tajjuk

That McManaman tackle was horrendous.

Yawn, same old boring rubbish Turkish, people making comments about the thread topic, you as usual just berating people, if you've got noting to say about 'today's games' maybe go to another thread. You don't need to reply to every comment that you don't agree with and none of those comments were particularly controversial. Johnson is Sunderland's highest earner and record transfer, O'Neill's managerial career is hardly that good and the referee was very poor in that game and has form for it. Sunderland were rubbish there, an hour against 10 men, not one clear cut chance created and probably should have lost considering Holt had a one v one and Norwich should have had a penalty. Norwich probably safe now, they are a bit dour but very solid defensively. Come on Newcastle now, team with a poor away record against a team with the worst home record in the country.

well that's a penalty, Norwich not getting fair refereeing here.

Thought Lambert was excellent, he should have scored that one v one, but he made Skrtel have a miserable afternoon, he just couldn't handle him, he does that to a lot of centre-backs in this league, they can't handle him physically, plus unlike Carroll he can bring the ball down and bring other into the play with excellent passing. People rave about Fellaini doing it for Everton but Lambert does it every week for us, apart from when Samba dwarfed him. Not many centre-backs like Samba around though.

Some generous refereeing for Sunderland, hopefully Norwich can hold on.

Thought he was excellent yesterday, seem very comfortable cutting in from the right. I see the usual are still peddling their same old baseless boring moans, despite an excellent performance from all involved yesterday including Gaston. Sorry but there are simply no negatives to be heard today, so if you can't give credit to Gaston after yesterday, then it's best you just don't say anything at all.

My Liverpool supporting mate reckons he coasts through games before England games to make sure he's fit and ready for England. He reckons at this stage in Gerrard's career being England captain is more important to him as Liverpool are unlikely to do anything before he retires but he's got a World Cup to get to as England captain.

Fantastic result, some of the best football I've seen in those first 30 minutes. Shame we couldn't have taken all our chances really could have embarrassed Liverpool. Everyone played well, best game for Lallana for a while, Morgan excellent again, Lambert much better (should have scored that one v one though) Jay Rod improves every game and Ramirez cutting in from the right, why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Liverpool had no idea where he was, couldn't handle him. Shame he went off early but tactically can understand it. Also how good are both our fullbacks? pace, strength, tackling dribbling they made both our centrebacks jobs so easy, Roy pay attention.

Strikers or generally? Le Fondre deserves a go, 12 goals for a rubbish team with limited game time. He's a very decent finisher would much prefer a chance falling to him than Welbeck or Sturridge. I'd also play Walcott up front with Rooney behind rather than Walcott on the wing.

Wellbeck played well in a defensive role, he was put their to mark alonso out of the game. Can't really see why that would be a good basis for him to be one of England's main forwards. He can't finish, can't really dribble that well and his general all round technique is average at best. He runs about a lot and is quick that's about it. He if he didn't play for Utd there is no way he'd get in the England squad. Rio is 34 and is England's failed past, pointless selection IMO if we are supposed to be building for the future. It's not surprising England squad, same old overated average players in there basically because of the team the sit on the bench for. Though I don;t think there are any Saints players that probably should be in there, Lambert's form has dropped, if he'd scored 3 or 4 goals recently then yeh he should be in there I reckon. Cork might have a shout if he continues to improve, he could be a decent replacement for Parker who has declined due to injuries. Shaw will be our most likely call up if we still have him, he's the 3rd best English left back already so injuries to Baines or Cole and I rekcon he will be in.

So on that basis Spurs are not huge then and you have clearly been wrong from the start. Thanks for confirming what we all knew already. .

To be fair considering his massive Liverpool bias and his description, his 2-1 defeat prediction is fairly fair. Liverpool didn't beat Spurs with "two moments of quality" they were gifted both goals through terrible errors and didn't look like scoring before that.

Nope. Been our best attacker last two games despite the teams average performances, completely devoid of any creativity when he went off against QPR. Would like the keep hold off him as I reckon he'll be much improved next year, however depends if we stay up, if we don't we will sell him. You'd think Arsenal would want to buy some decent defenders, a decent defensive mid and a decent striker before they buy any more attacking midfielders. They have Corzola, Wilshere, Rosicky, Gervinho, Walcott and Oxlaide CHamberlain in those positions. Maybe they'll do a swap deal, £10 million plus the ox back Exactly this. Inconsistentcy has plagued him but he has been class and we'd be a lot worse off without his contributions.

No it started because I suggested that for a now established Premier League club Stoke should be at least progressing for their outlay, wherease yu stated that you need to spend £30 million a year just to stay in the league and 'do a Man City' to even vaguely compete. I said that Spurs and Everton show that is plainly not true and that we should look at Spurs as an example model to grow the club, slowly and sustainably. Which you dismissed on the basis that:- - Spurs are apparently a 'huge club', which they are not, they aren't even the biggest club in London, whichever way you look at it regardless of them wining a European Trophy 52 years ago. - That they bought Bale from a 'top 7 club', which they didn't. - And that it was ludicrous that we could be compared to Spurs as they pay him £150k a week, which they don't. - Then you spouted something about 'yes players' whatever that meant. - Then you went on about Spurs 'being pioneers of Europe' thus making them a bigger club than the far more successful, better supported, more well known Arsenal. About the only thing you have got correct is the fact that Spurs won a european trophy and were the first british club to do this. (Which we all knew anyway.) EDIT: BTW Why if Spurs could easily sell out a 60,000 seater stadium are they only building a 56,000 seater? Also why has it taken them this long? IF there has been such a demand for tickets? Maybe it;s because in the mid to late 90's they weren't selling out every weerk?

