Manchester City v Tottenham Hotspur

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

PL won’t allow its brand to be filled with second teams imo. There are plenty of clubs to fill the void. Teams like Leeds are bigger than City or Chelsea

Exactly. You only have to look at man city's and Chelsea's average attendances before they were bulked up with money to know that they are no bigger than the derby county, Notts forest's of this world. Good crowds? Yes, but not massive clubs. Even now city can't fill their ground and Chelsea struggle to. Despite the millions round the world that wear the replica shirts.

Clubs like Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday and villa are bigger clubs than city and Chelsea but have not had the financial doping put into them.
 
Exactly. You only have to look at man city's and Chelsea's average attendances before they were bulked up with money to know that they are no bigger than the derby county, Notts forest's of this world. Good crowds? Yes, but not massive clubs. Even now city can't fill their ground and Chelsea struggle to. Despite the millions round the world that wear the replica shirts.

Clubs like Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday and villa are bigger clubs than city and Chelsea but have not had the financial doping put into them.

Problem is that is football based on supporter size, history, development etc in reference to your post. Football is now money and nothing else.

The richest club is first in the league (City), the second richest is second (United, admittedly they earned their cash) and the third richest is third (Chelsea). 2 are financial doped teams.
 
Problem is that is football based on supporter size, history, development etc in reference to your post. Football is now money and nothing else.

The richest club is first in the league (City), the second richest is second (United, admittedly they earned their cash) and the third richest is third (Chelsea). 2 are financial doped teams.

Agree and for me you then lose the competitive edge to the league. The premier league has two or maybe three teams that could win it, two of them are financially doped, then three or four other clubs, like us, chasing champs league, the rest are in it to survive, nothing else.
 
Problem is that is football based on supporter size, history, development etc in reference to your post. Football is now money and nothing else.

The richest club is first in the league (City), the second richest is second (United, admittedly they earned their cash) and the third richest is third (Chelsea). 2 are financial doped teams.

I absolutely detest the argument that United more than other clubs deserve their money because they've earned it. They are doped too. By a reorganization of the top tier of English and European football just as they happened to have a good team and by being commercially succesful. Do they deserve their money? Have a look at the last five or so seasons before you answer that question. Had a team been run as badly as United have the last approx 10 years, they would suffer greatly had they not been had the years of doping, and their continous doping from millions of spoiled kids.

City's money comes from people who invest, who transforms, who builds. United is a cash cow for a rich owner who milks the club's fans.

How is the latter better than the former?
 
I absolutely detest the argument that United more than other clubs deserve their money because they've earned it. They are doped too. By a reorganization of the top tier of English and European football just as they happened to have a good team and by being commercially succesful. Do they deserve their money? Have a look at the last five or so seasons before you answer that question. Had a team been run as badly as United have the last approx 10 years, they would suffer greatly had they not been had the years of doping, and their continous doping from millions of spoiled kids.

City's money comes from people who invest, who transforms, who builds. United is a cash cow for a rich owner who milks the club's fans.

How is the latter better than the former?

United have been massive for many decades, they have always had a giant fan base. You might got not like United but like most other large teams around Europe have grown themselves over long periods. There is nothing fake about it, if anything they have been hamstrung by the Glazers taking money out of them, they are that big.

City and Chelsea are essentially two middle teams who won the lottery in order to spend, spend and spend until they buy trophies. They circumvent FFP by dodgy sponsorship. Not doubt some richer Chinese owner may come in, buy Burnley and spending £2 billion on Messi and co and win even more. The whole thing stinks.
 
Back in the 60's it was us and united who were the two biggest teams in the country. We spent big just like they did and although they faded like us in the mid 70's both clubs have retained and in United's case grown their fan base massively.

I despise the current united manager but as a club they have always commanded a massive support and world wide appeal long before clubs started becoming billionaire play things.

The traditional big 5 were seen as united, Liverpool, Everton, Woolwich and us, mainly based on supporter size and stature of the clubs.

City and Chelsea fans can moan and bitch all they want but they were never an elite club and will never be seen as one to many supporters like me who remember the pre premier league era, they can have their success but we all know it has a hollow ring to it, that's why you get city fans coming on here desperately seeking our approval and validation.
 
United's stock grew out of a nationwide wave of sympathy following Munich.
People up and down the country started following the plucky underdog rising from the ashes and their success and fanbase snowballed from there. Nowadays, in my opinion, they have the most detestable fans in English football. Nothing but a load of Glory hunting, bandwagon jumping bunch of entitled cunts. I've taken so much pleasure in seeing them suffer since Ferguson left.
 
Back in the 60's it was us and united who were the two biggest teams in the country. We spent big just like they did and although they faded like us in the mid 70's both clubs have retained and in United's case grown their fan base massively.

I despise the current united manager but as a club they have always commanded a massive support and world wide appeal long before clubs started becoming billionaire play things.

The traditional big 5 were seen as united, Liverpool, Everton, Woolwich and us, mainly based on supporter size and stature of the clubs.

City and Chelsea fans can moan and bitch all they want but they were never an elite club and will never be seen as one to many supporters like me who remember the pre premier league era, they can have their success but we all know it has a hollow ring to it, that's why you get city fans coming on here desperately seeking our approval and validation.

Would count Villa and Leeds in the big clubs as well. The whole situation is very odd now, success seems entirely down to the whim of a billionaire.
 
