Bollocks. Only in your Spurs tinted mind.

As to your claim that Campbell is a better passer of the ball, honestly that is risible. You (and maybe a few other gooners) must be the only person on the footballing planet to believe such nonsense.

He plays for Arsenal, the most productive team in terms of fluid passing the last few years and more often then not, Campbell was the guy who broke the opposition's attack and started one of Arsenal's lethal counter attacks, along with Vieira he did that very often. When you compare him to King, he plays for a mediocre team whose passing game ain't a patch on Arsenal's. King's a great tackler this is all I can commend him for. Against Poland he won the ball often and did some terrible passing. FACT!

let me repeat: England will not be successful against the top teams if they persist with a Lampard / Gerrard central midfield.

And you know this for certain? I mean you're the big man in football ain't you?

Frankly, I find that staggering. I like Luke Young because he's a Spurs youth product and because he's a Spurs fan. But, for all his runs down the right flank, there is hardly ever any end product. He tries to beat his man and always fails; his crossing is poor; and his decision making is poor. Gary Neville (for all that he is a hate figure because of his gobby manner and his Man Utd connections) is twice the player that Young will ever be. He has experience, a good right foot, the knowledge of when is the right time to overlap, reads the game well and has an excellent understanding with Becks. He's also another team leader. He's so far ahead of Young as a player that it barely warrants discussion.

Fair play, he's a solid tackler but Young was a driving force in that Poland game. FACT-A-RAMA

Either that or you don't have an eye for what qualities international players really need. ;)

Either that or you rate your Spurs players far to highly and don't seem to realise how far of the pace the top teams they really are.

He plays for Arsenal, the most productive team in terms of fluid passing the last few years and more often then not, Campbell was the guy who broke the opposition's attack and started one of Arsenal's lethal counter attacks, along with Vieira he did that very often. When you compare him to King, he plays for a mediocre team whose passing game ain't a patch on Arsenal's. King's a great tackler this is all I can commend him for. Against Poland he won the ball often and did some terrible passing. FACT!

Oh, come on! I could have played in the Brazil 1970 team and they would still have played fantastic football and won the tournament at a canter. Same with Campbell and Arsenal. A leopard can't change his spots. Campbell is not a playmaking centre back and never will be. The fact that Campbell can look okayish on the ball in a dominant and superb passing team doesn't necessarily reflect well on him. It reflects well on all the other players around him and their fantastic movement which makes his job so easy. But when Arsenal aren't on their game - eg the recent north London derby - and when Campbell actually has to work for anything more than a sideways pass or a hopeful punt up field, he is always found wanting. He has neither the composure nor the technique under pressure.

Since, in the really important games against the best nations, England players are so restricted by team orders that there is insufficient off-the-ball movement to support the man in possession, Sol Campbell is completely at sea. He hasn't the imagination, the reading of the game or the aforementioned composure and technique to retain possession other than by passing harmlessly sideways.

you rate your Spurs players far to highly and don't seem to realise how far of the pace the top teams they really are.

I have to say that Carrick has surprised me immensely. I wasn't exactly thrilled when he signed for Spurs and it took him a while to settle in. But the boy just gets better and better. I can understand why you don't rate him. I used to be the same. I would leave a match and ask just what it was that Carrick was supposed to have contributed. It was only by watching him closely over many games that I found out. It's because he's not flashy. He doesn't do show pony, crowd pleasing tricks. Nor does he do those bone crunching, mad-eyed sliding tackles so beloved of fat English Sunday footballers the length and breadth of the country. English crowds love that sort of thing but that only betrays their footballing naivety. Far better, at international level, a player who reads the game, who times his tackles so well that they are usually only interceptions and, because he has stayed on his feet, is in an ideal position to set up the counter.

Carrick has all of that. And he plays the simple but penetrating ball so well and so quickly, off either foot. He ran the show for England last summer. He was the best player on the park when Spurs played Man Utd and Arsenal and Bolton. He is the oil that makes the engine run. But almost all of it goes unnoticed because he does it with such ease and so little fuss.

But if you are too set in your Arsenal ways ever to be won over by Carrick (and I suspect that you are), then I still insist that England cannot hope to win against the very best teams if we persist with Gerrard and Lampard in the centre of midfield. And if not Carrick, then I would have Scott Parker playing in the holding role. He's not the same type of player as Carrick - more British in style and less cultured - but a holding player would give central midfield more balance. Of course, King is an option for that role but I prefer specialists and King should only be asked to play there if absolutely necessary.

One word.

Deluded.

One word.

Deluded.

Thats rich http://www.arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17796

One word.

Deluded.

Is that really the best that you can do? Shame.

Well, we'll see who's right and who's wrong in good time.

Yes it's the best I can do I would single out each point and destroy it on every level but there is no point with a Spud best just to let them dream in their own little fantasy world. :(

Yes it's the best I can do I would single out each point and destroy it on every level but there is no point with a Spud best just to let them dream in their own little fantasy world. :(

I suspect that the opposite is true. You read an articulate and well reasoned post. You couldn't flame it. Nor could you face the thought of conceding that there was even the slightest possibility that I might be right and so you just picked up your ball and walked off in a sulk.

Oh, well. If you must.

Is that really the best that you can do? Shame.

Well, we'll see who's right and who's wrong in good time.

We shall your right.

Sitback I have to ask why on Earth are your replies most the time really childish like "shut up Elton" or ha ha ha ha ha your deluded Some times I disagree with JimB but his replies are inteligant thats not to suggest that you are dumb but when it comes to typing replies BUCK YOUR IDEAS UP for christ sake think of better things to say.

Thats rich http://www.arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17796

Yes they are getting ahead of themselves but Arsenal are reaching a decent levl of form again and if we win at Highbury then who knows. The time to tell how the title race is panning out is only at January and no earlier imo.

We shall your right.

Sitback I have to ask why on Earth are your replies most the time really childish like "shut up Elton" or ha ha ha ha ha your deluded Some times I disagree with JimB but his replies are inteligant thats not to suggest that you are dumb but when it comes to typing replies BUCK YOUR IDEAS UP for christ sake think of better things to say.

No actually if I carried on we'd be writing long paragraphs back and forth, back and forth but to be frank I've really lost interest I just prefer to tell you how shit your team is.

No actually if I carried on we'd be righting long paragraphs back and forth, back and forth but to be frank I've really lost interest I just prefer to tell you how shit your team is.

Fair enough. I appreciate that your head must be hurting. ;)

Fair enough. I appreciate that your head must be hurting. ;)

Indeed so much so I wrote 'righting' instead of 'writing'.

:$

No actually if I carried on we'd be writing long paragraphs back and forth, back and forth but to be frank I've really lost interest I just prefer to tell you how shit your team is.

I know quality not quanity but its just the "shut up Elton" and stuff like that just really wierd. And by way the Arsenal are shit too

29 October 2005

TESCO FOR ARSENAL

By Steve Hawkes

TESCO is ditching its private box at Tottenham Hotspur and switching to bitter rivals Arsenal.

In a move that will rile Spurs fans, bosses are to buy a £65,000-a-year hospitality suite at the Gunners' new Emirates Stadium next season.

Tesco has had a box at White Hart Lane in North London for 20 years.

But a spokeswoman said: "We've now decided to support Arsenal." :cheers:

"Tesco has had a box at White Hart Lane in North London for 20 years. But a spokeswoman said: "We've now decided to support Arsenal."

Sounds like a typical gooner. No staying power and no real loyalty. Will blow with the wind. Real Spurs fans, as has been proven, will stick by their team through thick and thin.

So basically, who gives a shit?

Sorry I know you Woolwich lot will disgree but most nuetrals will say the same when ever it goes down hill for the Woolwich that is it they're fans are gone as quick as the wind honesty why do you think we sing

Where were you when you were shit?!!!!!
Where were you
Where were you
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIT?!!!!

It basicly takes the piss out of your loyalty and questions it I know a gooner that went to Highbury during the mid 80s and mid 90s and he just said that it would be half empty and that everyone would exagerate and complain he said tho that all teams success comes to an end and he said that he feels due to emirates thats going to be soon (well more like 4-8 years) and when it happens hes not looking foreword to going to a half full stadium. I have to say that I feel my generation has ruined football if you went to my school and studied what the goons and united said about they're team during the season you would just not beleive how FICKLE they were I remember this goon going on about Tottenham fans being the most fickle and they never got behind the team then three weeks later he was calling Arsenal shit and Reyes useless after Chelsea beat them in the Champions League and this was during they're unbeaten season! Now that is fickle coz at he end he wouldn't shut about how great the team was (which in all honesty they were) and how they would win League again and the CL with ease blah blah blah blah at Feburay let a lone May he was complaining like an idiot even you didn't support the Woolwich you still wanted to just slap him god it was annouying!.

Sorry I know you Woolwich lot will disgree but most nuetrals will say the same when ever it goes down hill for the Woolwich that is it they're fans are gone as quick as the wind honesty why do you think we sing

Where were you when you were shit?!!!!!
Where were you
Where were you
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIT?!!!!

It basicly takes the piss out of your loyalty and questions it I know a gooner that went to Highbury during the mid 80s and mid 90s and he just said that it would be half empty and that everyone would exagerate and complain he said tho that all teams success comes to an end and he said that he feels due to emirates thats going to be soon (well more like 4-8 years) and when it happens hes not looking foreword to going to a half full stadium. I have to say that I feel my generation has ruined football if you went to my school and studied what the goons and united said about they're team during the season you would just not beleive how FICKLE they were I remember this goon going on about Tottenham fans being the most fickle and they never got behind the team then three weeks later he was calling Arsenal shit and Reyes useless after Chelsea beat them in the Champions League and this was during they're unbeaten season! Now that is fickle coz at he end he wouldn't shut about how great the team was (which in all honesty they were) and how they would win League again and the CL with ease blah blah blah blah at Feburay let a lone May he was complaining like an idiot even you didn't support the Woolwich you still wanted to just slap him god it was annouying!.

Fucking hell. Calm Down Elton! Any team of sustained success will be the same. You don't know because Tottenham has never been it that position ever.

Ha Ha Ha once again it's turned around to highlighting how shite Spurs are.

Do not crow for you do not know what a waits you round the corner.

Anyway

England 3-2 dirty cheating wankers. HA HA HA HA OWEN! OWEN!

Does this mean Monsters of Rock will be back with Maiden, Ozzy, and ManOwar? If so, I am there.

Great match and it amplified my believe that Joe Cole is the man for that elusive midfield position. He played wheeey better then King who never created much in attacking chances. Joe Cole was fantastic.

http://www.tottenhamtrust.com/viewnews.asp?id=312

Capital Projects Update

Those present were (for THFC): - Daniel Levy (Chairman), Paul Barber (Executive Director), Donna Cullen (Communications Director)

(for THST): - Daniel Wynne (Chairman), Bernie Kingsley, Derek Ridgers, Shak Rahman, Paul Smith (Board Members), Scott Russell, Danny Keene (Trust Members)

Stadium
DL stated that the club was no further forward since this issue was last discussed. There is something of an impasse with the local authorities regarding development of infrastructure and the focus is now on the development and completion of the Olympic Stadium.
DL said he would rather be in the position of having a full stadium every week, and that the focus of the club was currently upon making the stadium better.

DL stated that to re-develop the West Stand would cost something like £75-£100 million for a potential extra capacity of 5-7,000 and these would all need to be ‘corporates’ to get payback. There is a need to keep the whole stadium open throughout building and also to develop the High Road frontage which would be a condition of planning permission.

In response to a direct question from Bernie about the club’s response to any offer from the Olympic Committee regarding the Olympic Stadium, DL referred to any offer of ANY big stadium. He said that there were only two possibilities – the Olympic Stadium or Wembley. DL stated that if the owners of any big stadium came to the club, then “we will consider it”..

CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone)
BK stated the Trust’s position that it was against the possible CPZ being introduced in the vicinity of the White Hart Lane Stadium, and asked what was the club’s attitude to it.
DC stated that she would respond to this issue after the forthcoming safety meeting [involving the Trust, on 13th October] when the Council’s plans should be clearer. She said, “We have to be a good business in the area, but we are also a big employer in the area. We shall take our fans views, both local and travelling on board” .
Trust members’ negative views were relayed to the meeting, including some that had been expressed by a local resident against the scheme.
The club would consider a Park and Ride Scheme, if a CPZ was introduced. It was also prepared a scheme like that opearated by Charlton, but only if it involved no cost to the club. PB pointed out that Charlton’s scheme was heavily subsidised and without it they may struggle to fill stadium capacity, which is not a problem THFC has.

Training Ground/Academy
This item had been listed prior to the club’s recent announcement of an application for planning permission for a new training facility and academy at Myddelton House, Enfield.
DC presented DW with a copy of a document setting out the plans, which is to be delivered to local residents, and stressed that the application is at a very early stage.

Summer Projects
The Trust asked which capital projects had been completed at WHL during the summer [referring back to statements made at our previous meeting]. The club provided the following list: -
i) Decoration of the East Upper and Lower concourses
ii) Relocation of the away segregation barrier to permit more home tickets to be sold when visiting teams don’t take up their full allocation
iii) New signage throughout the East Stand
iv) New Home Team changing room, coaches room, kit room and managers’ office
v) Players’ tunnel re-furbished
vi) 33 corporate boxes in the East Stand re-furbished
vii) Installation of a new irrigation tank to permit greater flexibility when irrigating the pitch
viii) Installation of new sliding doors in the West reception and ticket office
Plus at Spurs Lodge
ix) Gymnasium refurbishment
x) New treatment room
xi) New medical offices
xii) New press office
xiii) Inflation of the dome

The total spend on these projects exceeded £1 million.

Great match and it amplified my believe that Joe Cole is the man for that elusive midfield position. He played wheeey better then King who never created much in attacking chances. Joe Cole was fantastic.

It was King's reverse pass (I can't remember to whom) which started the move for England's first goal.

Besides, King wasn't in the team to create "attacking chances". He was there to protect an otherwise attacking midfield. Furthermore, as I've said before, King is not a natural in the holding midfield role. SGE should play a proper holding midfielder there - preferably, in my opinion, Michael Carrick.

I agree that Cole did very well when he came on. The real question about Cole is not his ability but his consistency. He needs to start making that sort of impact in most games he plays rather than just once in every four games.

Perhaps his best position is coming of the bench, when opposition defences are already a bit tired and therefore more vulnerable to his running with the ball.

I am a fan of Joe Cole but in his first ten minutes he really frustated me he would do these amazing runs with no end product but still the skill to get past the player and cross for Owen to make it 3-2 was brilliant. As for King he played well and made some good tackles I think he would prefer to play at the back but he shows he doesn't care as long as he is wearing that shirt. In the end Gerrad was put on the left and you were right JimB he does play well on the left had a very good game brilliant performance. The man of the match for me was Rooney I really feel that we have a pele or maradona on our hands not only does he score goals but he can set them up. Becks did what he does best well and that is pin point crosses overall I feel that the starting midfeild is the best we have so far do what did today but maybe reverse it have Cole on the left at the start and then bring on King to defend the lead near the end. Very Happy always have been behind Sven look at his record and it just says it all.

Perhaps his best position is coming of the bench, when opposition defences are already a bit tired and therefore more vulnerable to his running with the ball.

If he replaces a defensive midfeilder the the chaces are the opposition will not have a setup with him in mind aswell as has been the case with the last few games before today. Gerrard, Beckham and espeically Rooney just looked so much more certain of their roles with a defencive midfielder in the team(by the time he was gone attack was the only option anyway) plus King was happy playing the short ball a fair bit rather than the long balls Beckham and Gerrard always try in that role.

I spose the difference could well by that Argentina were happy to play their own game where as for pretty much all of Englands qualifing campagne the opposition have focused more on stopping us from playing ours.

44 years your avin a laugh
44 years your avin a laugh,
44 years
44 years
44 years your avin a laugh.

"Arsenal are going to win the Champions League"

Now you really are having a bubble.

It was King's reverse pass (I can't remember to whom) which started the move for England's first goal.

Besides, King wasn't in the team to create "attacking chances". He was there to protect an otherwise attacking midfield. Furthermore, as I've said before, King is not a natural in the holding midfield role. SGE should play a proper holding midfielder there - preferably, in my opinion, Michael Carrick.

I agree that Cole did very well when he came on. The real question about Cole is not his ability but his consistency. He needs to start making that sort of impact in most games he plays rather than just once in every four games.

