No
Thus there is some bias present at least.
Often this bias gets reasoned in that clubs like Utd, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid etc have "earned" their money, but if you think of it, the only income clubs "earn£ as such is what they take on match days (tickets, programme sales, food sales etc) and sales of club merchandise (shirts etc.), and maybe some extra activities clubs have i.e. ground use for pop concerts, corporate events etc. Overall this is now a relatively small proportion of a clubs overall income as the main income is from TV rights\deals, sponsorship deals etc and this type of income cannot be said to be "earned" surely.
What is the difference between a company (like Nike, Adidas, Puma etc.) giving money to a club via a sponsorship deal compared to an individual like Sheikh Mansour giving money to City. None of it is earned, its given to a club. Thus this idea from other supporters of other clubs of "earning money" is nonsense really.
Urd have a £ 600 miillion 10 year deal with Nike just announced.
Arsenal a £ 30 million per year deal with Puma
Bayern £ 23.6 million per year shirt deal with Deutsche Telekom and vast amounts from Audi and adidas
Real Madrid are ffectovely state funded in Spain.
Barcelona and Real get 90% off the total TV money in Spain.
How is any of that money earned ? Its basically a gift from a company.
It would be an interesting exercise if someone actually took the time and found out just from
tickets sales, other matchday sales (programmes , foodd and beverages etc.) and merchandise sales what each club actually "earns" and how that compares with City. Then we could all accept what clubs actually earn thier money to spend as they wish.
Undoubtedly Arsenal, Utd, Bayern etc, earn more than City on matchdays because of their current higher stadium capacity (City may close this gap with the stadium expansion), but also in Arsenals' case they charge a great deal more for their tickets, thus ripping off supporters (so would some clubs earn more sImply by being better at fleecing supporters ?) .
It is said tickets in Germany are cheap, but is this not mostly because they have standing areas which are cheaper ? and it would be interesting to see what the general variation in cost is at German Clubs when thinking only of seating and comparing that with a club like City. i.e. how would the lowest cost of a seat at Bayern compare with the lowest at City, and similarly the middle range cost of seats and the upper range cost of seats ? One thing the new Sky and BT deal for the Premier league could have done was give the new deal to the clubs but put a clause in saying that each club has to have say at least say 15% of its seats\tickets for each match fixed at a maximum price for the length of deal (maybe working out at £ 10 - £ 15 per game max.). This would have helped drive costs down for supporters.
In the end to have a true even playing field for all clubs (because FFP does not provide this, it simply would allow the traditionally big clubs to stay on top via such as having higher "deals" with companies) and eliminate this talk of money and buying success we would need 2 things:
1) a player salary cap set by Ueafa across Europe (and adjusted to take into account tax variations)
2) a maximum transfer fee introduced and set by Ueafa across Europe for all player transfers (or all transfer fees sorted by an independent Ueafa tribunal team with no appeals allowed)
Neither of which will ever happen of course
In regard to the constant mention of City and Money in the media. It does get a little tiring. I was listening to City v Wigan on radio Manchester and the Wigan commentator Paul Rowley said on several occasions about the cost of Wigans whole team being only a few million, versus for example the cost of Citys' 3 substitutes that were used ( over £ 77million).
Chelsea, Utd etc never seem to get this.
Did Utd not spend £ 34 million recently on Mata, £ 27 million on Fellaini in the Summer and of course have spent vast amounts on Van Persie, Rooney, Ferdinand, Veron, Berbabtov, Ferdinand, Anderson, Nani, Valencia, Young, etc over the last 10 years, but during that time did commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Utd were on TV on the radio or in the press or say Utd have bought titles ? No
Did Chelsea not spend big on Matic, Zouma, Saleh etc in January even though the recouped some from the Mata sale.The same Chelsea who in the last decade bought Shevchenko, Torres, etc and many others at a hefty price, but during that time did commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Chelsea are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Chelsea have bought titles ? No
Did Real Madrid not this summer spend over £ 85 million on Bale and before that vast amounts on Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema, Modric to name a few ? but do commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Real are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Real have bought titles ? No
Did Barcelona not this summer spend well over £ 50 million on Neymar ? but do commentators\pundits\the media constantly refer to a players cost each time Barcelona are on TV on the radio or in the press or say Barca have bought titles ? No
Thus there is some bias present at least.
Often this bias gets reasoned in that clubs like Utd, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid etc have "earned" their money, but if you think of it, the only income clubs "earn£ as such is what they take on match days (tickets, programme sales, food sales etc) and sales of club merchandise (shirts etc.), and maybe some extra activities clubs have i.e. ground use for pop concerts, corporate events etc. Overall this is now a relatively small proportion of a clubs overall income as the main income is from TV rights\deals, sponsorship deals etc and this type of income cannot be said to be "earned" surely.
What is the difference between a company (like Nike, Adidas, Puma etc.) giving money to a club via a sponsorship deal compared to an individual like Sheikh Mansour giving money to City. None of it is earned, its given to a club. Thus this idea from other supporters of other clubs of "earning money" is nonsense really.
Urd have a £ 600 miillion 10 year deal with Nike just announced.
Arsenal a £ 30 million per year deal with Puma
Bayern £ 23.6 million per year shirt deal with Deutsche Telekom and vast amounts from Audi and adidas
Real Madrid are ffectovely state funded in Spain.
Barcelona and Real get 90% off the total TV money in Spain.
How is any of that money earned ? Its basically a gift from a company.
It would be an interesting exercise if someone actually took the time and found out just from
tickets sales, other matchday sales (programmes , foodd and beverages etc.) and merchandise sales what each club actually "earns" and how that compares with City. Then we could all accept what clubs actually earn thier money to spend as they wish.
Undoubtedly Arsenal, Utd, Bayern etc, earn more than City on matchdays because of their current higher stadium capacity (City may close this gap with the stadium expansion), but also in Arsenals' case they charge a great deal more for their tickets, thus ripping off supporters (so would some clubs earn more sImply by being better at fleecing supporters ?) .
It is said tickets in Germany are cheap, but is this not mostly because they have standing areas which are cheaper ? and it would be interesting to see what the general variation in cost is at German Clubs when thinking only of seating and comparing that with a club like City. i.e. how would the lowest cost of a seat at Bayern compare with the lowest at City, and similarly the middle range cost of seats and the upper range cost of seats ? One thing the new Sky and BT deal for the Premier league could have done was give the new deal to the clubs but put a clause in saying that each club has to have say at least say 15% of its seats\tickets for each match fixed at a maximum price for the length of deal (maybe working out at £ 10 - £ 15 per game max.). This would have helped drive costs down for supporters.
In the end to have a true even playing field for all clubs (because FFP does not provide this, it simply would allow the traditionally big clubs to stay on top via such as having higher "deals" with companies) and eliminate this talk of money and buying success we would need 2 things:
1) a player salary cap set by Ueafa across Europe (and adjusted to take into account tax variations)
2) a maximum transfer fee introduced and set by Ueafa across Europe for all player transfers (or all transfer fees sorted by an independent Ueafa tribunal team with no appeals allowed)
Neither of which will ever happen of course
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Kris_Musampa said:BlueSiam said:I don't think you can simply categorize it as PASS/FAIL. New Manager, learning experience, etc. We have been in 4 Competitions, which takes its toll. Wigan was a f*** up, there's no getting away from that. But, although we may end up winning only one trophy, categorizing the season as a failure because of that is short term thinking. I don't believe our owners can be accused of that.
We are a step further up the ladder. We have seen the potential of this team and in my personal opinion it is a step above where Mancini could have taken us. One top central defender could have made a huge difference and we all know it. That will get sorted in the summer. this project is ongoing and there is much, much more to come.
This is why Redknapps comments are bollocks and deserve contempt.
Exactly. There's no doubt that the amount we've spent should bring increased expectations with it but judging us on whether we win the league or not is as short-sighted as it gets. For me, the season so far has shown a clear improvement in quality of football and application compared to last season. Not to mention the fact that we've also won more trophies this time around and progressed further in the Champions League. We may well come up short in the league but as long as we don't capitulate totally from hereon in then I for one won't be classing this season as a failure.
