- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FFP is a joke
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:16 pm to WarSlamEagle
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:16 pm to WarSlamEagle
I have heard many in the media always claim that FFP actually hurt the smaller clubs than it did the big clubs. I was coming here to agree with the OP and beat the drum with him. Then I read this
and can't get past this nonsense. Spurs? Top 4? GTFO.
quote:
Using the EPL as an example, the traditional top 4 of ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs
and can't get past this nonsense. Spurs? Top 4? GTFO.
1
Posted on 4/15/14 at 12:55 pm to Bho
Fine, change it to traditional top 3 which is now 5.
Just don't try to tell me Chelsea pre- roman was better than Spurs , because they weren't.
Just don't try to tell me Chelsea pre- roman was better than Spurs , because they weren't.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Just don't try to tell me Chelsea pre- roman was better than Spurs , because they weren't.
its a wash
an argument can be made for both
But Spurs is and always will be little brother in North London.
Chelsea is west London and even when they sucked was a London glamor club.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:02 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
its a wash
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:10 pm to Dandy Lion
FFP is?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:11 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Just don't try to tell me Chelsea pre- roman was better than Spurs , because they weren't.
Their histories are almost equal and Chelsea had finished ahead of Spurs in the league like 8 straight times before Roman bought the club.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
i just went back and looked at the table from the 2000/2001 season
check this out,
leeds finish 4th, ipswich 5th
charlton 9th, leicester 13th
man city relegated
check this out,
leeds finish 4th, ipswich 5th
charlton 9th, leicester 13th
man city relegated
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:31 pm to S
quote:
leeds finish 4th, ipswich 5th
charlton 9th, leicester 13th
shite owners
quote:
man city relegated
terror money
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:34 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
It was a wash
That's just not true. Spurs contended far more often than Chelsea did in the league and completely obliterated them in the FA Cup, in an era in which the FA Cup was a lot more important than it is now.
Spurs were also the first English club to win the double and won multiple European trophies.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:38 pm to Draconian Sanctions
PSG's main sponsor is the Qatar tourism authority or some shite.
They make 200m euros a year from that deal.
Man City's deal is only 350m pounds over ten years.
Let that sink in.
Also, I doubt Qatar even sees anything close to 200m euros in tourism dollars per year.
They make 200m euros a year from that deal.
Man City's deal is only 350m pounds over ten years.
Let that sink in.
Also, I doubt Qatar even sees anything close to 200m euros in tourism dollars per year.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:42 pm to cwil177
I just looked it up and up until the mid 90's Spurs had finished in the top 6 of the top division in English Football 22 times. Chelsea had done it just 6 times.
Over that same period Spurs won 8 FA Cups. Chelsea won 1.
Yeah, totally equal
Over that same period Spurs won 8 FA Cups. Chelsea won 1.
Yeah, totally equal
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:44 pm to cwil177
If the City owner ever gets bored with his play toy it will be interesting once the books are really opened up.
When City takes 50+ million pound loses year after year thats no way to run a business.
Like I said before they are clearly trying to circumvent the rules with stadium expansion. B/c those seat add to the potential revenue, if they are filled or not.
The write off for the new youth academy stuff wont last for long so they better hope those players start panning out in the next few years.
When City takes 50+ million pound loses year after year thats no way to run a business.
Like I said before they are clearly trying to circumvent the rules with stadium expansion. B/c those seat add to the potential revenue, if they are filled or not.
The write off for the new youth academy stuff wont last for long so they better hope those players start panning out in the next few years.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:45 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I just looked it up and up until the mid 90's
Well you are just negating your own argument since Roman didn't buy the team until 2003.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:48 pm to StraightCashHomey21
I thought it was more like 99 but regardless they didn't catch TH in any of those metrics over that small gap and the point still stands that until recent times Spurs had a much better history than Chelsea, who are to the EPL what Florida football is to the SEC
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I thought it was more like 99 but regardless the point still stands that until recent times Spurs had a much better history than Chelsea
no it doesn't
You kept saying when Roman bought the team which was in 2003. Spurs went to shite and Chelsea was on the rise before Roman.
They wont 2 FA Cups and a League Cup in the 90's
Spurs had one FA cup in 91.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:52 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:how does that make them top 4?
finished in the top 6
I´ll admit, in Spain you heard more of Tottenham than Chelsea back then, however, being able to actually see either play, it was Chelsea (UEFA).
Manu in CL, Arsenal in UEFA, were the habitual ones.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:53 pm to Dandy Lion
I already said if you didn't want to count Spurs as top 4 that's fine.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:53 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
being able to actually see either play, it was Chelsea (UEFA).
Manu in CL, Arsenal in UEFA, were the habitual ones.
Exactly when I was a kid the only English teams you could watch on espn2 in the champions league was United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. B/c it was basically them finishing the top of the league.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:54 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
no it doesn't
Yes it does because even in the intervening years they still didn't come close to catching Spurs in either of those stats.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 1:56 pm to StraightCashHomey21
oh, and a shout out to our boy S. You did see Leeds in CL and UEFA. 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News