Perhaps his best position is coming of the bench, when opposition defences are already a bit tired and therefore more vulnerable to his running with the ball.

I can honestly not see the need for King he is more of a player to come of the subs bench and Joe Cole is the man still.

"Arsenal are going to win the Champions League"

Now you really are having a bubble.

More chance then Tottenham ha ha ha you're shit.

I can honestly not see the need for King he is more of a player to come of the subs bench and Joe Cole is the man still.

King is a defender. Should be competing with Rio Ferdinand to partner John Terry in central defence.

Carrick is the man for the holding role. He knows the position. Knows, defensively, where he should be at any given time, is used to receiving the ball in the positions that he gets it and is comortable passing quickly off either foot. King does the best he can but he doesn't know the position intimately. Another example of Sven's poor judgement.

Carrick over Joe Cole uh nah.

Carrick over Joe Cole uh nah.

True and that is mainly because Carrick is more of holding midefielder but is a good passer so it shows that not only in defence does Sven hasve great choice but also in Midfeild.

Carrick over Joe Cole uh nah.

If I was talking about Carrick playing on the left wing or playing a free role tucked in behind the front two, then you'd be absolutely spot on.

But I'm not, am I? No more, I imagine, than you are talking about Joe Cole playing the holding role in the centre of midfield.

The simple fact is that, if SGE wants to play with a holding midfielder, he should play a player there who knows intimately how to do that job and who is bloody good at it. Not a converted centre half who is a brilliant centre half but a fish out of water in the holding midfield role against top teams.

I know that you disagree with me but I happen to believe that England stand no chance of winning against the likes of Brazil in next summer's World Cup if we don't play with a holding midfielder. And if we want to win the World Cup, we will almost certainly have to beat Brazil.

There has been talk that Stevie Gerrard could play the holding role but it's bollocks. Gerrard is an attacking midfielder. All his instincts tell him to get forward. Forcing him to hold back would only neuter his effective contribution to the team. Besides, he concedes possession far too often when playing a deep midfield role. He always plays long and / or overly ambitious balls. You need a player there like Carrick, who is adept at finding space and keeping possession with shorter, simpler but no less effective balls. So, as far as I'm concerned, it comes down to a choice between Stevie Gerrard and Joe Cole at left midfield. And since Gerrard is so much the better player, he would always get my vote.

Or alternatively Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole. Not Carrick. He ain't big enough for the test FACT-O-RAMA

If I was talking about Carrick playing on the left wing or playing a free role tucked in behind the front two, then you'd be absolutely spot on.

But I'm not, am I? No more, I imagine, than you are talking about Joe Cole playing the holding role in the centre of midfield.

The simple fact is that, if SGE wants to play with a holding midfielder, he should play a player there who knows intimately how to do that job and who is bloody good at it. Not a converted centre half who is a brilliant centre half but a fish out of water in the holding midfield role against top teams.

I know that you disagree with me but I happen to believe that England stand no chance of winning against the likes of Brazil in next summer's World Cup if we don't play with a holding midfielder. And if we want to win the World Cup, we will almost certainly have to beat Brazil.

There has been talk that Stevie Gerrard could play the holding role but it's bollocks. Gerrard is an attacking midfielder. All his instincts tell him to get forward. Forcing him to hold back would only neuter his effective contribution to the team. Besides, he concedes possession far too often when playing a deep midfield role. He always plays long and / or overly ambitious balls. You need a player there like Carrick, who is adept at finding space and keeping possession with shorter, simpler but no less effective balls. So, as far as I'm concerned, it comes down to a choice between Stevie Gerrard and Joe Cole at left midfield. And since Gerrard is so much the better player, he would always get my vote.

Recently I'd say when we play without a holding midfeilder it actually hurts us going forward more than at the back since it leads to Gerrard, Lampard and espeically Rooney being pushed back trying to cover the back four. Carrick is certainly an option although I wonder if Alan Smith might come into the frame if he keeps his performances up to the level of that Chelsea game. I know he's a former striker but he actually seems much less inclined to go for the long ball in that postion than Beckham and Gerrard.

One formation I'v wondered about recently would be a 3-5-2. That would focus on our strenghts in central defence(3 out of Ferdinand, King, Terry and Campbell at the back), central midfeild(Gerrard and Lampard free to roam the center area) and Rooney playing behind a main striker.

Or alternatively Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole. Not Carrick. He ain't big enough for the test FACT-O-RAMA

No holding midfielder among that quartet, though, is there? You may think that England can win the really big games with that midfield, but I totally disagree.

As to:

Not Carrick. He ain't big enough for the test FACT-O-RAMA

1. It's not fact. Merely your opinion.

2. Carrick played in the holding role for England in the USA last summer and was England's best player of the tour.

3. You haven't seen nearly enough of Carrick and don't know what he can and can't do. Because I have been watching him closely in every match over the past year or so, I have a far better knowledge and understanding of his game and potential than you do.

Now that is fact.

No holding midfielder among that quartet, though, is there? You may think that England can win the really big games with that midfield, but I totally disagree.

As to:



1. It's not fact. Merely your opinion.

2. Carrick played in the holding role for England in the USA last summer and was England's best player of the tour.

3. You haven't seen nearly enough of Carrick and don't know what he can and can't do. Because I have been watching him closely in every match over the past year or so, I have a far better knowledge and understanding of his game and potential than you do.

Now that is fact.

Your mind has been diluted by the poor quality of of Spurs. Which makes him look better then he really is cos he wouldn't walk into a top teams side and expect to get picked 1st team. He ain't good enough and that tour of the US was a joke you'd like to pick out his performances amongst England's 3rd choice for the rest of the team? Give us a break man. Owen was easily the best player against Columbia for that matter too.

You cannot drop Cole for that pleb.

Your mind has been diluted by the poor quality of of Spurs. Which makes him look better then he really is cos he wouldn't walk into a top teams side and expect to get picked 1st team. He ain't good enough and that tour of the US was a joke you'd like to pick out his performances amongst England's 3rd choice for the rest of the team? Give us a break man. Owen was easily the best player against Columbia for that matter too.

You cannot drop Cole for that pleb.

Over the course of the surprisingly successful USA tour, Carrick was England's best player. It's irrelevant that a number of England's first choice players were missing. What matters is that England played against decent international teams and Carrick looked very much at home - far more so, I'd venture, than Joe Cole did in any of his first ten or even fifteen appearances for England.

And I repeat, at least my opinion of Carrick is an informed opinion. Yours, by virtue of the fact that you rarely watch him and that when you do watch him, you don't watch him closely, is an uninformed opinion.

Finally, you really are being obtuse. You cannot compare Cole and Carrick as players any more than you can say that apples are better than pears. For the last time, let me repeat that what I'm advocating is not a simple matter of dropping Cole in favour of Carrick. Rather, it's about England adopting a formation and playing style which will allow them to maximize their undoubted potential and to give them the very best chance of winning the World Cup next summer in Germany.

Finally, you really are being obtuse. You cannot compare Cole and Carrick as players any more than you can say that apples are better than pears. For the last time, let me repeat that what I'm advocating is not a simple matter of dropping Cole in favour of Carrick. Rather, it's about England adopting a formation and playing style which will allow them to maximize their undoubted potential and to give them the very best chance of winning the World Cup next summer in Germany.

Rubbish. In the 4-4-2 formation before we started going a bit shit after the Denmark game we walked all over Wales & Northern Ireland with Joe Cole there. And Carrick didn't even figure in those Poland, Argie matches we had where we won with great performances. Tho Cole was integral, and less not forget we reverted back to 4-4-2 in the second half with Cole on the left, without any defensive midfielder on the pitch. Gerrard was thriving in that game and Lampard was actually the guy who had the poorer performance. We really don't need a holding midfielder like Carrick. No use what-so-ever for him. It's typical of spurs fan to look far to much into the US tour against 2nd rate opposition.

Rubbish. In the 4-4-2 formation before we started going a bit shit after the Denmark game we walked all over Wales & Northern Ireland with Joe Cole there.

Wales and Northern Ireland??? Need I say any more? How many times do I have to repeat that I believe that England will not be able to beat the top teams in next summer's World Cup if we continue to play with an unbalanced midfield? Since when were Northern Ireland and Wales top teams?

And Carrick didn't even figure in those Poland, Argie matches we had where we won with great performances.

You're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean that the team wouldn't have played even better had Sven the balls or the good sense to give Carrick a chance. That's the really annoying thing - Sven's short sightedness. At the very least, he will need options in Germany. And he has never tried them - at least, not unless he has absolutely had to (USA tour) or unless you count ten minutes at the end of a game in a makeshift England, completely debilitated by mass substitutions.

Tho Cole was integral, and less not forget we reverted back to 4-4-2 in the second half with Cole on the left, without any defensive midfielder on the pitch.

Erm, playing with Carrick (or anyone else) as holding midfielder is still a 4-4-2 formation. Besides, within minutes of Joe Cole coming on, England changed to 4-3-3 or 3-4-3. That, and the fact that Argnetina had taken off four of their key players was what allowed England to claw the game back in the dying minutes.

Gerrard was thriving in that game and Lampard was actually the guy who had the poorer performance.

I agree. Lampard just had an off night in front of goal. On any other night, he'd have scored at least one or two. And Gerrard had his best England game for a while because he was freed from the shackles of having to cover for Lampard. Just as I always said.

We really don't need a holding midfielder like Carrick. No use what-so-ever for him.

Well that's where you and I disagree, and there's no point discussing it further because the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

It's typical of spurs fan to look far to much into the US tour against 2nd rate opposition.

No more typical than it is for a gooner automatically to dismiss the international claims of a Spurs player in spite of all the evidence. At the very least, if Sven was more sensible, he'd give Carrick another chance before the World Cup.

How is your stadium sitaution?

How is your stadium sitaution?

Very long this one.

There is a planned redevelopment of White Hart Lane which would see the capacity go from 36,000 to 45,000. There has been talk of the capacity being increased even more to 54,000 after the new West stand is built so at the moment this is just a rumour. These pictures were leaked about eight months ago I received them three months ago from another Tottenham fan from a Spurs internet message board (sorry I didn’t send these pictures to you earlier). The plan is to make White Hart Lane a 45,000 seater stadium by knocking down the current West stand and replacing it with the huge 14,000 seater stand that you see in the pictures. The East stand will (to my surprise) be refurbished, the club will do this by takeing the pillars out and replace the old roof with a new one that doesn’t need pillars this won’t add any seats well I think, the outside of the stand will change as well the old yellow brick wall that was made in the 30’s will be replaced with glass and steal. The club have made some changes to the East stand already this summer by making the boxes in the stand into Executive ones this means that instead of sitting behind a sheet of glass you can stand side sampling and adding to the atmosphere on match days. The picture of the residential building and housing development isn’t the only plans the club have for building houses in the area this is to regenerate the area as it is one of the most deprived in the country i.e. it’s not the nicest places to go to like Brixton and Stratford. The main reason is said to be for the regeneration I feel though that it is for profet

I wrote that a wee while ago and now I really don't know what the situation is. Hopefully it will become more clear after the AGM on 25th November. I have read that the club are going to have talks with the local council about transport and etc next month.

There is a problem at the moment (well the past five or more years) that is stopping the club going ahead with any possible plans it is transport at the moment the transport in the area is appalling the nearest Tube station is Seven Sisters which is a twenty-five minute walk (at best) away from the ground. The council of the London borough of Haringey are hoping to get an extension of the Victoria Line from Seven Sisters station to Northumberland Park station. The plans where rejected by Transport for London back in July 2003 for the reason that the plans were seen as “too expensive” but there’s no need to worry. I read in the North London borough spending plan 2005/6-2007/8 the council said that their going to try bid for the extension of the Victoria Line to Northumberland station again. This is what it says "We will make a case for the construction of the second branch of the Victoria line serving Northumberland Park station. A maintenance & storage area for the Tube trains already exists at this station & construction of a second branch would maximize the regeneration potential of the Tottenham Hotspur Football Club redevelopment". So it looks like that there is still a good chance of us staying just as long as Transport for London except the proposal.

If we do not get what we want then the club would be left with no choice but to leave White Hart Lane as you may know the club has been linked with a move to the New Wembley stadium that will be finished next year. Tottenham would not be able to move to the best stadium in the world because the F.A promised the local residents and council of Brenford that the only events that Wembley will be hosting is the England internationals some rugby matches as well as concerts. This was promised because the locals didn’t want a football club in London moving into the stadium which would mean the prices of the houses would go down as well as having to put up with football fans every Saturday. There has been another rumor that Tottenham are interested in becoming the owners of the Olympic stadium in Stratford when the games are over this as you may know will no happen. The plan is to decrease the stadium capacity from 80,000 down to 30,000 so it can become the home of British Athletics and leave a legacy for the kids of the future. So the only option that the club would be left with is finding a site and build a new stadium which the club (at the moment) can not afford to do as moving stadium is very exspensive especially in London just look at Arsenal they are forking out £357,000,000 for there new Emirates stadium which will open next year. Also the redevelopment of Wembley means that our national stadium is the most expensive in the world costing a staggering £757,000,000 (about $1,200,000,000). Recently Chairman Daniel Levy said "It has to remain an option, but one has to be realistic. From a financial point of view, where would the club get the finances to build a new stadium?. Basically what the man said was we can’t afford to build a new stadium at the moment but we can afford to buy big players we have spent £61.8m in the past two years which shows fantastic signs for the future. So atthe moment the stadium issue really doesn't matter to Levy and the rest of the board.

At the moment I really don't know anything I feel it won't be sorted out for a while which is a good thing (in a way) as the club are concentrating on the first team then the planned £30m academy in Enfield.

Basically Spurs are shite and are getting an extra dustbin as their stadium expansion.

:eek2:

I'd guess it wouldnt be impossible for Spurs to move into the Olympic stadium, its just that you wouldnt be able to turn it into a pure football ground by digging down after the games as with the COM stadium. The capacity could then be kept at a higher number(with you sholdering the extra cost) and perhaps some kind of moving stand tech employed to move the stands closer to the pitch on matchdays. Would Spur's fans be happy with a new 50-80,000 seat stadium with either a running track or a Stade De France like setup with the stands partly over the track but will quite away from the pitch?
http://roger.kaywa.ch/files/images/2005/3/mob658_1111871299.jpg
I'd add that Palace only have a few years left on the lease at selhurst park(still owned by former chairman Ron Noads) and were until the sucessful Olympic bid looking at a move to a renovated Crystal Palace Atheltics stadium. I doubt we'd be able to afford moving into the Olympic stadium on our own but if Spur's did we might be interested in ground sharing, espeically as theres never been much animosity between the two sets of fans.

Would Spur's fans be happy with a new 50-80,000 seat stadium with either a running track or a Stade De France like setup with the stands partly over the track but will quite away from the pitch?

Absolutely not.

1. If at all possible I, like the vast majority of Spurs fans, would like to stay at White Hart Lane.

2. If we did have to move, I'd like Spurs at least to stay within our manor, so to speak.

3. I'd hate for any potential new stadium for Spurs to be a messy compromise. It's not just that the fans would be a long way from the pitch. It's also the fact that the stadium wouldn't be ours but rather that we would be the junior partner to British athletics. Branding around the stadium would doubtless reflect that.

4. The roof - though spectacular and fine for athletics, it is not right for football. It is too high above the stands and would not be good for accoustics within the stadium.

One further point re possibly moving to the Olympic stadium:

As you said, Moreorless, if Spurs were to share the stadium, they would still have to pay for any extra capacity over the intended 25-30,000 for athletics. And if there was some sort of moveable seat system (as at Stade de France), then the cost would rise even more. God knows how much that would cost. It would be more expensive, probably, than redeveloping White Hart Lane to 50,000+.

Furthermore, assuming a financial arrangement similar to that agreed by Manchester City for their use of the COM stadium, Spurs' potential revenue increase would be capped at a certain level over and above our current match day income.

So what would be the point? We'd be getting a stadium that is unsuitable for football, far away from our traditional home, that would be more expensive to build and would not allow for as much revenue growth.

So all in all, it would be a terrible move for Spurs.

One further point re possibly moving to the Olympic stadium:

As you said, Moreorless, if Spurs were to share the stadium, they would still have to pay for any extra capacity over the intended 25-30,000 for athletics. And if there was some sort of moveable seat system (as at Stade de France), then the cost would rise even more. God knows how much that would cost. It would be more expensive, probably, than redeveloping White Hart Lane to 50,000+.

Furthermore, assuming a financial arrangement similar to that agreed by Manchester City for their use of the COM stadium, Spurs' potential revenue increase would be capped at a certain level over and above our current match day income.

So what would be the point? We'd be getting a stadium that is unsuitable for football, far away from our traditional home, that would be more expensive to build and would not allow for as much revenue growth.

So all in all, it would be a terrible move for Spurs.

If you look at italy right now its easy to see that this kind of project does not have a good track record of sucess aswell. One advanatge it would bring I spose is that the transport infrastructure would be in place to cope with a larger stadium.

If you look at italy right now its easy to see that this kind of project does not have a good track record of sucess aswell. One advanatge it would bring I spose is that the transport infrastructure would be in place to cope with a larger stadium.

To be totally honest, mate, the whole transport issue for Tottenham is a bit of a red herring. Of course Spurs would ideally like a Victoria line extension to Northumberland Park. But it's not absolutely necessary.

Six or seven years ago, Haringey council granted pemission for a new Shelf side stand that would have increased WHL's capacity to 44,000. After ENIC bought Alan Sugar's majority stake, Spurs never followed through on that plan but it does at least show that there would be no problem getting planning permission, even without any transport improvements.

And after all, White Hart Lane isn't so badly off for public transport. There are two network rail stations within a five minute walk of the ground - Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane. Compared to a 68,000 capacity (soon to be 75,000) ground like Old Trafford with one rail and one tram line (neither of which run a decent service on match days), White Hart Lane is pretty well off.

The truth is that THFC is just using the threat of leaving the area in order to force through transport improvements - not least in an attempt to improve the desirability of the area, thereby increasing local property prices.

If you look at italy right now its easy to see that this kind of project does not have a good track record of sucess aswell. One advanatge it would bring I spose is that the transport infrastructure would be in place to cope with a larger stadium.

How very true and we're called Tottenham for a reason and hopefully the club shall see that if Spur move out of Tottenham then I would smell a break away club.

How very true and we're called Tottenham for a reason and hopefully the club shall see that if Spur move out of Tottenham then I would smell a break away club.

Only if Spurs moved a loooooong way from N17. If we moved five miles away, it would probably cause quite a lot of grumbling from the fans but it wouldn't go beyond that.

I'm not to botherd just as long as we stay in TOTTENHAM as it is our home always has been and always should be.

Wenger looks for players to benefit the squad, not players that are bought like some clubs so their fans can put their hands down their pants with anticipation of winning their first title in 44 years.

If he can create 3 titles (one of which a whole season unbeaten- arguably the gretest achievment in english football history.) , 4 fa cups and scores of charity shields; what could he do with huge amounts of transfer funds?

If we get to the new stadium and he doesn't spend (huge amounts). Fantastic. at least if he needs better players the funds will always be there and growing hugely.

Wenger looks for players to benefit the squad, not players that are bought like some clubs so their fans can put their hands down their pants with anticipation of winning their first title in 44 years.

If he can create 3 titles (one of which a whole season unbeaten- arguably the gretest achievment in english football history.) , 4 fa cups and scores of charity shields; what could he do with huge amounts of transfer funds?

If we get to the new stadium and he doesn't spend (huge amounts). Fantastic. at least if he needs better players the funds will always be there and growing hugely.

Roar. Are you really as thick as you seem?

Let me say this slowly and in capital letters for your benefit:

T H I S....I S....N O T....A....T H R E A D....A B O U T....A R S E N A L.

K I N D L Y....P O S T....Y O U R....B O R I N G....D R I V E L....O N....T H E....A P P R O P R I A T E....T H R E A D.

You went on awimb didn't yah with the name of jimbob?

enquiring about how long the sight has been running? etc.

You went on awimb didn't yah with the name of jimbob?

enquiring about how long the sight has been running? etc.

No. You have me confused with someone else.

You went on awimb didn't yah with the name of jimbob?

enquiring about how long the sight has been running? etc.

You went on awimb didn't yah with the name of jimbob?

enquiring about how long the sight has been running? etc.

Erm.....for the second time, no. You have me confused with someone else.

Will you need to be told the answer to that question again? Or are your goldfish brain days now behind you?

Support for England 2018 bid grows
By Ian Whittell
(Filed: 16/11/2005)

The Government yesterday gave the strongest indication yet that they will endorse an English bid to host the 2018 World Cup finals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2005/11/16/sfnwcp16.jpg
It's coming home? The FA hope to stage the World Cup finals in 2018

While the Football Association have yet to officially confirm they will bid for the tournament - an announcement that may not be made for a further 12 months although some reports suggest it may be as early as next week - the noises emerging from Downing Street declared that such a bid would receive the unqualified backing of the Government.

Still basking in the euphoria of Britain's successful bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, said: "I think things look set very fair for a World Cup bid."

Coincidentally, the decision over which nation is to host the 2018 World Cup will be taken in 2012. "We want to look at the chances of winning," Jowell said. "What it would cost, what the legacy would be in exactly the same way that we looked at bidding for the Olympic Games and bringing the Games to London in 2012.

"There were many people who thought we couldn't do that, we shouldn't do that. We went ahead, we won so I think things look set very fair for a World Cup bid but no decision, no final decision, has yet been taken by the FA."

The key word in Jowell's comments was "final" as all indications are that an initial decision has already been made to enter the competition for 2018 following recent preliminary talks between the government and the FA.

It is understood Chancellor Gordon Brown, who could be Prime Minister in 2012 should Labour win the next election, was heavily involved in the opening round of negotiations, with an FA insider saying his input was "highly influential." Brown, a Scot, spent Monday evening in the company of England football legends Geoff Hurst and Trevor Brooking at the House of Commons where the World Cup trophy was displayed as part of a tour of the nations competing next summer.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has been quick to support the possibility of a bid. He said recently: "If you think you have a shot at these things then have a go, that's my attitude. We did the Olympics - I frankly didn't think we would win when we started, but we did.

"It'll be painful getting there [2012] but when we do it, it will be the greatest event this country has seen. I wouldn't push them to do it, but if they want to, then why not?"

Last night the FA maintained their stance of delaying an official announcement although their delight at the sounds emerging from Downing Street was obvious.

FA communications director Adrian Bevington said: "We have said that when the World Cup comes back to Europe it is something that we will give serious consideration to.

"It's fantastic news that the Government, through the Treasury, have today announced their support for any such future bid. But in terms of the precise nature of any such bid that won't be for another year or so. It will be at least next autumn before we would put any definite proposals in place."

Part of the FA's reluctance to commit themselves at such an early juncture can be traced back to the disastrous attempt to bring the 2006 finals to England, a project that ended in an emphatic, and fairly humbling, failure.

With next summer's tournament hosted by Germany, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa and the 2014 finals likely to be staged in Brazil, the 2018 competition represents the next available opportunity for a European country to bid for the event, although Oceania are also considering a bid to stage the finals in 2018.

Germany will become the fourth nation to host a second World Cup next year, following Mexico, Italy and France. If Brazil join that list in 2014, England will be aiming to become a sixth such double host, 52 years after the unforgettable summer of 1966.

While big plans were being made off the pitch yesterday, Frank Lampard said he believes England have made a "big statement" of intent on the field following their dramatic weekend victory over Argentina in Geneva.

Lampard insists England will reap the benefits of coming up against a South American side with so much technical ability and flair as part of the learning curve ahead of the World Cup finals.

But Lampard is also mindful of the need for Sven-Goran Eriksson's side to get even better in the seven months leading up to Germany if they are to make a major impact.

"We felt we deserved to win on Saturday," Lampard said. "We created so many chances, eventually took some of them and came out on top against one of the best teams in the world.

"It is a nice statement to make by winning that game because we believe with the players in our squad we can compete against the best in the world - and Argentina are one of those.

"Even if we had lost 2-1, although it would have been a disappointing result, we could have taken a lot from giving a good account of ourselves against a top side.

"To then go on and win the game, and show the character we did, shows what we are about. We know we can't get carried away. We have a problem in this country of over criticising when it goes wrong and over praising when results go well. We were happy with Saturday but we know there is a long way to the World Cup."

Wenger looks for players to benefit the squad, not players that are bought like some clubs so their fans can put their hands down their pants with anticipation of winning their first title in 44 years.

If he can create 3 titles (one of which a whole season unbeaten- arguably the gretest achievment in english football history.) , 4 fa cups and scores of charity shields; what could he do with huge amounts of transfer funds?

If we get to the new stadium and he doesn't spend (huge amounts). Fantastic. at least if he needs better players the funds will always be there and growing hugely.

Everyone I know connected with that club say that Wenger is desperate to to have the same spending power of Manchester United theres been so many occassions were Wenger wanted a player and didn't get him. Simple as Arsenal did not retain the title this year due to the fact that Arsene really didn't have that much to spend. As for trying to say that Wenger doesn't need loads is true in some ways because he only needed £12M to buy Robinson (£1.5m), Carrick (£3.5m) and Defoe (£7m) argubly some of the best young talent that this country has produced in a while. He had the chance to sign them and I'll tell you this for free he will regret it.

hey wasup 2005, I saw you post on the football guides and as much as I hate to say it if spurs built that stand 45-50m that would be pretty tall possibly taller than old trafford.

hey wasup 2005, I saw you post on the football guides and as much as I hate to say it if spurs built that stand 45-50m that would be pretty tall possibly taller than old trafford.

My description on that site could have been wrote in bad way for I am dyslexic or you could have mis understood its the supports to the roof that I estimated by the look of the pic to be 45m-50m I'll have a look later. Yes those supports as known as to be "the towers" would very tall judge for yourself dear sir I post the pictures that I have to you.

On 25th November the AGM (Annual General Meeting) of Tottenham Hotspur PLC going to be interestin heres my view on the subjects that shall come up.

Record profit and Turnover
Tottenham finally making a decent profit and also being proud in the fact that we are in the top fifth-teen of the Worlds Richest Clubs and yet we’re not in Europe showing that we are a very stable club financially as well as showing that we can make cash. Tottenham have shown that they are one of the biggest spenders in the world showing that we have the financial muscle to compete with the super powers such as Manchester United, Real Madrid, Internazional (Inter to you and me) and others. You may think I am getting carried away with the amount that we have spent in the past twos but please oh please people tell me a club apart from Chelsea that has spent more than £61.8m in the past two years there are some most proberly but not many. I feel that this club can truly become a big money maker if we played in the Champions league consistently with a crowd of 50,000+. Thinking about it if we can have a turnover of £70.6m with a profit of £4.1m for finishing 9th in the League and getting to the quarter-finals of the both domestic cups just think of what we would be making in Europe but I should not be getting a head of myself early days.

The first team
I feel what has happened in the past eight-teen months is truly phenomenal I have never seen anything like it whilst I have been a live it is a truly amazing change of outlook and Tottenham are for once really heading in the right direction with some truly fantastic young talent.

Capital Projects
After the failed attempt eighteen months ago to build their new Academy and training facility at Abridge in Essex Spurs have finally submitted plans for a new project in Enfield, Middlesex and it sounds great. Hopefully the plans will be approved I think Levy putting the first team and having a new training facility before having an increase in capacity. http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/article.asp?hlid=313105

With stadia I think we all know that we won’t get much out of that subject I really am not getting my hopes even if thy say “we have plans” I won’t get excited. It is a rather annoying subject one I feel will just go on and on. There has been some rather silly rumors of late that the club has plans to increase the capacity at White Hart Lane to 60,000 if asked about this I think Levy will just laugh it off. The rumor is that the club will build WHL so it will have three tiers that will continually going round the ground with a total capacity of 60,000 sadly I really do not see this happen as the council would not allow it to happen even if the club do have such plans. If Levy says they are still thinking about Stratford then I will just slap my hand on my foreword head I do feel that it will not happen as the commission has said it will stay as an Athletics as long as it is standing so it would be a complete waste of time thinking about it. Wembley is another option but one that I do not like as it is outside of North London and also I really do not like the sight of empty seats at matches and that is something that you would see at just about every match. If we are to leave our beloved Lane I feel that we should find a site and build a stadium with a capacity of at least 60,000 something that is big and we know that we can fill. But I feel what has been said in the past three AGMs will be said again when it comes to the subject of Stadia as it would be a stupid to get my hopes up and think other wise.

The Director of Football setup
This system that is being tried out for the first time in this country has had its critics and so far they have been proved wrong as the system has shown that it works if Santini had left the club in the system we had before then there really would have been a crisis but thanks to the new system there wasn’t one. Frank Arnesen leaving was a big blow but AGAIN the system worked by putting in former Arsenal scout Damien Comolli who has proved that he can spot talent without a hint of panic. Kolo Toure, Gael Clichy, Jeremie Aliadiere, Arturo Lupoli were bought by Arsenal due to Comolli. He played an important participation in the buying of Robert Pires, Thierry Henry, Pascal Cygan, Robin Van Persie, Emmanuel Eboue. All this and yet the man is only 33 years old very impressive one must say. I feel that we have put in a man that can spot talent and buy it something that Arnesen did but he did have more of a scatter gun transfer policy but his loss was for its time a big one.

Re-designing of the badge
It will be interesting to see what the new badge looks like I think that it will not be shown on 25th November but early next year. The badge isn’t the only thing that is being redesigned with the official site something that I find disappointing is that you have to have login name this I would rather not have it worries me that the site will become one of those premiumtv ones but my worries could be nothing and hopefully I’ll be more than happy when it is finished.

New Sponsorship deals
Recently the name that has been said to be the new kit maker of Tottenham Hotspur is Puma I have a feeling that it is Umbro I’m no ITK and never have pretened to be one. I say Umbro because the club during its talks with THST (Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust) one of the board members said the board are thinking about having a shirt that you can be two in one which Umbro have proven to be good at but we shall wait and see. There has been two names that appeard when talking about the new main sponsor and that is the Korean electronics firm LG and T-mobile nothing has been conformed but we shall see whether a deal has been done with anyone yet.

Absolutely not.

1. If at all possible I, like the vast majority of Spurs fans, would like to stay at White Hart Lane.

2. If we did have to move, I'd like Spurs at least to stay within our manor, so to speak.

3. I'd hate for any potential new stadium for Spurs to be a messy compromise. It's not just that the fans would be a long way from the pitch. It's also the fact that the stadium wouldn't be ours but rather that we would be the junior partner to British athletics. Branding around the stadium would doubtless reflect that.

4. The roof - though spectacular and fine for athletics, it is not right for football. It is too high above the stands and would not be good for accoustics within the stadium.

Another option that I'v not seen hinted at but might be a possibility is a Spurs/Palace ground share at a new stadium. As I said theres the possibility we will be forced to move in a few years so we'd actually be in an even worse situation than you since we would get nothing from the sale of selhurst park. As most likely a junior partner or tenant in such a stadium we would provide you with more income which might make the project viable.

Another option that I'v not seen hinted at but might be a possibility is a Spurs/Palace ground share at a new stadium. As I said theres the possibility we will be forced to move in a few years so we'd actually be in an even worse situation than you since we would get nothing from the sale of selhurst park. As most likely a junior partner or tenant in such a stadium we would provide you with more income which might make the project viable.

Is Noades really going to force Palace out of their home, though? I'm sure he won't and that he's just taking a tough negotiating stance.

Besides, the main reason a Spurs / Palace groundshare won't happen is that Crystal Palace and Spurs are about 15 miles apart. That's not much in the countryside but in a crowded city like London, 15 miles is a hell of a long way. If you looked for a point equidistant from White Hart Lane and Selhurst Park, you'd be somewhere in Bermondsey / Deptford. Spurs fans wouldn't tolerate it and neither would Palace fans, I'm sure. Somehow, I don't expect that Millwall fans would be too pleased either!

Honestly, mate, I think it's about as likely as Palace sharing Falmer stadium! And I'm sure that you'll be playing at Selhurst for many decades to come.

Is Noades really going to force Palace out of their home, though? I'm sure he won't and that he's just taking a tough negotiating stance.

Besides, the main reason a Spurs / Palace groundshare won't happen is that Crystal Palace and Spurs are about 15 miles apart. That's not much in the countryside but in a crowded city like London, 15 miles is a hell of a long way. If you looked for a point equidistant from White Hart Lane and Selhurst Park, you'd be somewhere in Bermondsey / Deptford. Spurs fans wouldn't tolerate it and neither would Palace fans, I'm sure. Somehow, I don't expect that Millwall fans would be too pleased either!

