|
|
|
First Team
Gattuso?!?!?!
First Team
Is it me or is spurs getting a manager fast becoming a comedy show?
Gennaro Gattuso interest ends as Tottenham's head coach search continues
Wonder if they get to the interview "kane wants to leave," you have 2 million also noone wants to be here, but come and join us???
Employ rafa and be done with it ffs
How many's that now? 4 at least
First Team
It's a poisoned Chalice at the moment.
"Hi, yeah, our fans want Top Four but four clubs look well set to finish above us. Still, our fans want it - Kane is going and we keep our wages low and transfer income will be limited for a bit while we pay off this stadium that will cost the Earth - you keen on performing miracles?"
True Red ^^^^^^
Looks like building big stadia has held back both Spurs and Arsenal
Incremental increases in capacity have served us and the scum better
Rowdy Yates
Is that really fair?
Trying be Uber fair to them - Arsenal have won 4 FA cups since 2014 ( chuckle ) but hadn’t won a bean for 20 years before Graham built them a very strong side to challenge us. He won 2 titles 89 and 91… before Wenger rocked up and changed the entire game in England. 1998 2002 and 2004 titles came in superb fashion before Jose and Fergie spoiled the party.
Then crucially in 2007 - a year after the Arse move to the Emirates ( almost unanimously still hailed a major triumph by Arsenal fans ) a certain US investor Stan Kroenke takes a 10% stake - changes the structure and hugely dilutes Wenger’s influence. They were never the same after that. By 2011 he owned 63% and since 2018 has owned the lot.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/oct/25/stan-kroenke-arsenal-ambition-agm
As for Spurs - well the paint isn’t even dry on a stadium that hasn’t seen fans for more than a year! Also - what have they won in the last 25 years to suddenly cite their stadium as a handicap…? . Spurs have spent more on players since the WHL rebuild - than we have BTW.
If we want to look at new stadiums and on the pitch success there are as many good examples as bad. For every Arsenal their is a Manchester City or a Leicester City or a Brighton. For every Atletico, Juventus or Bayern there is probably a West Ham - who were obviously so much better at Upton Park (NOT)..
Most stadium moves are intended to future proof a club, increase capacity, make life better for fans and crucially - for the money men - add more to turnover. The idea of the debt being a handicap is largely fictional.
Success on the pitch is not hugely affected by the stadium you play in. It’s the fans that exert that influence on games. If you have 58,000 Liverpool fans in WHL and Spurs have 3,000 - we will create a wall of noise that they will not like. A far far better scenario than playing in an empty Anfield.
Bricks and mortar have almost no influence.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/oct/25/stan-kroenke-arsenal-ambition-agm
First Team
Until it causes bankruptcyOriginally Posted by Steveo
Not sure how you can use Man City and West Ham as examples. They were gifted their new, soulless stadiums by the local council.
Tottenham and Arsenal are the two examples of clubs who have dug deepest to finance extremely expensive stadiums. They have also stagnated in terms of progress, having both looked cutting edge at one point. Now they don’t look attractive to managers, which is a new state of affairs.
Rowdy Yates
Forgot second link was meant to be this
https://www.90min.com/posts/6334992-how-7-football-teams-fared-after-moving-into-their-new-stadiums
Explains a lot.
Painting a picture that building a new stadium leads to a demise - by exclusively Citing Arsenal and Spurs - ( who have barely moved in - is simply wrong - it’s completely wrong and ignorant to the facts.
Just take a look at the clubs that have benefitted, or stayed the same or risen sharply.
Brighton - Leicester City - Atletico Madrid - Juve - City ( and why are they off limits - because it doesn’t fit the bogus narrative ) - Bayern Munich and plenty of others besides like Brentford!
The facts are clear if you can extend your own ground big enough to make it work - it’s the best option - if you can’t - the next best option is to build a new one - as many have and will continue to do.
Last edited by Steveo; 19th June 2021 at 03:49 PM.
First Team
Could add Southampton and West Ham also.
First Team
It's not a bogus narrative. To say 'it's completely wrong and ignorant of the facts' is begging the question.
Again, your list of seven starts off with City and West Ham. Both of those teams inherited stadiums which were neither originally theirs nor their intended builds, nor properly financed by them. That's different to Arsenal and Tottenham.
Arsenal and Spurs were particularly hampered by paying London prices and they were also trying to build cutting edge stadiums, competing against each other (Spurs explicitly so, with outdoing Arsenal part of the architects' brief).As far as I know, Wembley may be the only stadium that cost more than those two stadiums (in the world). They are indeed cutting edge, but that came with a cost. What effects that cost has had is the part of the narrative in question.
As for not moving in, moving out was a part of Tottenham's problem. The year at Wembley was bad for their progress according to all commentators. The fact that Covid has hit them harder than everyone else is an unfortunate consequence of their planning - but it is still a consequence.
What you seem to be saying is a new stadium is obviously good, but there are many different ways of ending up somewhere new and the two London clubs (Brentford aside) did it with high levels of debt. That debt has affected their spending power. It has not increased their spending power. That has had its effects, and I'm glad we haven't had to endure them.
Last edited by Taksin; 19th June 2021 at 08:44 PM.
Rowdy Yates
So let’s discount City and West Ham even though both have moved from old decrepit stadia to new.
And let’s include Spurs despite the fact they are still on the site of WHL - AND reached their first European Cup final after WHL 2 was built - and judge them as being handicapped even though they haven’t won a bean in 25 years AND have spent more on players since than us.
Let’s also ignore the real issues that have blighted Arsenal and claim that all of their perceived woes - despite winning 4 FA Cups since 2014 - are down to a disastrous move to the Emirates.
Can we mention Brighton or Leicester City? How about Atletico Madrid? Or how about Bayern Munich, or Juventus..?
Are these also not allowed?
Claiming that a move to a new stadium is a prelude or cause of downfall is simply not true.
But feel free to argue the opposite.
And where do I “seem” to be saying that moving is good? I suggest you are trying to create an argument where none exists.
Last edited by Steveo; 19th June 2021 at 10:08 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks