This guy has yet again gone out of his way to slag Spurs off, this time buy apparently deciding to single out Spurs as a poor comparison of Liverpool, after a narrow 1-0 defeat.
Like such a comparison could not be made against every other team in the PL at the moment, yet he decides to use, what actually could have been a draw, to say his little bit.
As someone said on the BBC HYS, is he next going to compared the direction Man City have taken compared with Watford following last year's cup final ? yeah like hell he will.
McNulty has done this to Spurs a couple of times in recent years ( in particular after the lost to Barca in last year's CL group stage, telling us all that Spurs can't seriously compete on the European stage. That back fired when we "competed" all the way to the final )
Clearly he is using his influence in the press to show his hatred specifically towards Spurs.
Yeah Liverpool are good, and at this moment in time are clearly ahead of Spurs, but firstly there are lots of reasons for this, mostly due to money, but come on, this article could have been written about any team in the PL, including Man City, and just shows his ( and the BBC's ) bias.
Once again, pathetic journalism.
McNulty....seriously ??
posted on 12/1/20
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 3 seconds ago
Well this all ended rather predictably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed.
posted on 12/1/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
It can't possibly be fact. Its a matter of opinion. Just don't keep hallucinating on every thread because you're ruining the site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it can't. Its definitely on topic in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a fact that it was off topic.
You tried to derail one thread, failed, so did it here instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again all your opinion, and its insane. Leave me to it. Why still reply to me all the time then?
Its been all good in the while you stayed away from the site too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a fact that it was off topic.
I haven’t stayed away.
Likewise, threads where you’re not involved rarely become a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar.
You're the only poster that happens to be on every thread that gets ruined. You're clearly the problem.
You've been voted in the top 5 worst posters on the site because you ruin threads for breakfast FFS.
Post your empty denials below. I'm off too because arguing with a top 5 JA606 will tarnish my good name.
Adios
posted on 12/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
It can't possibly be fact. Its a matter of opinion. Just don't keep hallucinating on every thread because you're ruining the site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it can't. Its definitely on topic in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a fact that it was off topic.
You tried to derail one thread, failed, so did it here instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again all your opinion, and its insane. Leave me to it. Why still reply to me all the time then?
Its been all good in the while you stayed away from the site too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a fact that it was off topic.
I haven’t stayed away.
Likewise, threads where you’re not involved rarely become a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar.
You're the only poster that happens to be on every thread that gets ruined. You're clearly the problem.
You've been voted in the top 5 worst posters on the site because you ruin threads for breakfast FFS.
Post your empty denials below. I'm off too because arguing with a top 5 JA606will tarnish my good name.
Adios
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s all there in black and white.
You tried to derail the thread about Robertson but I wouldn’t let you. You went for this one instead.
You’re physically incapable of engaging in mature debate.
posted on 12/1/20
comment by Ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?
Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.
Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??
You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.
So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we also lost £150M in player assets fack me how is someone going to use gross spend as an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerated example to help your small brain cope with this concept:
Liverpool sell Mane for 250m, buy 5 x 50 million player. Net spend zero.
Spurs buy no one. Net spend zero.
And you want to use net spend as a comparison that both clubs are on equal level.
You brought in 5 players, for 250 million, Spurs no one. So yes, gross spend of course.
posted on 12/1/20
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?
Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.
Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??
You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.
So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we also lost £150M in player assets fack me how is someone going to use gross spend as an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerated example to help your small brain cope with this concept:
Liverpool sell Mane for 250m, buy 5 x 50 million player. Net spend zero.
Spurs buy no one. Net spend zero.
And you want to use net spend as a comparison that both clubs are on equal level.
You brought in 5 players, for 250 million, Spurs no one. So yes, gross spend of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And whose fault is it that Spurs chose to let their players run down contracts rather than selling them and replacing them?
Small brain indeed.
posted on 12/1/20
Klopp could fix his defence with coaching, so he spent 150 million on two players to fix it. Yes, its about money as well as other things. Denying it is just daft.
posted on 12/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 7 minutes ago
It's a combination of money spent, Klopp, and good recruitment. To talk about the net spend is kind of disingenuous because we know Coutinho was sold for about £70m more than he was worth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets go with this logic.
If Spurs had sold Alli, he would have went for a lot more than he was worth. At some point you'd have got say, 100m. Then you reinvest in the squad and end up better than before.
Instead, they've kept their Alli but have paid for it in other ways.
You can't trust the Spurs management with the 100m anyway. That's the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, that's why I mentioned recruitment as one of the factors for your success. We sold Bale for a world record fee but reinvested the money mainly on duds. I wouldn't trust this club to spend any large amount of money wisely with their track record. Levy would still go in for cheap alternatives who he can make a profit on in a few years time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It even worse fail to sign anyone for ages.
Looking back, that was insane, Spurs just not strengthening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean not spending money?
posted on 12/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
Due to money? Don't Liverpool have a lower net spend than Spurs over Klopp's time? Also didn't Spurs spend over £100m in the summer whilst Liverpool spent nothing.
I'd say it's due to the manager, rather than money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at the wage bills over that time.
Of course money has played a part - hence why you’ve got Mane and Spurs haven’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and that's fine but this is a conscious decisions from Spurs. There is no reason why they couldn't have paid higher wages considering they were making the CL every season whilst we were hit and miss for a few years.
The difference is that when we got into a good position, we capitalised on it and moved forward, whereas Spurs didn't change their approach and stagnated. Of course building a new stadium was probably a large part of this but then we did take a different approach and redeveloped Anfield which has turned out to be a great decision.
In short, our owners have made great decisions to enable us to move forward and theirs haven't.
Although I don't think it's all doom and gloom at Spurs, they took a different approach which will take longer to achieve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean, you spent money, Spurs didnt?
posted on 12/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
Also why are we miles ahead of United despite them spending considerably more than we have?
The same reasons. The club have made great decisions, whereas United haven't.
We can use money as an excuse if you like but it doesnt add up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money poorly spent, money wisely spent. Money is part of football. Amongst other things, like great management. Management is also related to how money is spent. You can keep banging the drum that gross spend, money, etc, is not a big part of football, or the problem at Spurs, then you are simply wrong.
Cant believe I agree with Winston for once
posted on 12/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?
Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.
Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??
You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.
So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we also lost £150M in player assets fack me how is someone going to use gross spend as an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerated example to help your small brain cope with this concept:
Liverpool sell Mane for 250m, buy 5 x 50 million player. Net spend zero.
Spurs buy no one. Net spend zero.
And you want to use net spend as a comparison that both clubs are on equal level.
You brought in 5 players, for 250 million, Spurs no one. So yes, gross spend of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And whose fault is it that Spurs chose to let their players run down contracts rather than selling them and replacing them?
Small brain indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one said its not about management, the argument was about net spend v gross spend in this comment thread.
And you cannot replace players for free. Money is always in the equation.
Small brain indeed.