Honestly, mate, I think it's about as likely as Palace sharing Falmer stadium! And I'm sure that you'll be playing at Selhurst for many decades to come.

Hopefully yes but as he yet it hasnt been resolved and as we've seen recently Jordan doesnt like to be ****ed around with, I can't imagine the land being worth that much even if it is in the London area though. The reason I mentioned it is that compaired to the likes of Charlton and Millwall there isnt really much of a rivalry between the two clubs. If it did come down to a long term stadium share I'd guess most Palace fans would preffer one with you even if it did mean we had to travel further. I'v always suspected that alot of our support doesnt live in the immediate area these days anyway.

One advantage for us in that situation(or for you if you did move into an 70-80k olympic stadium) would be the fact were London clubs so often have an abnormally large number of derbys(and of course Man Utd home games). Having that extra capacity beyond what you can normally pull in might not be worth it for 1-2 games a season but for potentially half a dozen games it maybe.

Did the AGM happen today? I've been to loads of news sites and the official site today and nothing.

Well there was and in terms of stadia not very good news, ask someone that went to the AGM to ask some questions which he so kindly did.

Q.What was said on the new club badge?

A. Absolutely nothing

Q.Did the board speak of more investment?

A. not really no.

Q.Did the board say when the pictures of the planned Training and Academy Center or any updates on the project?

A. The architects who have designed the proposed complex at Bulls Lane attended the AGM and gave a full presentation of the brief. Planning is at the consultation period now.

Q.Any news on the Stadium?

A. In short no. the board should have more idea of whats what within the next 24-36 months.

Q.Was the isssue of the ticket prices raised and if so what was said?

A. No

Q.What comments were made on the team?

A. Not many to be honest. The Club expects some movement in the January window but would not speculate on who would be leaving

Q.Was Damien Commoli there and if so what did say was his plans?

A. Yes, DC was in attendance and he basically said that we are at an early stage of the season and that any players he targets will be wanted by MJ. He says he see's no point in targeting players that the head coach wouldnt play.

Oh well football is all about what happens on the pitchnot off it.

Oh yeah went on a Spurs site and there was an old thread (from Febuary last year!!) that decided to post on it was about the stadium issue and this was said by someone.

Levy would not have brought all the surrounding shops if he had any plans to move from White Hart Lane, its not plausable. The only reason he would buy the land/shops around the stadium is if he plans to expland it, and that my friends is exactly what I think will happen

I have heard, from someone who works at the Lane, that there is an agreement, that after 5 years (don't know from when) the pitch would be turned around! Yes thats right, turned around.

For example, the Paxton wouldn't be behind a goal, it would be one of the sidelines. Apparently this is so that a car park can go undergound.

Obviously I don't know this as gospel truth but he sounds like he knows what he was talking about. I would image there is more than one option to expand the Lane, maybe this is just one of them!.

I've heard that before I think that that is what Tottenham should do it is a brilliant idea that site is huge I don't want lie but if you turned the pich 90 degrees you could maybe put the Benfica's stadium on that after all the shops on the high road would be bulldozed.

http://www.pictureblinds.co.uk/footballgrounds/images/Spursfg.JPG

An idea that THFC must have thought about and I think that is what Spurs should do but then again the Paxton wouldn't be the Paxton and the Park Lane wouldn't be the Park Lane.

Sorry I know you Woolwich lot will disgree but most nuetrals will say the same when ever it goes down hill for the Woolwich that is it they're fans are gone as quick as the wind honesty why do you think we sing

Where were you when you were shit?!!!!!
Where were you
Where were you
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIT?!!!!

It basicly takes the piss out of your loyalty and questions it I know a gooner that went to Highbury during the mid 80s and mid 90s and he just said that it would be half empty and that everyone would exagerate and complain he said tho that all teams success comes to an end and he said that he feels due to emirates thats going to be soon (well more like 4-8 years) and when it happens hes not looking foreword to going to a half full stadium. I have to say that I feel my generation has ruined football if you went to my school and studied what the goons and united said about they're team during the season you would just not beleive how FICKLE they were I remember this goon going on about Tottenham fans being the most fickle and they never got behind the team then three weeks later he was calling Arsenal shit and Reyes useless after Chelsea beat them in the Champions League and this was during they're unbeaten season! Now that is fickle coz at he end he wouldn't shut about how great the team was (which in all honesty they were) and how they would win League again and the CL with ease blah blah blah blah at Feburay let a lone May he was complaining like an idiot even you didn't support the Woolwich you still wanted to just slap him god it was annouying!.

Yes, your right Arsenal have a huge amount of plastic fans possibly 30 million but every time a club has won something it leaves a small sediment of real support.

I apologise to anybody discussing WHL as this is not the appropriate thread.

Sorry I know you Woolwich lot will disgree but most nuetrals will say the same when ever it goes down hill for the Woolwich that is it they're fans are gone as quick as the wind honesty why do you think we sing

Where were you when you were shit?!!!!!
Where were you
Where were you
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIT?!!!!

It basicly takes the piss out of your loyalty and questions it I know a gooner that went to Highbury during the mid 80s and mid 90s and he just said that it would be half empty and that everyone would exagerate and complain he said tho that all teams success comes to an end and he said that he feels due to emirates thats going to be soon (well more like 4-8 years) and when it happens hes not looking foreword to going to a half full stadium. I have to say that I feel my generation has ruined football if you went to my school and studied what the goons and united said about they're team during the season you would just not beleive how FICKLE they were I remember this goon going on about Tottenham fans being the most fickle and they never got behind the team then three weeks later he was calling Arsenal shit and Reyes useless after Chelsea beat them in the Champions League and this was during they're unbeaten season! Now that is fickle coz at he end he wouldn't shut about how great the team was (which in all honesty they were) and how they would win League again and the CL with ease blah blah blah blah at Feburay let a lone May he was complaining like an idiot even you didn't support the Woolwich you still wanted to just slap him god it was annouying!.

Yes, your right Arsenal have a huge amount of plastic fans possibly 30 million but every time a club has won something it leaves a small sediment of real support.

I apologise to anybody discussing WHL as this is not the appropriate thread.

Yes, your right Arsenal have a huge amount of plastic fans possibly 30 million but every time a club has won something it leaves a small sediment of real support.

I apologise to anybody discussing WHL as this is not the appropriate thread.

Yes you are right I don't think anyone can blame gooners going about seasons in the past all fans do it the amount times I heard a Tottenham fan complain (in about Feb of last year) about the team and the how great Tottenham were during the early 90's and the 80's and how it went down hill. I met a really old gooner and he said "in all hoensty the 90's weren't that bad for Spurs at least they won something I remember the share frustration at Arsenal winning nothing (which they did) were as Spurs (during the 90's) won the FA Cup and the League Cup can't complain really can ya". I think that eventually it wil go down for the arse and Man U and even Chelsea as it happens to all teams you just have to accept it and hope your team goes back to those glory days quick.

:yes:

Nope. I didn't go.

Oh well doesn't matter any I've got a couple of pics :)

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/article.asp?hlid=329440

Nice one Levy :cheers:

Here are the renders (sorry - very small!) and, just for ease of use, here is a repeat of the full explanation of what will be built. I guess the pics only show what will be the main first team and Academy training area and that the community scheme buildings are elsewhere on the site.

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/images/epix/enfieldtg1.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/images/epix/enfieldtgbig1.jpg

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has submitted a planning application for a new Training Centre and Community Partnership Development at Bulls Cross, Enfield.

The Club’s plans include a pavilion building that will house ‘leading edge’ training and rehabilitation facilities for both the First Team squad and Youth Academy players. The pavilion’s main features will include a fitness and rehabilitation gymnasium, hydrotherapy and treatment areas, physiotherapy areas, a covered practice pitch, changing rooms, media room, parents’ lounge, players and staff dining areas. There will also be an education suite, computer centre and study facilities for the Youth Academy players.


The landscaped grounds of the training centre will feature four full size first team practice pitches which will match the dimensions of the Club’s White Hart Lane pitch, further practice pitches together with goal keeping practice areas.


For the Youth Academy there will be seven practice pitches of various sizes to suit each of the different age groups training plus additional outdoor all weather training areas.


The plans also include the creation of a dedicated Community Partnership development that will create a unique opportunity to deliver the most dynamic community programme in football.


The Community Partnership facility will provide four pitches (one artificial and three natural turf), changing facilities, an indoor multi purpose hall, education suite with 20 computer stations and two teachers’ offices. It will also serve as the head office for the administration of Tottenham Hotspur Community. The activities at the community facility will be developed in partnership with the local authority, local schools and other organisations.


The Club will be consulting the local community on its plans and will be holding a public exhibition where the local community can view and comment on the proposals. The exhibition will take place in the Pavilion Building, Myddelton House Sports Grounds, Bulls Cross, Enfield. The dates for the exhibition are:


· Friday 21st October — 2pm -8pm
· Saturday 22nd October — 10am -2pm


Daniel Levy, Chairman, Tottenham Hotspur, said: "Our new Centre will provide us with the highest standard of facilities for our First team and allow us to attract and nurture the best young talent for future Tottenham Hotspur teams. In designing the facility we worked hard to ensure it is sympathetic to the local surroundings and environment, and that it will be of real benefit to the local community. We shall be consulting the local populace and hope that they will welcome this scheme and the contribution it makes to the area."


Kathryn Robinson, Director of Community Development, added: "The Community programme that the new facility will be able to host and deliver will be the most innovative of its kind in the country and provide the opportunity for a unique partnership with the Local Authority and other local organisations."


The planning application will be considered by the London Borough of Enfield later this year.

There's also this article from local campaigners against the project! Thanks, 2005, for finding this:

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (Spurs) have applied for planning permission to create a training centre and youth academy on 56 acres of Green Belt land at Bulls Cross in north Enfield. By far the majority of this land is owned by Enfield Council. Spurs already lease pitches from Lee Valley Regional Park Authority at Myddelton House but now want to take over two very large adjoining agricultural fields.


The plans for the total site include:-

A totally covered football pitch with attached facilities for both the Youth Academy and First Team. This presents a massive building of 3 storeys with a footprint of some 75 metres by 115 metres!
Permanent parking spaces for 120 vehicles with overflow parking for a further 90 cars for weekend use.
One all weather pitch and an all weather training area, both floodlit.
One other floodlit pitch plus 9 more pitches.
Floodlighting columns 15 metres high!
Use 7 days a week from 7am to 10pm.
Total exclusion of the public with security fencing and guards
All the land is within the Green Belt and part is currently in the Forty Hill Conservation Area; the remaining land is to be included as recommended in the recently adopted Character Appraisal for this Conservation Area.

Spurs also want to build a two storey complex of indoor sports hall, offices and education areas on Bulls Cross Open Space owned by our Council This would be another very large building within both the Green Belt and the Conservation Area. One all weather football pitch plus 3 others are proposed.

Plan of site:

http://www.enfieldpressoc.org.uk/thfc_plan_small.gif

edited

Click the link for a PDF of Spurs' information pack sent to local residents. All downloads for sending letters are out of date (deadline was 22nd November) but there are three pictures of interest:

1. Aerial plan of site (clearer than the one above!) on page two.

2. Render of Community partnership building / sports hall (very plain / ugly!) on page four.

3. Render of first team and Academy building at bottom of page six. Bear in mind that what is shown is not even half of one facade and you get an idea of how huge the building will be!

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/enfieldtg.pdf

http://www.thfconline.co.uk/communities/004/005/308/338/images/4509318331.jpg
Ah the Park Lane end.

Another render:

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/images/epix/enfieldtg2.jpg

Great News btw. Whats happening about the proposed extension of the Victoria Line??? If it happens WHL will be extended to between 45-50k capacity

Great News btw. Whats happening about the proposed extension of the Victoria Line??? If it happens WHL will be extended to between 45-50k capacity

Unfortunately, London winning the Olympics is bad news for Spurs. It means that every single penny of available funds for the development of transport infrastructure for the next seven years will be diverted to the Olympic cause.

And that means that a Victoria line extension to Northumberland Park (nowhere near any Olympic venues, nor where Olympic tourists are likely to venture!) is very, very low down on the list of priorities.

Unfortunately, London winning the Olympics is bad news for Spurs. It means that every single penny of available funds for the development of transport infrastructure for the next seven years will be diverted to the Olympic cause.

And that means that a Victoria line extension to Northumberland Park (nowhere near any Olympic venues, nor where Olympic tourists are likely to venture!) is very, very low down on the list of priorities.

Very frustrating but then again look at whats happening on the pitch :cheers:

Any recent pictures of the new East stand being built on the rugby side? The were some on www.leedsrugby.com but there haven't been any for ages!... This is now going to add university lecture theatres to this unique ground under the new stand!!
Also Leeds Rugby is to sell the cricket pitch to Yorkshire County Cricket for £16 Million, then the 2 clubs are to rebuild the main stand that joins the two stadia! Can't wait to see the pictures! Hopefully squeeze a load more seats into both stadia and get a cantilever roof sorted, more executive boxes and some new bars/restaurants and player facilities and a museum!?

They are building some double(even triple and quadruple) in the middle east...

Headingley could be improved further by getting rid of the ridiculous slope that goes down to the grandstand end.

I never even played on anything as bad in junior cricket in the back paddocks.

all venues do not need to be similar flat perfectly shaped ovals and identical seating all-round. whats wrong with a slope. Lords have one

^^^^^^

Lord's is not as bad as Leeds as it does not affect the bowlers run ups.

YCCC should flatten out the field, it is too steep. Not really too concerned if they want to keep it an oddly shaped ground though.

http://www.nikaia.fr/

The Nikaia complex of Nice in France, mix of an arena (9000 seats), a second arena (500 seats), an open air stadium (with athletic track), and an open air concert amphitheater.

Home of Burton Albion

The Stadium: For a mere £6.4 million ($11.2M), Burton Albion now have one of the best venues for watching football in non-league circles. Gone are the obstructed views and cramped terracing from Eton Park, and in have come a perfect vantage point from all four stands. Three sides of the ground are fully covered tiered terracing, whilst the 2000 seat main stand runs the whole length of the pitch.

The acoustics of the ground mean that even a small crowd can generate a good atmosphere, with rumours that sounds were even heard emanating from the 'popside' during recent games.

Away fans are located in the Coors Stand (South Stand). This is a covered terraced area which has good views from all areas. The design of the stand means that there are no pillars obstructing the view. Seating is also made available to visiting supporters in the main stand.

http://www.nottinghamforest.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/ec/3a/0,,10308~2702060,00.jpg

http://www.brewersnet.com/images/pics/frontpage_pic_pirelli_stadium_0503.jpg

http://image46.webshots.com/47/3/41/76/330834176KMRlvL_ph.jpg

http://image22.webshots.com/22/8/17/60/362681760IUroxQ_ph.jpg

Considering its non-league, not bad at all. Be impressive for a non-league club to get crowds that large - though I think the largest non-league stadium, is close to 15 000.

Considering its non-league, not bad at all. Be impressive for a non-league club to get crowds that large - though I think the largest non-league stadium, is close to 15 000.

Yeah, it looks a better standard than most in the Conference.

I was surprised they're playing Man U there. They could have almost paid it off in one go if it had been switched to Old Trafford.

You can't switch FA cup games any more, unless it's for safety purposes. I.E. if it had been Burscough vs. Man Utd, it would have to have been moved because Burscough's ground is almost just a park. The Pirelli Stadium was opened against Man Utd, so there's no question over safety if they visit.

The largest non-league grounds are, I think, St Helens Town (who play at Knowsley Road, 19,100, home of St Helens Rugby League), Gateshead (International Stadium, 11,750, an athletics venue) and Wakefield/Emley (Belle Vue, 10,100, again it's a Rugby League venue).

Just before Christmas, Yorkshire County Cricket Club bought the cricket half of the stadium (which was previously owned by the rugby club) for £12 Million, and announced plans to rebuild the main stand which joins the two stadiums!! It will certainly increase the cricket capacity to around 20,000 from 17,000. Not sure how it will affect the rugby capacity. Unlikely to happen this year though, as the rugby half of the stadium is already rebuilding one stand this season.

Just before Christmas, Yorkshire County Cricket Club bought the cricket half of the stadium (which was previously owned by the rugby club) for £12 Million, and announced plans to rebuild the main stand which joins the two stadiums!! It will certainly increase the cricket capacity to around 20,000 from 17,000. Not sure how it will affect the rugby capacity. Unlikely to happen this year though, as the rugby half of the stadium is already rebuilding one stand this season.

