Jump to content

Ant1979

Members
  • Posts

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ant1979

  1. Man Utd

    Liverpool

    Arsenal

    Everton

    Aston Villa

    Chelsea

    Spurs

    Man City

    Newcastle

    Leeds

     

    Difficult one that. Found the top 5 quite easy, then the rest a bit more tricky. Almost put Forest instead of Leeds, it was a close one but despite 2 EC's they only have 1 league title. Put Newcastle in there because although they haven't won anything in years and years, they've got history of trophies, a big fan base and have been close to winning trophies a few times in the last 20 years.

    Honourable mentions for Shef Weds, Sunderland, wolves, Blackburn, PNE, Derby, etc...

  2. This is just my opinion now and don't mean to offend anyone. But I honestly think that not wanting Europa is a small club mentality, Roberto certainly wouldn't agree. That's his whole philosophy that Everton are a sleeping giant, photos around the place of the 9 league titles, etc. Do people think United would feel the same, let's settle for 7th so we can concentrate on league form next year? They'll be desperate to win their last 3 games and hope us or Spurs slip up. Then they would try to win it if they did qualify.

     

    Before anyone says it, I know they'll blow £100m or more in the summer, and have a bigger squad, but I do think it's doing a disservice to the size of Everton as a club to settle for 7th rather than 5th.

     

    Again, just opinions and totally understand not wanting the shite to win the league, they will be insufferable

  3. IMO... The only European competition worth being in is the Champions League.... for prestige, the money and expanding the Everton 'brand' throughout the world.

     

    Will we be able to attract a different class of player because we are in the Europa.... Nope

     

    Will we make millions of pounds in additional revenue.... Nope

     

    Will we be able to train and prepare midweek so we can be at our best for our EPL games... Nope

     

    I would much rather let the 5 or 6 teams around us play in Europe next year while we play our 38 games in the EPL remain fresh and have a great chance of breaking the top 4 next season. I think Europa is a hindrance.

     

    No way Liverpool would be where they are if they had to piss about in Europe on Thursday evenings.

    I do get what you're saying and I think that's why so many people are divided on the subject. I honestly think though that it will help more than it will hinder, but it's all just opinions I guess! I'm looking at it as though we'd be in it to win it not just making up the numbers. And it shows you're knocking on the door of the CL which I do think would help attract players. Anyway there's already been a thread for this, we'll never get everyone to agree haha, but diversity of opinion makes good debate :)

  4. No chance of that mate.

     

    Dont rate Diame personally. So wouldnt be overfully fussed if we didnt get him. £3.5m he could be a good squad player.

    I didn't think so either (about Cork I mean), but it's £3m that's been quoted somewhere on here in a link. I think he has 12 months left on his contract, and they've paid a shit load for Wanyama last year so maybe that's why he hasn't signed a new one as yet? Feels like he'll become second fiddle?

  5. Attitude's questionable though, BigSam has publically spoken out about him.

    Sort that out, hes alright.

    Big Sam's a wanker though. Martinez had him at Wigan, so if there's any truth in the rumour he'll know all about his character so I wouldn't be too worried :)

    exactly

    Although I have to admit, if this 3.5 mil release clause is true, and Martinez DOESN'T bid for him, then that might also effectively answer the questions about his attitude? Because I remember Roberto rated him very, very highly at Wigan, and 3.5m is nothing for a player of his quality

  6. So if the Italy game was tomorrow, what do you think the starting eleven would be? Roy has already said he won't let the end of the season affect his decisions so we might as well speculate:

     

    --------------------Hart------------------

    --Johnson--Cahill-Jagielka--Baines--

    ------------Gerrard---Henderson----

    Sterling-------Rooney--------Oxlade

    ----------------Sturridge--------------

     

    Johnson and Cahill are weak spots at the back. Really not a fan of Welbeck on the wing, and Rooney behind Sturridge is a better combo, so yea. Pretty sure I'm missing someone and it seems to have too many Liverpool players in it.

