*Official* Spurs v United Match Thread- Teams, Arguments, Gifs and drama inside!

Originally Posted by dragflick

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

Net spend! Net spend ! :shakehead:

Rio, Rooney & Berbatov would cost more than their side & earn the same in wages. Read between the lines.

Originally Posted by borsuk

he misused the resources he had. playing two up top didn't work, playing modric wide left didn't work, playing ledley 'i don't train' king didn't work either (and he was even worse against arsenal).

valencia would definitely have started if fit, smalling ahead of jones, maybe cleverley in midfield as well.

You £#%&!ing dreamer.

Just jog on. You're mugging yourself off here big time.

Originally Posted by fix up look SHARPE

£#%&!ing loves rolling his eyes does kev

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

Sure, & it's not in dispute - you listed those out & some of those are clearly very important to us. But while Fergie has earned the right to buy those & worked in some very dubious financial circles during the Glazer ownership you can't help but notice just how much money was spent on players not on the pitch, & some cases not even on the bench. Spurs aren't paupers per se, but the difference between money spent & general resources is as stark as those between & us & City. We laud Fergie for keeping up with the Jones's & lol at 'arry the twitchy melted-Lego-faced cockney @#%&! for getting a few pastings & losing out when some of his better players are missing.

Originally Posted by dragflick

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

according to that site, spending per season since '92

4 Manchester United £483,150,000 £305,840,000 £177,310,000 £8,865,500
5 Tottenham £412,050,000 £236,717,500 £175,332,500 £8,766,625

personally i think nett spend is a right load of old %@#$&!s but painting spurs as some kind of paupers is nonsense.

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

Liverpool are a far bigger club than £#%&!ing Spurs ffs

bigger club? how is this measured exactly?

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

Net spend! Net spend ! :shakehead:

Rio, Rooney & Berbatov would cost more than their side & earn the same in wages. Read between the lines.

Ok, just money spent then- we've spent just 9 mil more since 2003.

Just playing devil's advocate. Spurs have spent a £#%&!ing shit load for £#%&! all success tbh. Compared to us, anyway

Originally Posted by Sparky***

You £#%&!ing dreamer.

Just jog on. You're mugging yourself off here big time.

you're obsessed with cleverley ffs. we had half a dozen players out, at least three of which would be starters (vidic, valencia and smalling) and you just keep banging on about cleverley

Originally Posted by Ginners

bigger club? how is this measured exactly?

history....trophies won...league titles...European Cups...fanbase...that kind of thing

or these days how many times they hit the crossbar

Always really liked spuds to be fair.

Cant be doing with cockneys though. Chaz and Dave ffs. People who chew gum whilst singing and carry their money in an elastic band.

Compare them to the likes of the stone roses, happy Monday's and simply red. Basically people who can smoke whilst singing. Maybe not simply red but the others certainly can. Well not really singing where Ian brown is concerned. Or the Monday's for that matter. Anyway.

The point still stands.

Originally Posted by fix up look SHARPE

£#%&!ing loves rolling his eyes does kev

there she is right on cue

Originally Posted by Ginners

bigger club? how is this measured exactly?

trophys?

Can we just lay off Kev ffs. His team's going into administration and he's obviously having a hard time dealing with it.

I'm here if you need to talk pal.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Can we just lay off Kev ffs. His team's going into administration and he's obviously having a hard time dealing with it.

I'm here if you need to talk pal.

Originally Posted by borsuk

yeah, because cleverley is the only player we had out

vidic
valencia
smalling
cleverley
anderson
fletcher
linders

just because they're out long-term doesn't mean they don't £#%&!ing count. of those vidic and valencia would certainly have started, probably smalling and maybe cleverley as well.

vdv would only play if saha were dropped, hard to say who would have been better. parker was replaced by sandro, who was probably their best player and who i rate at least as highly as parker anyway. bale was the only real miss for them yesterday because they can't replace him but that was no reason for them to play their best central midfielder wide on the left ffs. harry £#%&!ed up playing modric wide and leaving danny rose on the bench, just like he's £#%&!ed up playing bale through the middle in the last few weeks.

Danny Rose

Tbh Redknapp's tactics were spot on in the first half, the way Livermore and Sandro pressed are midfield was key to this, I think he would have liked Modric to drift in a bit more, though.

Originally Posted by borsuk

he misused the resources he had. playing two up top didn't work, playing modric wide left didn't work, playing ledley 'i don't train' king didn't work either (and he was even worse against arsenal).

valencia would definitely have started if fit, smalling ahead of jones, maybe cleverley in midfield as well.

Cleverly ahead of who? Scholes?

Smalling ahead of Jones? Just like against Norwich when he was on the bench.

You're just speculating here.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Haha

Somebody mentioned on this thread (I think, though I can't track it down atm) that whilst last season we had a superb home record and a pretty awful away one, it was the other way round this time. I know what they meant, but apparently our home record this season is W10 D1 L2. Even if the two losses were both hideous, that is hardly disastrous

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

Somebody mentioned on this thread (I think, though I can't track it down atm) that whilst last season we had a superb home record and a pretty awful away one, it was the other way round this time. I know what they meant, but apparently our home record this season is W10 D1 L2. Even if the two losses were both hideous, that is hardly disastrous

Thanks for that fascinating insight, Ray.

Originally Posted by Jerry the Berry

Thanks for that fascinating insight, Ray.

Originally Posted by Jerry the Berry

Thanks for that fascinating insight, Ray.

Thought some here might be interested in that?? I only noticed it myself yesterday

decent outfit spurs, always have been. by far and away the best of the bad bunch in shitsville. Harry will take the ingerlund job for 3 reasons
1. money
2. he's taken spurs about as far as they will ever go
3. money ( he's not getting any younger and a P/T job for 7 mill pa is not to be involuntary facial twitched at)

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Yeah, heaven forbid that football matters might actually get a mention in this place just occasionally