Do Leeds Rhino's play any games at Elland Road? If not, do you think they could fill it against perhaps the Bradford Bulls?

pretty impressive, in my country (the netherlands), a stadium in the second pro-division has that size, a non-leaque club doesn't have one or with a max of 1000.

pretty impressive, in my country (the netherlands), a stadium in the second pro-division has that size, a non-leaque club doesn't have one or with a max of 1000.

Non-League is pretty well supported in England. I think the average crowd is 1,700

This is the current running average of attendances per league; (level, avg att, top att)

1st Level - 33.275 - Manchester United - 67.852

2 nd level - 17.141 - Norwich City - 25.121

3 th level - 7.419 - Nottingham Forest - 19.091

4 th level - 3.941 - Carlisle United - 5.867

5 th level - 1.761 - Exeter City - 3.828

6 th level - 502 - Weymouth - 1.317

7 th level - 370 - AFC Wimbledon - 2.643

8 th level - 164 - Dover Athletic - 550


Yes, that's the same Nottingham Forest that won the European Cup in both 1979 and 1980currently in the old division 3

Leeds Rhinos did play the Carnegie World Club Challenge at Elland Road against Canterbury Bulldogs (winners of the Superleague in the UK against winners of the NRL in Australia) in 2005. Capacity at Elland Road stadium is just over 40,000 and I think it was almost full for this game, if not full. They regularly sell out for games at Headingley (22,000) against the likes of St Helens, Wigan and Bradford, don't know if they could attract a crowd of 40,000 for a regular Superleague game. Average crowd in 2005 at Headingley was over 17,000. I reckon when they rebuild the Main (North) stand, upping the capacity to somewhere around 26,000/27,000 would be enough for the foreseeable future.

Since the FA Cup really gets going tomorrow I thought I'd mention this fantasy game. Fantasy FA Cup (http://www.fantasyfacup.com/)

The Football Association Challenge Cup, commonly known as the FA Cup, is the main "knockout" cup competition in English football, run by and named after The Football Association.

The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world. As such its prestige as the sport's premier domestic cup competition is without par around the world. As it involves clubs of all standards playing against each other, there is great scope for "giant-killers" from the lower divisions to eliminate top clubs from the tournament. A record 674 teams have entered the FA Cup in 2005-2006. In comparison, the League Cup, a lower prestige English football knockout tournament, can only have the 92 members of The Football League (who organise the competition) and FA Premier League can compete.

http://www.ticketcity.com/images/soccerimages/facup.jpg

FA Cup 3rd round draw in full

We've got Plymouth expect a 4-1 victory to the mighty Wolves ;)

(Premiership teams highlighted)
(Championship teams in Blue)
(CCL1 teams in Red)
(CCL2 teams in Green)
(Non league teams Underlined)

My predictions also included :cheers1:

Arsenal 2-1 Cardiff, 13:00
Barnsley 1-2 Walsall, 15:00
Blackburn 3-0 QPR, 15:00
Brighton 1-2 Coventry, 15:00
Chelsea 3-1 Huddersfield, 15:00
Cheltenham 1-1 Chester, 15:00
Crystal Palace 3-0 Northampton, 15:00
Derby 2-2 Burnley, 15:00
Hull 2-1 Aston Villa, 12:30
Ipswich 1-0 Portsmouth, 15:00
Luton 2-1 Liverpool, 17:30
Man City 4-0 S****horpe, 15:00
Millwall 0-2 Everton, 15:00
Newcastle 3-1 Mansfield, 15:00
Norwich 2-1 West Ham, 15:00
Nuneaton 0-1 Middlesbrough, 15:00
Preston 0-0 Crewe, 15:00
Sheff Utd 3-2 Colchester, 15:00
Sheff Wed 1-1 Charlton, 15:00
Southampton 2-1 Milton Keynes Dons, 15:00
Stockport 0-0 Brentford, 15:00
Stoke 2-0 Tamworth, 15:00
Torquay 1-0 Birmingham, 15:00
Watford 2-1 Bolton, 15:00
West Brom 2-3 Reading, 15:00
Wigan 1-1 Leeds, 13:00
Wolverhampton 4-1 Plymouth, 15:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, 08 January 2006
Burton Albion 0-4 Man Utd, 16:00
Fulham 1-1 Leyton Orient, 14:00
Leicester 1-3 Tottenham, 18:30
Sunderland 2-1 Northwich, 15:00

Can FA Cup Change Our Season Again?
January 6 2006

ARE Wolves up for the cup? Will the players put in the effort in the final third, will Hoddle go back to that 3-5-2, will the fans cheer or boo, will we be in the hat for the fourth round? Who knows.

Thats the problem with Wolves now. We just never know what is going happen. From the sublime to the ridiculous. From the first half demolition of Crewe to the pathetic first half performance against Coventry at the Ricoh Arena on Monday.

It just doesn't make any sense, we have no idea what is going to happen - however we certainly won't be happy with a draw and a horrible replay down south.

Arsenal knocked Wolves out of this competition last year but in the past - and more notably in the promotion season of 2003 - the FA Cup third round has been the turning point of seasons.

In 2003 Wolves produced two poor home displays on the bounce. A dismal 2-1 home defeat to Bradford City was followed by a bore 1-1 draw with Derby County, but just days later Newcastle visited Molineux in the third round of the FA Cup.

The game was so good that only this week has it been a key game on Sky Sports "FA Cup Classics" programme. In a game labelled as one of the best ever - and the game which won game of the tournament - Wolves took the game to a full strength Newcastle side and raced into a 2-0 lead with Paul Ince and the once attack minded Mark Kennedy scoring the goals.

Newcastle hit back with a goal from Jermain Jenas before Alan Shearer levelled the scores from the penalty spot minutes before half time. However, incredibly, the second half was even better than the first. Joleon Lescott first made a superb double save on the line before Wolves 20 seconds later raced up the other end to take the lead again. George Ndah's goal it was following a wonderful cross from Man Of The Match Mark Kennedy.

Wolves defended well - clearing off the line again - but could have won the game by more. Kevin Cooper missed a late chance and Kenny Miller had a perfectly good goal ruled out for an invisible push.

Wolves won the game 3-2 and went on to lose just two games between then and the rest of the season. One was against eventual finalists Southampton in the FA Cup whilst the other was against high flying Portsmouth. The season eventually ended up with a 3-1 aggregate win over Reading in the play-off semi finals and then a comprehensive 3-0 win over Sheffield United in the Play Off final at Cardiff.

History sometimes repeats itself, could getting past Plymouth could be the start of a repeat?

Team News

Kenny Miller and Gabor Gyepes will both play despite picking up their fifth bookings of the season away at Coventry on Saturday (both will miss Fridays game at home to Luton). Postma will stay in goal after he completed his permanent move to Molineux earlier today and Denes Rosa could make his first start in gold and black.

For me I have to wake up at 7 AM to watch Hull vs Villa

Does that seem pathetic?

For me I have to wake up at 7 AM to watch Hull vs Villa

Does that seem pathetic?

Only if you are a Villa fan.

where is Nottingham Forest?? :runaway:
...the only club who won more European Champions (2) than English Champions (1)
...the only former European Champions staying out of its premier league :bash:

On default - Wolves are the only team crowned as world champions not to be in the premier league ;)

where is Nottingham Forest?? :runaway:
...the only club who won more European Champions (2) than English Champions (1)
...the only former European Champions staying out of its premier league :bash:

Forest were knocked out in round 2 I think. In fact they're the only former European Champions to be in League 1 (the old third division)

Spurs got a record crowd of 414567

I quite enjoyed the Torquay match but I wish they would have pulled off the victory

FA CUP 3RD ROUND RESULTS - SATURDAY 7/1/06

Bold = scoreline I predicted correctly
Blue = winners I predicted correctly
Red = results I predicted correctly
Rest = wrong ;)

Arsenal 2 - 1 Cardiff
Barnsley 1 - 1 Walsall
Blackburn 3 - 0 QPR
Brighton 0 - 1 Coventry
Chelsea 2 - 1 Huddersfield
Cheltenham 2 - 2 Chester
Crystal Palace 4 - 1 Northampton
Derby 2 - 1 Burnley
Hull 0 - 1 Aston Villa
Ipswich 0 - 1 Portsmouth
Luton 3 - 5 Liverpool
Man City 3 - 1 S****horpe
Millwall 1 - 1 Everton
Newcastle 1 - 0 Mansfield
Norwich 1 - 2 West Ham
Nuneaton 1 - 1 Middlesbrough
Preston 2 - 1 Crewe
Sheff Utd 1 - 2 Colchester
Sheff Wed 2 - 4 Charlton
Southampton 4 - 3 Milton Keynes Dons
Stockport 2 - 3 Brentford
Stoke 0 - 0 Tamworth
Torquay 0 - 0 Birmingham
Watford 0 - 3 Bolton
West Brom 1 - 1 Reading
Wigan 1 - 1 Leeds
Wolverhampton 1 - 0 Plymouth

Teams through to 4th round which will be drawn on Monday 9th January.
(League next to name)

Chelsea (Prem)
Arsenal (Prem)
Brentford (League 1)
Wolves (Championship)
Bolton (Prem)
Southampton (Championship)
Charlton (Prem)
Preston (Championship)
Colchester (League 1)
West Ham (Prem)
Newcastle (Prem)
Man City (Prem)
Liverpool (Prem)
Derby (Championship)
Aston Villa (Prem)
Portsmouth (Prem)
Crystal Palace (Championship)
Coventry (Championship)
Blackburn (Prem)

So far:

Premiership = 11
Championship = 6
League 1 = 2
League 2 = 0
Non League = 0

Blue = winners I predicted correctly
Red = results I predicted correctly


Not sure why you differentiated between the two - you were just as right in both cases...

Not sure why you differentiated between the two - you were just as right in both cases...

Because I predicted a draw for a few games but instead of 1-1 it was 2-2 (e.g a result but not a winner) :cheers1:

Spurs got a record crowd of 414567

oh ha ha ha hagus.

oh ha ha ha hagus.

tut tut, terrible bigotry


and it's 'haggis', not 'hagus'


http://www.stickings90.freeserve.co.uk/images/haggis.jpg

Favourites to win cup in order - after every round Ill un-highlight the ones which get knocked out :)

Chelsea
Man Utd
Arsenal
Liverpool
Tottenham
Newcastle
Bolton
Middlesboro
Blackburn
Man City
Everton
Aston Villa
Fulham
Charlton
West Ham
Birmingham
Portsmouth
Sunderland
West Brom
Crystal Palace
Reading
Wolves
Wigan
Southampton
Preston
Leeds
Derby
Leicester
Coventry
Stoke
Millwall
Brentford
Walsall
Barnsley
Colchester United
Cheltenham
Chester
Northwich
Burton Albion
Tamworth
Torquay United
Nuneaton Borough

Fulham have become the first Premiership casualty after losing 2-1 to second division Leyton Orient at home :hahaha:

Sunderland also beat non-league Northwich 3-0

Burton draw 0-0 with Man Utd, even more money for them in the replay although I'd guess their real chance to case an upset was today.

:hilarious :rofl:
Leicester City 3 Tottingham 2
two nil and they fucked it up.:rofl:

:hilarious :rofl:
Leicester City 3 Tottingham 2
two nil and they fucked it up.:rofl:

HAHAHAHAHAHAH get in....

two nil up and you fucked it up
two nil up and you fucked it up,
two nil up,
two nil up,
two nil up and you fucked it up.

I back us to Win Treble

- Euro Cup
- Fa Cup
- League Cup

It will be sad not to be Champions of England but hell-

We've got a chance to become one of the most powerful clubs financially within Ashburton Grove.
Henry is staying. (I HOPE)
Brilliant team for future.
More Importantly, people like theo walcott are now seeing us as challengers to Chelsea's artificialy created dominance - "they'll be really good if we can pull together a team of world beaters".He will think. I Can be opposing the cancer of football.

I heard Spurs took over 350000 fans to the Walkers Stadium!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH get in....

two nil up and you fucked it up
two nil up and you fucked it up,
two nil up,
two nil up,
two nil up and you fucked it up.

I back us to Win Treble

- Euro Cup
- Fa Cup
- League Cup

It will be sad not to be Champions of England but hell-

We've got a chance to become one of the most powerful clubs financially within Ashburton Grove.
Henry is staying. (I HOPE)
Brilliant team for future.
More Importantly, people like theo walcott are now seeing us as challengers to Chelsea's artificialy created dominance - "they'll be really good if we can pull together a team of world beaters".He will think. I Can be opposing the cancer of football.

I admit that we fvcked up whole heartedly funny how I come on and back it for Tottenham when they lose yet you seem to desapear when arsenal lose hhmm funny that. But anyway we lost and were shit didn't help not having King, Mido, Davids, Lee. Well it would have been a reply if wasn't for LCFC 12th man thats right the crowd WOOOOOPS! I meant the linesman of course the one that should have seen that Mark de Vries was offside :bash: . One thing that I will do is give Leicester the credit they played well and deserved to be through in my opinion. They may have been lucky but at the end of the day they are through and that is all that will matter. It is massive boost for them as they are one point above the relegation zone in the Championship. I will denie the fact that I am desapointed in the players especially that watse of money Rasicak come on hoddle buy him hes all yours. Today has been a funny one Tottenham were shite but not the only ones.

Fulham 1-2 Leyton Orient

Scottish FA Cup
Clyde 2-1 Celtic

Not a good debut for Roy Keane his side were truly poor. Clyde missed a pen and had three goals disalowed :eek2:

Scottish FA Cup
Clyde 2-1 Celtic

Not a good debut for Roy Keane his side were truly poor. Clyde missed a pen and had three goals disalowed :eek2:

I bet bubomb's devastated about that one. :cheers:

I bet bubomb's devastated about that one. :cheers:

I'm still laughing!

I heard Spurs took over 350000 fans to the Walkers Stadium!!!

400,000, actually.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH get in....

two nil up and you fucked it up
two nil up and you fucked it up,
two nil up,
two nil up,
two nil up and you fucked it up.

I back us to Win Treble

- Euro Cup
- Fa Cup
- League Cup

It will be sad not to be Champions of England but hell-

We've got a chance to become one of the most powerful clubs financially within Ashburton Grove.
Henry is staying. (I HOPE)
Brilliant team for future.
More Importantly, people like theo walcott are now seeing us as challengers to Chelsea's artificialy created dominance - "they'll be really good if we can pull together a team of world beaters".He will think. I Can be opposing the cancer of football.

Would be nice if you had some English players in your side now and again.