United's stock grew out of a nationwide wave of sympathy following Munich.
People up and down the country started following the plucky underdog rising from the ashes and their success and fanbase snowballed from there. Nowadays, in my opinion, they have the most detestable fans in English football. Nothing but a load of Glory hunting, bandwagon jumping bunch of entitled cunts. I've taken so much pleasure in seeing them suffer since Ferguson left.
So you're saying we should plan for our squad to die, garner sympathy and become a power house? :sonhmm:


Nah, the media will just paint us as incompetent
"meandering Spurs side cannot even die properly"
 
Let them. To be very honest, a league of spoiled, financially doped cunts wouldn’t upset me. There would be about 8 - 10 teams in it & they could go play their games in Qatar, Dubai & China for their “global audience”. Those clubs would die as football institutions the minute that happened. A mini league of globetrotters. Their “fans” would get to see 2-3 games a year & the corporates would swallow up the rest. The clubs would be begging to be allowed back in a revised premier league, the moment the novelty wore off. If that’s what it takes to stop the rot, fuck it. Let it happen.
I’d be happy watching Spurs whatever league we were in. There are about 88 clubs in English league football who would love to be where we are. As fans, there aren’t many who are more fortunate than us.
Best post I've read in a while. Give them their superleague and get the fuck away from it, and get back to football as it was before!
 
I detest Shity and Chelsea. I know what they are and what they represent. That argument can’t be found in their favour.

However, we need to be careful that the City bating, while giving us a moral victory, loses us focus on the reality of what happened on Saturday and has been happening a lot.

For whatever reason our team is fading before our eyes. No amount of City money nor skill was behind that god awful defending from a corner ( again ) Dier’s hack. Alli’s Failure to track back or the stupid challenge for the pen. Unless Hugo’s been bunged a few quid no excuses for the woeful kicking and poor keeping....

We need to look at ourselves first and forget about Chelsea and City’s bank balance.
 
Last edited:
I detest Shity and Chelsea. I know what they are and what they represent. That argument can’t be found in their favour.

However, we need to be careful that the City bating, while giving us a moral victory, loses us focus on the reality of what happened on Saturday and has been happening a lot.

For whatever reason our team is fading before our eyes. No amount of City money nor skill was behind that god awful defending from a corner ( again ) Dier’s hack. Alli’s Failure to track back or the stupid challenge for the pen. Unless Hugo’s been bunged a few quid no excuses for the woeful kicking and poor keeping....

We need to look at ourselves first and forget about Chelsea and City’s bank balance.

Agree with that but even if the fixes are put in place I don’t see how we can compete with them in terms of league, the quality they can buy is beyond us.
 
Agree with that but even if the fixes are put in place I don’t see how we can compete with them in terms of league, the quality they can buy is beyond us.
The surprising thing is not how they were able to beat us 4-1 on Saturday, but how we have been able to get so many good results over them since they became rich, and how we were able to finish above them the last two seasons. That is truly commendable to THFC and to Poch.
 
The surprising thing is not how they were able to beat us 4-1 on Saturday, but how we have been able to get so many good results over them since they became rich, and how we were able to finish above them the last two seasons. That is truly commendable to THFC and to Poch.

Yes defiantly but that is the difference between us being at our best in terms of using our resources and City not doing as much as they can with what they have.

Now City are using their squad effectively it is very hard to deal with.
 
The surprising thing is not how they were able to beat us 4-1 on Saturday, but how we have been able to get so many good results over them since they became rich, and how we were able to finish above them the last two seasons. That is truly commendable to THFC and to Poch.
And being honest FFP did have some limitations on them for a few seasons and their squad aged as a result. I give Credit to the manager and players for any win. But there are also some reasons as to why the gap did close. One point they were whopping us 6-0 and 5-1....
 
In a not nearly as competitive league and not nearly as convincing


Come on Mate, this season is the least competitive season for a long time.. Last season was tougher and Pep steered his team to a massive 3rd place.

The last 3 Man City managers have won the league which goes to show it’s about the money. Mancini is an average manager and managed what pep has plus more.

Guardiola is good at spending money, not just a bit of money but over a billion. How anyone can say that makes him a genius is beyond me..
in my opinion Dyche is doing better this season than Guardiola, as he is having a great season with a shoestring budget, that makes a good manager not someone who just buys any player he wants because he can.
 
United's stock grew out of a nationwide wave of sympathy following Munich.
People up and down the country started following the plucky underdog rising from the ashes and their success and fanbase snowballed from there. Nowadays, in my opinion, they have the most detestable fans in English football. Nothing but a load of Glory hunting, bandwagon jumping bunch of entitled cunts. I've taken so much pleasure in seeing them suffer since Ferguson left.
Thats a bit of revisionism. United were a pretty dominant team at the time of the Munich crisis, and whilst they got a lot of deserved sympathy, calling them a plucky underdog is a gross oversimplification. They weren't playing in the European cup for no reason. That season they were trying to win the league for the third time in a row.
The loss of players didn't help them, but they were big enough to come through it all without any major issues, because they were a massive club in the UK and got the pick of the litter.
Winning the european cup gave them the biggest hike in fans, particularly on an international level.
IMHO
 
Last edited:
Come on Mate, this season is the least competitive season for a long time.. Last season was tougher and Pep steered his team to a massive 3rd place.

The last 3 Man City managers have won the league which goes to show it’s about the money. Mancini is an average manager and managed what pep has plus more.

Guardiola is good at spending money, not just a bit of money but over a billion. How anyone can say that makes him a genius is beyond me..
in my opinion Dyche is doing better this season than Guardiola, as he is having a great season with a shoestring budget, that makes a good manager not someone who just buys any player he wants because he can.
Agree about Dyche, I think the achievements of Poch, Dyche and Eddie Howe, are the ones that really show managerial talent. But the media will always side with winners, and those that play the most entertaining football, regardless of how much money was spent.
 
Back
Top Bottom