    That's not far off the team I would want. If Wilshire had been injury free all season and on form, then I might have put him in for Henderson, but as things are I agree with all your picks. But I bet Roy plays Milner in every single game...

     

    Edit - I would play Lallana instead of the Ox too, probably

  7. Hey - you're not being argumentative at all! You're making valid points.

     

    My frustration comes from the fact that the city expects Everton to make the investment while still reaping all the benefits, which is outrageous. By not investing in a new stadium, the city loses out on all that new revenue - and just whines about having to cut budgets.

    I do get your point. But as much as local councils have been guilty of poor financial management for years, they are cutting jobs at present and the money just isn't there. If they could guarantee to all the non-football fans (who would be in uproar), that everybody would see a long term financial benefit from doing this, perhaps lower council tax due to surpluses from stadium income, then it might be a goer. But the in the UK I just can't see this ever happening.

  8. If you achieve a return on investment in ten years and pure profit for the next ten years, why is a lifetime of 20 years a poor investment?

    Ok. First I'm only replying from a UK point of view, like I said I don't know US economics.

     

    So a stadium achieves a return on investment in only 10 years? That's great. But if it had been forward planned and future proofed properly, it would have still achieved that return, whilst also still being viable for the next 30 or more years. So all that extra time is pure profit yes, without the need to blow an extra billion? That money being spent comes from our taxes, etc; in this hypothetical, if it was in the UK. So a billion saved and the 20 year old stadium still fit for purpose, with proper infrastructure, including public transport, from the start.

     

    Last thing I'll say on it, I do like a good debate haha, but you're a good guy so I don't want it to seem like an argument :)

  9. A 20-year stadium lifetime is not unusual.

    It should be!

     

    I don't know enough about US economics to comment about the rest really. Like I said I agreed with a lot of your points I just have an issue with something costing hundreds of millions only lasting 20 years. I used to work at the Reebok Stadium (BWFC) when I lived over that way, it's 17 years old and would still be considered fairly modern and certainly fit for purpose for a long while yet

  10. Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. How can you say it's been proved time and again? Nothing could be further from the truth! (Let me guess: you are a councilman!)

     

    Here in Atlanta, for example, the city, sponsors, and owners are about to pay almost $1 billion (that's Billion with a capital B ) to build a new stadium for its football team. The city contributed hundreds of millions for the current stadium not 20 years ago. Indeed, the city just agreed to pay another $17 million simply for a parking deck! (I would add that there's no public transportation to get to the stadium from most parts of the city.) Our county is about to spend hundreds of millions on a new baseball stadium for the Atlanta team, and they too play in a stadium built only 20 years ago.

     

    The city will see that money come back quickly in terms of increased tax revenue (and taxes are much higher in the UK, so the return would be much shorter), new jobs (and hence more tax money and less paid in welfare), an influx of small businesses (more tax revenue and more jobs), millions in TV money for hosting other sports and city events and concerts (Paul McCartney is playing this week in Atlanta - why not Liverpool at a new Goodison?), increased revenue from public transportation, a share of parking fees, and so on. 30m is nothing! For pity's sake, add a temporary one pound "city fund" surcharge for tickets for one year, and that would generate a million right there. Add another pound to the train fare for those alighting or departing from the stadium and you have more money. Why couldn't the city waive all taxes to Everton over and above those paid this year at the current stadium - and let Everton reclaim its investment in terms of more gate revenue?

     

    The city of Liverpool would get this money back, and more, in comparatively short order. It just takes a little initiative, vision, and entrepreneurial spirit.

    I agree with a lot of your points there Steve. Just one thing I had to say, if the city is building 2 new stadiums replacing both that are only 20 years old, that's some pretty appalling management and forward planning! If one of our local councils jizzed that kind of money up the wall there would be a revolution

  11. And there lies the truth. You have empathy for that shite cause you were once one of them. I knew a bit of digging would unvail the thruth. YNWA ay!

    Stop being a cunt?

     

    Edit - unless you're joking that is? I don't know you so I've no idea, my apologies if you are. But if you're serious, then please refer to the above statement :)

×
×
  • Create New...