400,000, actually.


what a huge club they are, 400000!!!!

oh dear, yet another thread in this forum descends into pedantic rubbish

I see Everton are continuing their fantastic season :bash:

NEW ERA FOR HEADINGLEY CARNEGIE STADIUM
Plans were today revealed for a historic redevelopment of the newly named Headingley Carnegie Stadium encompassing both the rugby and cricket stadia that will usher in a new and exciting future for one of the most famous stadiums in world sport.
The new name of Headingley Carnegie Stadium will come in with immediate effect after a significant financial investment by Leeds Metropolitan University. The plans can now come to fruition following the successful purchase of the freehold of the cricket stadium and business by Yorkshire CCC from the owners since 1890, Leeds CF&A Co Ltd.
The plans include a new North/South Stand to replace the existing structure which was built after fire destroyed the original stand in March 1932 and a new Pavilion and Media Centre for cricket at the stadium.
The partnership with Leeds Metropolitan University continues a successful relationship between them and Headingley Stadium. The new stand at the Eastern end of the Rugby Stadium has been built in conjunction with Leeds Met and will be named the Carnegie Stand.
However, even before recent times there has been a strong link with both cricket and rugby and the Carnegie faculty of Leeds Metropolitan University including such great names as Eric Harris, Brendan Foster and Lewis Jones.
The purchase of Headingley by Yorkshire CCC brings to a highly successful conclusion a long period of negotiations between both parties, with the partnership with Leeds Metropolitan University being a key factor.
Commenting at the unveiling, Robin Smith, Chairman of The Yorkshire County Cricket Club said, ‘‘The Headingley vision, once realised, will mean that Headingley will have become one of the finest sports complexes in the Country, providing cricket, rugby and educational facilities to world class standards.’’
Paul Caddick, Chairman of Leeds CF&A and owner of both rugby codes at Headingley, added, ‘‘We are proud to have played our part in helping Yorkshire CCC achieve their dream of owning the cricket freehold and business and the support of Leeds Met has been very important. We can all look forward to a very bright and exciting future together.’’
Professor Simon Lee, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University, was present at Headingley along with Chancellor Brendan Foster MBE to reveal the new name and he added, ‘‘In the best pioneering traditions of our first hundred years in Headingley, this unique partnership takes the relationship between sport, community and university life beyond all boundaries.’’
The deal to purchase Headingley by the Yorkshire County Cricket Club also ensures Test and international cricket at Headingley with a 15-year international staging agreement with the England and Wales Cricket Board now in place.
England captain Michael Vaughan OBE commented, ‘‘As both a Yorkshire player and captain of England, I am delighted that the future of cricket, and in particular international cricket has been secured at Headingley. Our famous old ground has witnessed some of the finest moments and battles in world cricket and now supporters of the future can become part of our heritage.’’
For the first time in their 142-year history, Yorkshire CCC now own their own ground. Chief Executive of The Yorkshire County Cricket Club, Colin Graves, commented, ‘‘It has been a dream of many a Yorkshireman that the most famous cricket club in the world should be in charge of its own destiny. After a long and gruelling journey, I am honoured to have been part of the team who have been able to secure the future of our great club and international cricket at Headingley.’’
Gary Hetherington, Leeds CF&A Co Ltd Chief Executive, concluded, ‘‘The support of Leeds Met was a factor in achieving the Leeds CF&A/Yorkshire CCC deal and this partnership will bring significant benefits to Headingley Carnegie Stadium and the Rhinos, Tykes and Yorkshire CCC teams. It is great news for everyone concerned.’’
From LeedsRugby.com

It does get a bit frustrating to know that we are going to have to wait a while but still it happens anyway all that matters is what happens on the pitch. Oh yeah JimB have you by any chance heard a rumour that Tottenham have plans (according to a tabloid) to build a U shaped third teir going the Paxton, West, Park Lane stands?

That's a cute little stadium!

That's a cute little stadium!

"Thats what I thought when I saw that crappy empty stadium called... what was the name of that stadium again small crappy deserted oh yeah!!!!!" Hamden I loved your adentance against the USA lol!!

Spurs´support is fantastic and hopefully they can expand the place.

Spurs´support is fantastic and hopefully they can expand the place.

Even Barcelona and Real Madrid have had some terrible crowds. A few years ago, before the Galactico's, Real would struggle to get 10,000 to a champions league game. Barcelona were better, but not by much. Both clubs have plenty of fair weather fans.

Even these days Barca tend to have 20 or 30,000 empty seats most games.

"Thats what I thought when I saw that crappy empty stadium called... what was the name of that stadium again small crappy deserted oh yeah!!!!!" Hamden I loved your adentance against the USA lol!!

You clearly don't know what you are talking about!! Scotland had the 4th biggest crowds in Europe for the 2006 qualifiers. Not bad for a country with 5 million people. Well done to Wales as well. Huge averages for Wales.

Top 5 European Attendances -

64151 - France
61360 - England
54258 - Wales
47177 - Scotland
44081 - Holland

You clearly don't know what you are talking about!! Scotland had the 4th biggest crowds in Europe for the 2006 qualifiers. Not bad for a country with 5 million people. Well done to Wales as well. Huge averages for Wales.

Top 5 European Attendances -

64151 - France
61360 - England
54258 - Wales
47177 - Scotland
44081 - Holland

Pretty impressive. I've seen the list before and was very dissapointed with Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany.

Especially impressive for Scotland considering the depths Scotland has plumetted to (though I will admit I think the corner has been turned).

Even Barcelona and Real Madrid have had some terrible crowds. A few years ago, before the Galactico's, Real would struggle to get 10,000 to a champions league game. Barcelona were better, but not by much. Both clubs have plenty of fair weather fans.

Even these days Barca tend to have 20 or 30,000 empty seats most games.


Real have always had 40 - 80000 in the Champions League. Spurs shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Barcelona and Real Madrid!!!!

Talk about delusions of grandeur!!

The Galacticos of Tottenham with their crowds of 250000!!!

Meanwhile back on planet earth.........


I must give you credit though for not being anti-Scottish and giving us some credit. Thank you.

Pretty impressive. I've seen the list before and was very dissapointed with Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany.

Especially impressive for Scotland considering the depths Scotland has plumetted to (though I will admit I think the corner has been turned).


Germany didn´t played for the 2006 qualifiers.

Italy dissapointed me too. With those big stadiums... Olimpico, San Siro, that Napoli's one.

Spain had play a lot of games in small stadiums, like Oviedo and Santander.

Portugal... I can't understand... good team, awesomes stadiums... poor averages..

Update -

64151 - France
61360 - England
54258 - Wales
47177 - Scotland
46667 - Ukraine
44081 - Holland

Spain sometimes play in small stadiums as their FA knows the crowd will be low. This game was played in a 20000 stadium, only 12500 turned up!! -

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/t/mr/mr36655.html

Real have always had 40 - 80000 in the Champions League. Spurs shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Barcelona and Real Madrid!!!!

Talk about delusions of grandeur!!

The Galacticos of Tottenham with their crowds of 250000!!!

Meanwhile back on planet earth.........


I must give you credit though for not being anti-Scottish and giving us some credit. Thank you.

You'd be surprised. I went to Madrid for a game in 2000 and in the group stages(first group) they'd had a sub-10,000 crowd. I saw them play Kiev at home in front of about 40,000. In the previous seasons Real struggled to get decent crowds in the first group stage and a crowd of under 15,000 wasn't uncommon. Barcelona have always been better but they would often fail to break 30,000.

i admit as an arsenal fan that spurs are catching us in the league but, (this isnt an excuse) i feel that the building of the new stadium has slowed the potenial of arsenal signing new talent, but i must say that martin jol has done wonders for the spurs team and there is a possibility of spurs playing in europe, all i can say is good luck to ya we need a good english team in europe (apart from the gunners of course) i think that spurs should explore the possability of adding extra tiers on top of the ones thay have they do it in spain y not over here?

what about juventus, they have a huge stadium but how often do the fill it??? almost never.

i heard through the grape vine that juventus was gonna reduce there capacity to around 45,000 to actually fill the stadium for once

what about juventus, they have a huge stadium but how often do the fill it??? almost never.

i heard through the grape vine that juventus was gonna reduce there capacity to around 45,000 to actually fill the stadium for once


That's true. Some of the 'big clubs' get pretty poor crowds as it happens. The Championship, surprisingly, pulls in more fans than Serie A.

You'd be surprised. I went to Madrid for a game in 2000 and in the group stages(first group) they'd had a sub-10,000 crowd. I saw them play Kiev at home in front of about 40,000. In the previous seasons Real struggled to get decent crowds in the first group stage and a crowd of under 15,000 wasn't uncommon. Barcelona have always been better but they would often fail to break 30,000.

In Spain and Italy the Champions League first group games aren't that big a deal, hence the lower crowds. In Italy the Champions League is far less important than the Scudetto, and so crowds are far lower.

But I don't believe Real have ever had a sub 10000 crowd for a Champions League game, and I will eat my left ball if Barcelona regularly got under 30000, or if Real regularly got under 15000!! I would be suprised if either have ever had crowds this low for a Champions League game, let alone regularly!!

Real have always had 40 - 80000 in the Champions League. Spurs shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Barcelona and Real Madrid!!!!

Talk about delusions of grandeur!!

The Galacticos of Tottenham with their crowds of 250000!!!

Meanwhile back on planet earth.........


I must give you credit though for not being anti-Scottish and giving us some credit. Thank you.

Why should Spurs not be compared to Barcelona or Madrid??

Why this being in awe of clubs that dont actually have this huge fan base as some seem to think, certainly not match-going fans.

As I just wrote in another thread, Spurs would almost certainly have a higher average attendance than Barcelona if circumstances were equal.

And in fact so would Rangers.

British clubs are far bigger than many brits themselves seem to realise

In Spain and Italy the Champions League first group games aren't that big a deal, hence the lower crowds. In Italy the Champions League is far less important than the Scudetto, and so crowds are far lower.

But I don't believe Real have ever had a sub 10000 crowd for a Champions League game, and I will eat my left ball if Barcelona regularly got under 30000, or if Real regularly got under 15000!! I would be suprised if either have ever had crowds this low for a Champions League game, let alone regularly!!

I wish there was a site with the crowds from previous years CL games. I'm certain that Real have had more than one sub 10,000 crowd. I rememebr seeing highlights from an almost empty Bernabeau. Barca have definately had crowds under 30K. Perhaps not regularly but not one offs either.

duplicate post

duplicate post

That's true. Some of the 'big clubs' get pretty poor crowds as it happens. The Championship, surprisingly, pulls in more fans than Serie A.


No it doesn't. Stop exaggerating!!

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveita.htm

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveeng.htm

To understand Juventus's low crowds you need to understand Juventus. Juventus are a massive club, with a huge yearly income (2nd highest in the world) and a huge Italian support. But they play in Turin, and most Juventus fans don't live in Turin (and the one's that do hate the stadium).

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%253D9032%2526cid%253D40924,00.html

Juventus have moved a few games to the San Siro in recent years and got 85000 sell outs every time. They are a massive club, but not in Turin!!

i must say thats the comment on the championship having higher average attendances than serie A is tru i have heard that on many occasions, the problem with continental football is that the smaller teams dont really get a look in when it comes to there fair share of fans, its the same over here the more successful a club is the bigger the fan base

you dont get teams that win their leagues in the conference have 40,000+ attendances because kids want to be know as a man u or arsenal fan

i must say thats the comment on the championship having higher average attendances than serie A is tru i have heard that on many occasions, the problem with continental football is that the smaller teams dont really get a look in when it comes to there fair share of fans, its the same over here the more successful a club is the bigger the fan base

you dont get teams that win their leagues in the conference have 40,000+ attendances because kids want to be know as a man u or arsenal fan


What do you mean it's 'tru'!! Did you not look at my links? It's not true.

Serie A still get higher crowds than England´s second level but the gap keeps diminishing. Unless something happens in Italy it could well soon be reality.

The problem is the fact that serie A is actually a very weak league away from the top 5-6 clubs. crowds are low, Stadiums are poor for the most part and generate little income, tv deals are done seperately so the top clubs grab all the cash.

Essentially this means that a small serie A club getting 10,000 crowds in a dilapidated stadium simply have no income. It almost shocking the way very average players from the very small danish league go to serie A and play.

Serie A still get higher crowds than England´s second level but the gap keeps diminishing. Unless something happens in Italy it could well soon be reality.

The problem is the fact that serie A is actually a very weak league away from the top 5-6 clubs. crowds are low, Stadiums are poor for the most part and generate little income, tv deals are done seperately so the top clubs grab all the cash.

Essentially this means that a small serie A club getting 10,000 crowds in a dilapidated stadium simply have no income. It almost shocking the way very average players from the very small danish league go to serie A and play.


Serie A used to the biggest league in the world what happened?

As a Spurs fan I'm a bit annouted we'renot talking about WHL but as I like these sought of posts I am more than happy to comtinue this. I see where kingdomca is coming from I realy do but I very much agree with what bubomb says I don't think you can't put Spurs in the same catergory as the likes of Barca & Madrid. Tottenham by the looks of things are going places but so are other clubs in England like Liverpool and as we very much well know Chelsea. I would put Tottenham, Celtic, Rangers in the 4 star catergory in terms of big club mold and put Barca and Real in the 5 star catorgory i.e. the big fvck off clubs. During the past four transfer windows Tottenham have spent a staggering £61.8m that equals out as £15m spent on average and I can tell you not even Celtic or Ranger could spend like that no offence to them but at the moment they could only dream of that money. I think it is fair to say that Tottenham have shown that they are a big club in the sense of support and mainly finance.

As a Spurs fan I'm a bit annouted we'renot talking about WHL but as I like these sought of posts I am more than happy to comtinue this. I see where kingdomca is coming from I realy do but I very much agree with what bubomb says I don't think you can't put Spurs in the same catergory as the likes of Barca & Madrid. Tottenham by the looks of things are going places but so are other clubs in England like Liverpool and as we very much well know Chelsea. I would put Tottenham, Celtic, Rangers in the 4 star catergory in terms of big club mold and put Barca and Real in the 5 star catorgory i.e. the big fvck off clubs. During the past four transfer windows Tottenham have spent a staggering £61.8m that equals out as £15m spent on average and I can tell you not even Celtic or Ranger could spend like that no offence to them but at the moment they could only dream of that money. I think it is fair to say that Tottenham have shown that they are a big club in the sense of support and mainly finance.

Yeah, sorry to go of topic.

WHL is great stadium, but I'm biased!

No it doesn't. Stop exaggerating!!

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveita.htm

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveeng.htm

To understand Juventus's low crowds you need to understand Juventus. Juventus are a massive club, with a huge yearly income (2nd highest in the world) and a huge Italian support. But they play in Turin, and most Juventus fans don't live in Turin (and the one's that do hate the stadium).

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%253D9032%2526cid%253D40924,00.html

Juventus have moved a few games to the San Siro in recent years and got 85000 sell outs every time. They are a massive club, but not in Turin!!

2005/6 projections based on Serie A at 21,635 per game and Championship @ 17,296

Serie A - 8.2M
Championship - 9.5M

So Serie A does pull in less spectators than the Championhsip. Not per game, but even that gap is pretty small at 4.339 per game.

2005/6 projections based on Serie A at 21,635 per game and Championship @ 17,296

Serie A - 8.2M
Championship - 9.5M

So Serie A does pull in less spectators than the Championhsip. Not per game, but even that gap is pretty small at 4.339 per game.


That's stupid. More games are played in the Championship. You can only compare average attendance per game. It's like saying crowds for Sunday amatuer football are higher than the Premiership. If you added up all the people around Britain who watch amatuer football on a Sunday then yes, there would be more people who watch amateur football, but per game it would be something like 25 compared to 33000.

New Yorks population is 10 million, compared to a little village with 200 people. Lets say 100 people are killed in New York each year and 90 people are killed in the village each year. According to your logic, New York is a more dangerous place to live as it has more murders, but I know which one I would rather live in. In reality the village is far more dangerous as your chances of getting killed are almost 50%.

Now do you understand? You have to compare like with like to get a true comparison.

As a Spurs fan I'm a bit annouted we'renot talking about WHL but as I like these sought of posts I am more than happy to comtinue this. I see where kingdomca is coming from I realy do but I very much agree with what bubomb says I don't think you can't put Spurs in the same catergory as the likes of Barca & Madrid. Tottenham by the looks of things are going places but so are other clubs in England like Liverpool and as we very much well know Chelsea. I would put Tottenham, Celtic, Rangers in the 4 star catergory in terms of big club mold and put Barca and Real in the 5 star catorgory i.e. the big fvck off clubs. During the past four transfer windows Tottenham have spent a staggering £61.8m that equals out as £15m spent on average and I can tell you not even Celtic or Ranger could spend like that no offence to them but at the moment they could only dream of that money. I think it is fair to say that Tottenham have shown that they are a big club in the sense of support and mainly finance.

Unfortunately Rangers and celtic get almost no TV money at all. This is why they cannot spend large amounts of money.

That's stupid. More games are played in the Championship. You can only compare average attendance per game. It's like saying crowds for Sunday amatuer football are higher than the Premiership. If you added up all the people around Britain who watch amatuer football on a Sunday then yes, there would be more people who watch amateur football, but per game it would be something like 25 compared to 33000.

New Yorks population is 10 million, compared to a little village with 200 people. Lets say 100 people are killed in New York each year and 90 people are killed in the village each year. According to your logic, New York is a more dangerous place to live as it has more murders, but I know which one I would rather live in. In reality the village is far more dangerous as your chances of getting killed are almost 50%.

Now do you understand? You have to compare like with like to get a true comparison.

Your examples are erroneous. I said the Championship pulls in more fans than Serie A. It does. Italy has a larger population as well.

Although I agree that average crowds can be a good indicator, if we go down that line of thought then the 6 Nations will be more popular than the FIFA World Cup because the average gates will be higher. ~60,000 vs 45,000.

Your examples are erroneous. I said the Championship pulls in more fans than Serie A. It does. Italy has a larger population as well.

Although I agree that average crowds can be a good indicator, if we go down that line of thought then the 6 Nations will be more popular than the FIFA World Cup because the average gates will be higher. ~60,000 vs 45,000.