I'll also add that we're not the only club up at the top of the table that has spent a shit-load of money - in particular, the respective squads of Chelsea and United cost a hell of a lot to put together but I bet you won't hear Redknapp constantly banging on about that. When you factor in squad costs, United more than anyone have had an absolute stinker of a season - not just in terms of results, but also in terms of quality of performances and style of football. Given time (and a shit-load more cash), they may well bridge the gap but as things stand we're light years ahead of them on the pitch at the moment, as are Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool. In terms of style of play, Everton and Southampton are way better too.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
JRIAC
ifiwasarichfan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 7,941
He is eye candy for the Ladies who are interested in Football. He hasn't said anything of relevance in all the times he has been working as a pundit.
We don't have bags of cash kicking balls on the pitch. We have players.
The paradox that these pundits keep coming out saying: "City have the best/deepest squad, they have to win the league" as well as saying "City aren't good enough defensively"
Both cannot be true. What Chelsea lack in strikers (firepower they keep calling it) we lack in defenders.
Greater importance seems to have been placed on the lack of depth in Chelsea's strike force. Despite the fact that 1-0 is as good as 2,3,4-0 etc... points wise.
It is also misguided that these pundits keep claiming that Pellegrini has a "blind spot" with Demichelis.
He was signed at the end of the window as a stop gap, because we couldn't get the CB we wanted. (and with FFP we cannot make a mistake on the £30m bracket CB we need).
Lescott proved last night why he hasn't been trusted, despite a lot of bile. It was noticeable how Carragher, Redknapp and in particular Souness all raised concerns about Lescott before the match last night, despite constant protestations that Lescott has been wrongly overlooked during the course of this season.
Nastasic was meant to be the 1st choice centre back this season and started there at the beginning of the season alongside Kompany. However, he started off very, very poorly and coupled with his injuries meant he hasn't played many games.
We have(had) a choice.
1) do what we have done. Try to implement a style of play, despite the problem at LCB.
2) play 2 defensive midfielders in front of the defence and play cautiously, much more slowly and gain no development in attacking style.
We may miss out on the league this season.
But if/surely when we sign the LCB we need this summer. We will be all the better for having chosen option 1, rather than having to try and change our style next year.
The paradox that these pundits keep coming out saying: "City have the best/deepest squad, they have to win the league" as well as saying "City aren't good enough defensively"
Both cannot be true. What Chelsea lack in strikers (firepower they keep calling it) we lack in defenders.
Greater importance seems to have been placed on the lack of depth in Chelsea's strike force. Despite the fact that 1-0 is as good as 2,3,4-0 etc... points wise.
It is also misguided that these pundits keep claiming that Pellegrini has a "blind spot" with Demichelis.
He was signed at the end of the window as a stop gap, because we couldn't get the CB we wanted. (and with FFP we cannot make a mistake on the £30m bracket CB we need).
Lescott proved last night why he hasn't been trusted, despite a lot of bile. It was noticeable how Carragher, Redknapp and in particular Souness all raised concerns about Lescott before the match last night, despite constant protestations that Lescott has been wrongly overlooked during the course of this season.
Nastasic was meant to be the 1st choice centre back this season and started there at the beginning of the season alongside Kompany. However, he started off very, very poorly and coupled with his injuries meant he hasn't played many games.
We have(had) a choice.
1) do what we have done. Try to implement a style of play, despite the problem at LCB.
2) play 2 defensive midfielders in front of the defence and play cautiously, much more slowly and gain no development in attacking style.
We may miss out on the league this season.
But if/surely when we sign the LCB we need this summer. We will be all the better for having chosen option 1, rather than having to try and change our style next year.
Barca fan here
Hes tallking out his arse. We are a financial giant with the worlds highest wage bill. We have a golden generation of super stars. Losing to Wigan was a blip on a good season. Every team has those cock ups. And of course there is no shame in losing to Barca. Yes City are expected to perform with all their money, but they arn't the only big financial fish in the sea.
Hes tallking out his arse. We are a financial giant with the worlds highest wage bill. We have a golden generation of super stars. Losing to Wigan was a blip on a good season. Every team has those cock ups. And of course there is no shame in losing to Barca. Yes City are expected to perform with all their money, but they arn't the only big financial fish in the sea.