As in you were wrong and should have probably shut up 2 pages ago?

Two words: Continued success. One cup 50 years ago is irrelevant. As is one cup yesterday to a lesser degree. Are Swansea bigger than Arsenal for winning that Legaue Cup and Arsenal not winning anything for 8 years? No, because Arsenal's superior fanbase, successful history, league status and finances give them a bigger boost than one cup win. Between Swansea and us it's less clear cut, neither club has a very successful history. neither club has a massive following, they obviously currently have an edge over us as they can offer player's higher recent league status to build on, european football and recent success to build one. We can probably offer more money in wgaes.

And Celtic were the first British club to win a European cup, yet their most recent transfer saw players arrive from hotbeds of footballing talent and prestige such Australia's A-League, France's Lague-2 and the Israeli premier division. There is no relevance to now with something that happened 50 years ago.

No Spurs are smaller than Arsenal because they won a lot less throughout their history, have less fans, have a worse record in the league over their history, have a bigger worldwide appeal, have a much bigger stadium, pay more in wages and any other reason you care to mention to grade the size of clubs. Biggest ever, huge in fact. I can certainly see a host of player's turning down club's in the Premiership for that very reason. I can see it now, "nah sorry Everton, you are challenging for a Champions League spot, offering me £50k a week, and playing in front of 36k passionate Scousers but the mighty Forrest won the European cup, not once but twice, nearly 40 years a go, so really my long term future is better here, as such a massive club will be back on top soon. Eh? What do you mean they haven't been in the top flight for 15 years and onl 22k turned up last week, How is that possible for such a giant of the game?"

Typical BS from BS. Learn some history yourself, everyone else knows Arsenal are a bigger club than Spurs and always have been, even the Spurs fans admit it. Big clubs regularly win trophies and leagues. Huge clubs have massive worldwide fanbases and have won multiple trophies throughout their history and regularly dominate their domestic competitions. How a club that isn't even the biggest club in it's own city, that has barely won a major trophy for 50 years, that has spent most of it's recent league history in midtable obscurity can be huge only your stupidity knows.

lol, you're a real idiot. Pre-premier league Arsenal were bigger than Spurs. Even ignoring their titles from the 30's they were still winning titles in the late 80's and early 90's. Spurs last won the title in 1961, that's 52 years ago. They last won an FA Cup in 1991. Their highest finishes in the Premier League have come in their last 3 seasons. The highest they managed before 2005 was 7th. Over the last 10 years they have grown under Levy from a regular midtable club to champions league place challengers whilst keeping a close control over the fianances. That's a good achievement for a club that is not one of England's traditional big boys, nor backed my mulit millions worth of tycoon money. If you really think player's are influenced by what a club did 50 years ago you need your head looking at.

'Yes' players? Again you make no sense, Bale was signed from us when we were in the Championship. I said several times Spurs are bigger then us, they are not however a huge club, as usually you are talking out of your arse.

Obviously bigger than their north London rivals who have won the league 13 times, the FA cup 10 times and sell out a 60,000 seater stadium every other week depsite some of the highest prices around.

They are bigger than us, but no way are they 'huge'. They have two league cups in the last 22 years. They have spent most of their premier league life as a mid table club. Bayern Munich, Barca, Man Utd, those are 'huge' clubs. Spurs are not in any sense a 'huge' club. WTF? They bought him from us for just £5 million. LOL Bale is not on £150k a week. There might be paper talk about Spurs offering him that contract now, but I don;t see the relevance to the point I was making, He's on a 5 year contract currently that's about £75k a week. Seeing as Gaston is on about £60k a week when we have just got promoted you don;t think we could't give say Shaw that sort of contract if he became an England regular for example? If Real Madrid or someone come bidding then seeing as he has 3 years left on his contract and Spurs don't need to sell they could be getting £45 million for him. I didn't say in my post we were suddenly going to able to stop players singings for Real Madrid or offering them £150k a week.

Wihout out him we wouldn't have scored in the first place, and I don't mean the fact he was the one that put the ball in the net. Pretty much every attack in the first half was down to him creating some space in the middle of the park that then knocked on to creating some space around the box. He's very important becuase he's one of the few players that can turn our sidways keep ball passes into somehting more meaningful, Morgan and Cork just don't have the same abilities.

You know that both Arsenal and Spurs have fairly low net spends? £30 million is not chciken feed to them, nor Everton nor Utd really. Only Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City will splurge that on players regularly. I would imagine we will try and copy the Spurs model. Slow sustainable growth:- - Increase off field revenues where possible (from our financial reulsts this seems to be already working) - Invest in youth team development. - Buy promising young players from home and abroad. If a really big club comes knocking for these and your youth players than drive a hard bargain. (which is where having decent financial backing helps, removes the need to sell) Spurs doubled their money on Modric, when they sell Bale they will most likely get £40+ million for a player bought for 5. Re-invest this money back in the team. We have already done similar this year though buying the likes of Clyne, Jay Rod and Ramirez. Clyne for example could become an England right back in the future, at some point a Chelsea or Utd will come knocking but they'll pay a lot more than the £2.5 million we paid for him - Grow the first team year on year out, look to add quality not quantity. (our post 03 mistake) - Stick to a sustainable and sensible wage budget. Get players on long term contracts to secure their values.