You are playing on words. The 6 nations example is a poor example as it has such a tiny number of big teams. A fair comparison would be to have the top 6 teams at the World Cup playing against each other and then compare crowds. This way you would have the same number of games to compare with the same number of teams. You have to compare like with like. Roughly the same number of teams and roughly the same number of games and then take your average.

If the Italian league had 24 teams then you would have an exact match, and Italy would beat the Championship. Not by much though.

I'll repeat it.

The championship, Englands 2nd tier, does indeed pull in more fans than Serie A. Only the Premiership, Bundesliga and La Liga are more popular in Europe.

I'll repeat it.

The championship, Englands 2nd tier, does indeed pull in more fans than Serie A. Only the Premiership, Bundesliga and La Liga are more popular in Europe.


It pulls in more fans, as Sunday amatuer football pulls in more fans than the Premiership. The Championship only pulls in more fans because it has 21% more games over a season. If you increase Serie A total by 21%, then Serie A is the clear winner. It is unfair to compare the two's totals when one has 21% more games a season. This is simple logic.

To understand Juventus's low crowds you need to understand Juventus. Juventus are a massive club, with a huge yearly income (2nd highest in the world) and a huge Italian support. But they play in Turin, and most Juventus fans don't live in Turin (and the one's that do hate the stadium).

It's funny how, when it suits your purpose, you claim that the only sort opf fans who count are those who actually go to games!

Nobody want's to see Juventus (http://http://bianconeri.tripod.com/)

Highlights include......

For the Coppa Italia game versus Fiorentina
Women and children under 13 enter the stadium for 1 euro!
Tickets for south and north ends are only 5 euros

attendance was 8,351!!!!!

Best attendance in Serie A was against Inter when 33,772 showed up.

Blame the fans (http://bianconeri.tripod.com/fans2.html)

It a lot harder to go to games when you live hundreds of miles from the stadium. Most Spurs fans live in London, most Juventus fans live outside Turin.

Juventus is a strange one. There is no other club like them. They are the 2nd biggest club in the world, so obviously something different is going on for them to get such low crowds. They have unique circumstances. The Italian league isn't a well supported league though.

You should read about Juventus. They are a massive club, absolutely huge.

It a lot harder to go to games when you live hundreds of miles from the stadium. Most Spurs fans live in London, most Juventus fans live outside Turin.

Juventus is a strange one. There is no other club like them. They are the 2nd biggest club in the world, so obviously something different is going on for them to get such low crowds. They have unique circumstances. The Italian league isn't a well supported league though.

You should read about Juventus. They are a massive club, absolutely huge.

Oh I accept that they're a massive club. It's strange that they're crowds are so poor. over 50,000 per game in the early 1990's down to 25,000 odd.

Maybe they're just a 25,000 club these days?

Oh for fuck sake guys can you just continue the argument on the Football rivals thread.

I must add that I do like WHL. It's a lovely little stadium. Very dainty and almost 'cute'. I like it.

Oh for fuck sake guys can you just continue the argument on the Football rivals thread.

Cheer up sweetheart.

Arsenal 7-0 Middlesbrough (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/4590256.stm)

Liverpool 1-0 Tottenham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/4590268.stm)


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

7-0!!!!!!!!!!! What a total bum blastin!!!

Not long until Arsenal overtake Spurs in the league!!

Nobody want's to see Juventus (http://http://bianconeri.tripod.com/)

Highlights include......

For the Coppa Italia game versus Fiorentina
Women and children under 13 enter the stadium for 1 euro!
Tickets for south and north ends are only 5 euros

attendance was 8,351!!!!!

Best attendance in Serie A was against Inter when 33,772 showed up.

Blame the fans (http://bianconeri.tripod.com/fans2.html)

Shit man! they really are up shit creak! How they can be the 2nd richest club is a miracle only to a logic of late capitalism.
I'm surprised the players aren't fed up with the situation and want to leave, I mean how can you play in a stadium full of tumbleweeds? Come back paddy! even our library is noisier than that Stadio delle Alpi!

Please read this. It is very interesting. It shows how Juventus got 85000 sell outs when playing their home games in Milan. It is a good link and explains the situation well. Well done to Iain for finding it.


http://bianconeri.tripod.com/fans2.html

Please read this. It shows how Juventus got 85000 sell outs when playing their home games in Milan. It is a good link and explains the situation well. Well done to Iain for finding it.


http://bianconeri.tripod.com/fans2.html

Tha's an interesting website. The Heysel page is worth a read from the Italian perspective as well.

If Juventus played Dortmund pretty much anywhere you'd expect to see 50,000+. Apparently not in Turing though. I gather most locals are Torino fans though.

http://de.sports.yahoo.com/060120/27/6iqd.html
sorry, its only in German.
But Abramovich plans to built a new stadium for Chelsea.
Capacity: 65,000
Location: Earls Court
http://www.reservations.bookhostels.com/showplot.php?HostelNumber=6981

Chelsea arnt planning to build anew ground and they are planning to make Stamford Bridge over 50,000+.

Blues deny move

By SUN ONLINE REPORTER
CHELSEA have denied they are set to quit Stamford Bridge and buy the nearby Earls Court Exhibition Centre in a £400 million deal.

The Premiership champions want to improve and extend their current home rather than build a new stadium.

The world famous centre is currently up for sale but until the club have
exhausted all the possible options regarding an increase in the capacity of Stamford Bridge, Chelsea will not consider moving out.

A spokesman club said: “We have made our position clear several times on the issue of ground redevelopment at Stamford Bridge.

“Despite that, there has been speculation linking us with a whole variety of sites in London including Wembley, the Olympic Stadium at Stratford, White City, Battersea Power Station, Earls Court, Chelsea barracks and the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

“Whether these sites are available, or not available, is irrelevant.

“Our position is that we would like to increase the capacity at Stamford Bridge, and ideally we would like to take it to a figure of just over 50,000 but there are constraints on our current site, which are well documented.

“Only after all possible scenarios for the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge are exhausted can a debate start about other options.”

The Earls Court and Olympia complex is owned by St James Capital and while they have ’received approaches’ for the purchase of the site it is understood that it must remain a conference and exhibition centre.

I hope they don't move. I love Stamford Bridge.

Looks like Wembley is getting more and more attractive.

It won't happen but is Abromovichs real agenda coming to the fore? Flog Stamford Bridge, promise a new stadium, dump Chelsea with a £200 million+ gross profit?

Just about the only asset most football clubs have is land, why else to money people get involved?

I doubt it personally, what he's spent at Chelsea and what he could earn from them is small potatoes compaired to his £15 billion fortune. I'd say its a combination of entertainment and PR as from what I'v heard he's moved most of his capital to London.

I think its because they actually like the game. Yes Abromovich wants the make a profit eventually from Chelsea (hell if I took over Newcastle like I will - I'd want to make not only a successful team on the pitch, but one off the pitch: I'd want to create a team that would be able to carry on long after I go being self-sufficient) and I don't think Chelsea were his favourite team - but its changed how football work and I think this is for the better. Yes its going to be hard to beat Chelsea for anything, but it can be done if a team puts their mind to it. As a Newcastle fan you get the opposite with people who loved the team, have brought it and then trashed it unwittingly. With Chelsea, Abromovich has done the complete opposite and the result has been that British teams have a forbidable dominance of high-end European football (4 of the last 16 are British clubs and this could have been 5 had they actually played well). I'm unsure Chelsea will win the Champions League, but I suspect they will give the likes of Barcelona a good thrashing and I'll support them for that especially with the crap that the likes of Laporta keeps handing out. Love live British football!

Chelsea the cancer of football....

^^ That's a bit harsh isnt it?? Well...maybe not ;) I don't like the fact that they are a completely 'bought' success, but you have to admire the way in which Jose Marinho (spell?) has crafted the players into such a good, cohesive team, even if he himself is an arrogant, cocky piece of $#%£

Even if they bought a new 65000 capacity stadium, I don't think they'd really get the attendances, cus, although they are a recently successful team, they don't have a great following like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. IMO anyway.

:cheers:

They don't, but if the keep going like they are...they soon with have large fan bases.

I know two og my friends who have gone from supporting Man U and Liverpool to wear the blue shirt.

They don't, but if the keep going like they are...they soon with have large fan bases.

I know two og my friends who have gone from supporting Man U and Liverpool to wear the blue shirt.
Ye but I bet they dont go to the games do they?

They don't, but if the keep going like they are...they soon with have large fan bases.

I know two og my friends who have gone from supporting Man U and Liverpool to wear the blue shirt.


They're not supporters. Or even fans then are they.

A supporter is a person who goes to matches. The rest are fans.

The ones you've mentioned aren't either.

Ye but I bet they dont go to the games do they?

They don't.


But i'm sure there are a few Londoners who have changed teams and now go to Chelsea games.

They don't.


But i'm sure there are a few Londoners who have changed teams and now go to Chelsea games.
I can only see afew weak minded people doing that. Its more 6 and 7 year olds who change teams all the time.

hahahaha changed teams.

So the real fans get priced out, the Johnny come latelys take over while it's all hunky dorey then as soon as it turns bad they do one. The real fans have cottoned on to the fact that for the same price as a ticket you can go on the ale all day, watch the match on foreign telly and still have a few bob - that or get off to Amsterdam or Barcelona for a night out once a month.

Then what happens?

I can only see afew weak minded people doing that. Its more 6 and 7 year olds who change teams all the time.


Not in no mark middle England and the London fringe. It's the norm for a lot.

I hope they don't move. I love Stamford Bridge.

I agree. My favourite English stadium. An exapnsion would be just enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea

What is the FA rules when it comes to where teams can play? Do they have to be in the same borough or district?

Chelsea could do what the Americans do and purchase some land on the outskirts of the city, with large car park etc.. and build a 65-80k stadium.

From my memory of west London region there is plenty of land out around the Heathrow area.

Hmmm.


Don't tell me you just deleted a whole wikipedia page just to do that have you?

What is the FA rules when it comes to where teams can play? Do they have to be in the same borough or district?

Chelsea could do what the Americans do and purchase some land on the outskirts of the city, with large car park etc.. and build a 65-80k stadium.

From my memory of west London region there is plenty of land out around the Heathrow area.

I believe the rule is that a team can move to a new stadium but no longer than X miles from their current home.
I dont know what X is, though. Most clubs do whatever they can to not move very far so I dont think it has ever been an issue except of course one very unique club, MK Dons.
They wanted to move well beyond X miles and were granted an exemption from the rule. Now the club is loathed as "FC franchise" by most people and though, to be fair,the club really were a special case, I am pretty sure the FA will not give any new dispensations nor would any club seek one.

Purchasing land on the outskirts of a city with large parking etc is really very yesterday isnt it? I think even the americans are moving away from it.
A modern stadium is an increasingly busy place on non-match days with ever more facilities and should be a valuable place situated right in the middle of its community and not some soulless ghost place in the middle of a carpark far away from everything.
That approach does require a lot of consideration as to how to handle match day crowds and I think thats the main issue at Stamford Bridge. They can go to 50,000+ (and thats probably reasonable unless they want to review their ticket pricing)
The big issue, to be agreed with the council, is how to get people to and from the place.

I hope they stay. Its great with new stadiums but also good to see most clubs staying.

expansion won't be easy...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7306/estextchelsea5ou.jpg

im a Chelsea fan.. but Chelsea sucess wiil only lasto until Mourinho is there IMO.. when he quit chelsea footbal wiil return to average.
i dont see Mourinho spending the rest of his carreer in Chelsea. he want at least to play at de Calcio and maybe eventualy become Portugal coach

That's bollocks Tekno, I don't want to underplay Mourinhos talent here but Chelseas success is reliant up spending money far more than managerial acuman.

The rule for relocating a football club is that it must remain in the same 'conurbation'.

Chelsea the cancer of football....

I wouldn't say that too quick everything in this world has a limit anyway just look that clubs around Chelsa just think how interesting it will next season with Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United and Totttenham Hotspur. Its funny how everyone says the prem league is boring but to be honest before Chelsea came it was boring for about 7 years it was just Arsenal and Manhester United but now we have five clubs that a lot people are afraid instead of just the two.

I think Chelsea cannot fill 65,000 it is rather stupid to be honest it will better Arsenal's most proberly but can Chelsea average 65,000 in the next five years? I think not.

Of course it can :doh:

Teams like Chelsea esppecially being a London team have millions of fans.

The big 4 could easily get 80,000 a week - the premiership and the English Championship have the 1st and 4th biggest attendences and audiences in Europe.

The 2nd divison in England is Bigger then Serie A ;) if we go on attendences

Shit me 3rd divsion teams in England have 20,000 seater stadiums :)

im a Chelsea fan.. but Chelsea sucess wiil only lasto until Mourinho is there IMO.. when he quit chelsea footbal wiil return to average.
i dont see Mourinho spending the rest of his carreer in Chelsea. he want at least to play at de Calcio and maybe eventualy become Portugal coach

lol, im guessing that you are Portuguese, and therefore are only a Chelsea fan because they have a Portuguese manager, and as such you like to attribute Chelsea's success to your fellow compatriot.

don't get me wrong, i love Jose. However, the success he is bringing to chelsea will surely lay the foundations for future managers. Chelsea will become stronger and stronger, to the point that they no longer need rely on Abramovich or Jose.

Of course it can :doh:

Teams like Chelsea esppecially being a London team have millions of fans.

The big 4 could easily get 80,000 a week - the premiership and the English Championship have the 1st and 4th biggest attendences and audiences in Europe.

The 2nd divison in England is Bigger then Serie A ;) if we go on attendences

Shit me 3rd divsion teams in England have 20,000 seater stadiums :)
+ I think England has got very ticket prizes

I know two og my friends who have gone from supporting Man U and Liverpool to wear the blue shirt.
Because they'll support who ever is good. Man U is somewhat of an anomoly in the US. Obviously, football is not a very big sport here (I still love it), and w/ ManU haveing incredible, unprecidented success over the past 10-15 yrs. they were the only club football team that many Americans had ever heard of. That's why I like Arsenal becuase I was a real fan of the EPL when I first got into it, and all these other 'fans' had no idea of how Man U was doing, or for that matter, had no knowledge what so ever of EPL or International football. So I developed a hatred for Man U, and turned to Arsenal.

Right now, I would say Man U is still much better known in the US than Chelsea, and unless Chelsea keeps their current success for a very long time, I don't see this changing.

Of course it can :doh:

Teams like Chelsea esppecially being a London team have millions of fans.

The big 4 could easily get 80,000 a week - the premiership and the English Championship have the 1st and 4th biggest attendences and audiences in Europe.

The 2nd divison in England is Bigger then Serie A ;) if we go on attendences

Shit me 3rd divsion teams in England have 20,000 seater stadiums :)

true but attendance levels also hinge on prices. Chelsea would probably struggle to fill 65,000 for all games unless they introduced some reduced price tickets.

The saddest thing in english football is the cost of attending lower league football. You can watch Bayern Munich, Dortmund and probably both Real Madrid and Barcelona cheaper.
If prices were lowered, I would expect crowds at second level english football to move beyond the top leagues of both France and Italy

Chelsea could have built the west stand far bigger. There is a large area around it just sitting unused. The Chelsea village could also have been far larger. They could have added another tier on both stands to make it 10,000 extra seats. Even the old east stand could have been pulled down and rebuilt with an extra tier.

But could Chelsea consistently pack it when times become hard and the Russian robber-baron nicks off?

If that other clown running Chelsea was still there today, Chelsea would now be bankrupt and pushing up the bottom of League 1/2. Stamford Bridge could well be being sold off to recoup some of the debts to the banks.

Saw an old episode of 'Minder' around the early 1980s. Terry was going to Stamford Br. for a match, and the ticket prices were 1 or 2 quid. There was plenty of spare space too. You used to be able to park cars at each end of the field in the 1980s. They could easily go back to that.

They are very, very lucky to have a Russian fairy god-father.

lame stunt to upstage arsenal

lame stunt to upstage arsenal

Stunt?

This isn't a stunt Chelsea want to be bigger than everyone else they want to have a stadium that will see cash flow day in day out without Roman. An increase in capacity is what they need I don't think there trying to just upstage Arsenal I think there trying to upstage everyone.

^^^^^^

If they want to be the biggest, just do a deal with Wembley. It is 30 mins by tube to Wembley from Chelsea.

Chelsea could have built the west stand far bigger. There is a large area around it just sitting unused. The Chelsea village could also have been far larger. They could have added another tier on both stands to make it 10,000 extra seats. Even the old east stand could have been pulled down and rebuilt with an extra tier.

But could Chelsea consistently pack it when times become hard and the Russian robber-baron nicks off?

If that other clown running Chelsea was still there today, Chelsea would now be bankrupt and pushing up the bottom of League 1/2. Stamford Bridge could well be being sold off to recoup some of the debts to the banks.

Saw an old episode of 'Minder' around the early 1980s. Terry was going to Stamford Br. for a match, and the ticket prices were 1 or 2 quid. There was plenty of spare space too. You used to be able to park cars at each end of the field in the 1980s. They could easily go back to that.

They are very, very lucky to have a Russian fairy god-father.

As you say though before Roman came on the scene 45K was more than enough. Also unlike Arsenal aslong as Roman stays they would not be in the position of having to sellout a new ground straight away to stay afloat.

lame stunt to upstage arsenal

It's going to take a long time for them to upstage us....

3 x Premiership Champions
10 x League Champions ( Man United = 7)
10 x Fa Cup winners
2 x League Cup Winners
2 x Minor European Trophies

*If you look at the history of the football league point for point... You would find that Everton are the most succesful club around followed by ourselves (correct me if I am wrong).

^^^^^^

If they want to be the biggest, just do a deal with Wembley. It is 30 mins by tube to Wembley from Chelsea.

No way are the majority of British fans going to support West london upstarts using the scared turf of our national stadium as their own!

What next do you propose? markets in Westminster Abbey and St Pauls?!

Chelsea could have built the west stand far bigger. There is a large area around it just sitting unused. The Chelsea village could also have been far larger. They could have added another tier on both stands to make it 10,000 extra seats. Even the old east stand could have been pulled down and rebuilt with an extra tier.

But could Chelsea consistently pack it when times become hard and the Russian robber-baron nicks off?

If that other clown running Chelsea was still there today, Chelsea would now be bankrupt and pushing up the bottom of League 1/2. Stamford Bridge could well be being sold off to recoup some of the debts to the banks.

Saw an old episode of 'Minder' around the early 1980s. Terry was going to Stamford Br. for a match, and the ticket prices were 1 or 2 quid. There was plenty of spare space too. You used to be able to park cars at each end of the field in the 1980s. They could easily go back to that.

They are very, very lucky to have a Russian fairy god-father.

My knowledge is patchy to say the least but didn't chelsea go from being 2nd tier has-beens to champions league contenders BEFORE roman arrived? They have long been a rich mans club, abramovich was the last step up.

It's going to take a long time for them to upstage us....

3 x Premiership Champions
10 x League Champions ( Man United = 7)
10 x Fa Cup winners
2 x League Cup Winners
2 x Minor European Trophies

*If you look at the history of the football league point for point... You would find that Everton are the most succesful club around followed by ourselves (correct me if I am wrong).

That is very impressive but it has to be said that is the past and as we well know at the moment the past counts for nothing they're doing more than up stage you at the moment to be honest.

chelsea had tickets left over for today's game - they dont have the fanbase to fill 50,000. And while they play boring football no one is going to pay the extra money to go see them. if you cant sell out your current grounf there isnt a lot of point moving

It's going to take a long time for them to upstage us....

3 x Premiership Champions
10 x League Champions ( Man United = 7)
10 x Fa Cup winners
2 x League Cup Winners
2 x Minor European Trophies

*If you look at the history of the football league point for point... You would find that Everton are the most succesful club around followed by ourselves (correct me if I am wrong).

You may not have been a football fan for very long so I don't suppose you've heard of Liverpool

Don't get what Ambromovich is actually standing to gain from all this. The club will never make any money and will only lose a lot of dosh. Is it a way of laundering his ill gotten gains, a way into London respectability.

There has got to be an angle here with a guy like that.

^^^^^^

If they want to be the biggest, just do a deal with Wembley. It is 30 mins by tube to Wembley from Chelsea.

please try to understand that the rest of the world doesnt operate like Australia. Teams have homes.
Also there is no way Chelsea could have built a bigger west stand. The current one was in fact delayed, half-built for years due to protests against its size.

Chelsea would not have been relegated if roman had not come along. Thats very unlikely, anyway, though there would have been some tough choices. But with that stadium and support and position in the premiership they are far too valuable for anyone, including creditors to just liquidate or under-fund to the extent that relegation awaits.

Also I find these suggestions that there must be an angle with "a guy like him" strange. If he wanted to launder money would it not be wise to perhaps select a just slightly lower-profile venture. Its just ridiculous.

He is extremly rich and football is probably his play thing. He spends fortunes but also gets a lot back. expensively bought players can be sold on and qualifying for the CL also brings in serious money.
Only his net loss is relevant and that is probably complete peanuts relative to his wealth and may even be seen as a long term investment.
The fact he paid big money for a chief.exec. suggests he is very interested in the business side.

^^^^^^

We also had all the clubs based in their own burbs in tiny grounds like you do until about 15 years ago. Then the AFL introduced a 'ground rationalisation' program. Instead of 20-30k turning up, you get 40 to 60k turning up.

Maybe you guys prefer paying more money to watch sport, in smaller grounds. That is great, some of the tradionalists here would prefer that also.

^^^^^^

We also had all the clubs based in their own burbs in tiny grounds like you do until about 15 years ago. Then the AFL introduced a 'ground rationalisation' program. Instead of 20-30k turning up, you get 40 to 60k turning up.

Maybe you guys prefer paying more money to watch sport, in smaller grounds. That is great, some of the tradionalists here would prefer that also.

If big clubs could only afford 20-30 k stadiums then I'd guess the same thing would have happened here but most teams are able to offer somewhere near demand for tickets at the moment or are in the process of building something that will. With that in mind I'd guess that most clubs would not be able to earn more from renting space in a larger stadium than they can now plus of course planning permission prevents wembley from being used anyway.

As has been said the commercialisation of the game was not really something the english teams alone could have done much to avoid even if they wanted to as its linked to all european leagues. Its not really a question of owners ranking in the money either as pretty much all clubs are operating at a loss right now. Its based on the fact that transfer fee's and players wages have skyrocketed so if you don't bring in the money to compet on that level you won't get the best players or hang onto your own youth system players.

You may not have been a football fan for very long so I don't suppose you've heard of Liverpool

A very important point I would like to make...

Liverpool have won more than we have in silverware.FACT.

But when it comes to finishing above one another in the league I am not sure who comes out on top.

So for example in the last 8 years Arsenal have finished higher than liverpool so it would be like say 8-0 to the Arsenal within that timescale.(I AM NOW GOING TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH INTO THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE TO SEE HOW MANY WE EACH TOT UP.)

Remember Liverpool were a relegated team as recent as 40 years ago so no-one ever talks about the dark days. WE HAVEN'T been relegated in nearly a century. SO where Liverpool have been shit we have always been in the top section.

A very important point I would like to make...

Liverpool have won more than we have in silverware.FACT.

But when it comes to finishing above one another in the league I am not sure who comes out on top.

So for example in the last 8 years Arsenal have finished higher than liverpool so it would be like say 8-0 to the Arsenal within that timescale.(I AM NOW GOING TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH INTO THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE TO SEE HOW MANY WE EACH TOT UP.)

Remember Liverpool were a relegated team as recent as 40 years ago so no-one ever talks about the dark days. WE HAVEN'T been relegated in nearly a century. SO where Liverpool have been shit we have always been in the top section.

I looked at an all time league table and it said Liverpool and United in the top two can't remember what way but they are. At the moment Liverpool have a fantastic team just look at the talent

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Ginola90/liverpoolteampic.jpg

Anyway back to Chelsea possibly leaving the Bridge. I think that at max Chel$ki should be looking at is 55,000. Oh well couldn't careless as it is all about what happens on the pitch.

I looked at an all time league table and it said Liverpool and United in the top two can't remember what way but they are. At the moment Liverpool have a fantastic team just look at the talent

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Ginola90/liverpoolteampic.jpg

Anyway back to Chelsea possibly leaving the Bridge. I think that at max Chel$ki should be looking at is 55,000. Oh well couldn't careless as it is all about what happens on the pitch.

Liverpool were shit last night, they haven't got that much talent, only Gerrard and Xabi Alonso.

I don't think it would be wise to even build a 55,000 seater stadium for Chelsea, once Don Roman leaves, they'll be up shit creek with only 20,000 average fans a season, so I don't know why they want a new ground

If big clubs could only afford 20-30 k stadiums then I'd guess the same thing would have happened here but most teams are able to offer somewhere near demand for tickets at the moment or are in the process of building something that will. With that in mind I'd guess that most clubs would not be able to earn more from renting space in a larger stadium than they can now plus of course planning permission prevents wembley from being used anyway.

As has been said the commercialisation of the game was not really something the english teams alone could have done much to avoid even if they wanted to as its linked to all european leagues. Its not really a question of owners ranking in the money either as pretty much all clubs are operating at a loss right now. Its based on the fact that transfer fee's and players wages have skyrocketed so if you don't bring in the money to compet on that level you won't get the best players or hang onto your own youth system players.

I think its wrong to say that clubs are able to offer "something near demand"
demand levels are adjusted by high pricing.

The commercialisation was a good thing. There are issues now, but english football is in way better health than in the 1980´s. crowds have doubled, while ticket prices have risen some 2-3,000 %.

The financial problems of english clubs are, and have always been, wildly exaggerated. various lower league issues a few years ago meant prediction of mass banktrupcies etc, which is always predicted but rarely happens.
The tendency to run at a loss is just trying to get ahead too much but no real problem. debts are mostly low compared to assets and income.
Most clubs can quickly return to making profits but seem to prefer to make small losses, typically chasing promotion.

http://de.sports.yahoo.com/060120/27/6iqd.html
sorry, its only in German.
But Abramovich plans to built a new stadium for Chelsea.
Capacity: 65,000
Location: Earls Court
http://www.reservations.bookhostels.com/showplot.php?HostelNumber=6981


oh come on Abramovich can afford more than that for chelski :)

^^^^^^

We also had all the clubs based in their own burbs in tiny grounds like you do until about 15 years ago. Then the AFL introduced a 'ground rationalisation' program. Instead of 20-30k turning up, you get 40 to 60k turning up.

Maybe you guys prefer paying more money to watch sport, in smaller grounds. That is great, some of the tradionalists here would prefer that also.

"you guys" = the rest of the world.

groundsharing has either never really existed or is now in full retreat across Europe and the US, and I would expect the same thing to happen in Australia eventually. With economic growth perhaps club will start to look for a real home home again.

I find it strange that the AFL should "introduce ground rationalisation"
It seems the sport is about the AFL building venues to stage their sport and then suitable "clubs" are created, moved around and controlled to perform in these AFL venues.
Compared to europe the AFL seems more of a theatre operator setting up stage acts. I guess, any "club" (= stage act) not performing to certain criteria will be cancelled or moved etc.

In the UK and europe sport is still a bit too real for this kind of thing.

A very important point I would like to make...

Liverpool have won more than we have in silverware.FACT.

But when it comes to finishing above one another in the league I am not sure who comes out on top.

So for example in the last 8 years Arsenal have finished higher than liverpool so it would be like say 8-0 to the Arsenal within that timescale.(I AM NOW GOING TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH INTO THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE TO SEE HOW MANY WE EACH TOT UP.)

Remember Liverpool were a relegated team as recent as 40 years ago so no-one ever talks about the dark days. WE HAVEN'T been relegated in nearly a century. SO where Liverpool have been shit we have always been in the top section.


United have gained most points. Then it's Liverpool by the virtue of us playing 30 more games than them.


http://www.the-english-football-archive.com/records/all_time_table.htm

Sorry. But sometime facts tell a different story eh child.

duplicate post.

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

But that could be wrong.

See, I'm pretty fair.

This the all time Division One/PL list:

http://www.the-english-football-archive.com/records/1st_level_2pt_win_table.htm

I'd like to volunteer to drive the bulldozer when they leave Stamford Bridge

But that could be wrong.

See, I'm pretty fair.

This the all time Division One/PL list:

http://www.the-english-football-archive.com/records/1st_level_2pt_win_table.htm

That table is incorrect we have been champions 13 times only two and five more to go to level with you and liverpool respecitvely.

That table is incorrect we have been champions 13 times only two and five more to go to level with you and liverpool respecitvely.

Look at how many seasons it says you have been in the league and compare to others.

That table is incorrect we have been champions 13 times only two and five more to go to level with you and liverpool respecitvely.


It's from the offical FA site.

But you can keep making up stats if it makes you feel better.

It's from the offical FA site.

But you can keep making up stats if it makes you feel better.

NO SERIOSLY THAT IS INCORRECT.

We have been champions thirteen times. see below with note as proof.


---------
1931
1933 - Chapmans death.
1934 CLUBS MOST SUCCESFUL ERA AS YOU CAN SEE.
1935
1938
---------
48
53 Tom Whittaker was mananger at this point.
---------

71 DOUBLE (bertie mee) We won it at White harte lane.
89 ANFIELD - Michael Thomas.
91 Graham again.
1998 WENGER DOUBLE
2002 WENGER DOUBLE DOUBLE and Our Treble DOUBLE + Old Trafford.
2004 INVINSIBLE - argaubly the greatest English football achivement. WHL!!

IF you are still not comfortable with that visit...

[URL=http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?article=204742&lid=ClubNews&sub=Honours&navlid=the+club&sublid=&Title=Honours]

Aside from this WE have also won...

10x Fa Cups
9x Charity Shields
2x League cups
2 x Minor European trophies

We also recieved a Special golden premiership trophy for our achievement in 2004.

Look at how many seasons it says you have been in the league and compare to others.

In fairness, no other club has managed 88 Consecutive Seasons.

but what about when the Russian leaves? Chelsea will be back to 35000 fans in a massive stadium!!!

but what about when the Russian leaves? Chelsea will be back to 35000 fans in a massive stadium!!!


good!!! thats what we want

Look at how many seasons it says you have been in the league and compare to others.

In fairness, no other club has managed 88 Consecutive Seasons.

You don't know much about football do you. Everton have managed 103 concecutive seasons.

You don't know much about football do you. Everton have managed 103 concecutive seasons.

Evidently despite your very misplaced arrogance: you know even less.

Under the management of the uninspired and under-financed Cliff Britton, Everton were relegated after the 1950-51 season for only the second time in their history to the Second Division. This time it took three seasons before Everton were promoted in 1954 as the runners-up. The final match of the season decided promotion when the Everton beat Oldham away 4-0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everton_F.C.#The_1940s_and_1950s:_The_barren_years

It's from the offical FA site.

But you can keep making up stats if it makes you feel better.

Also, that isn't the official website, atleast not that link.

You don't know much about football do you. Everton have managed 103 concecutive seasons.

Evidently despite your very misplaced arrogance: you know even less.

Under the management of the uninspired and under-financed Cliff Britton, Everton were relegated after the 1950-51 season for only the second time in their history to the Second Division. This time it took three seasons before Everton were promoted in 1954 as the runners-up. The final match of the season decided promotion when the Everton beat Oldham away 4-0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everton_F.C.#The_1940s_and_1950s:_The_barren_years

Looks like I'm wrong just I remember a few Liverpool fans saying that it was concecutive seasons and these were people that call Everton cvnts 24/7 oh well cheers for info and sorry about.

If Chelsea are going to expand the first thing they should do is completely rebuild both ends they look tiny on tv!

Is the city of manchester stadium really a copy? you have to remember the design and blueprint was first penned AGES ago, as it was the figurehead of Manchesters failed 1996 and 2000 Olympic bids (which Australia ultimately won). The design has been around for about 12 years, having originally been an 80,000 seater but reduced to 48,000.

My thoughts exactly! The proposed Manchester Olympic Stadium (a bigger version of COMS) was shown during the bidding process, whereas the design of Stadium Australia seemed to come a lot later...

The never built Olympic Stadium in Manchester.
80,000 seat stadium for the Manchester 2000 Olympic Games Bid, for AMEC Developments
http://www.arupassociates.com/ProjectImages/ManchesterolympicTN.jpg

Heres another one I've found.
Design for 75,000 seat football stadium with moving roof for Manchester's bid for the National Stadium, for Manchester City Council.
http://www.arupassociates.com/ProjectImages/manchesternationalTN.jpg