League Cup Final

[atfc village]

Spurs the biggest club in the country ,trophyless again.

 

[spence]

Ultimately, money spoke yet again in modern football. The squad/team that cost many £100m's in fees and player wages, out powered the team that cost a fraction of that. Pretty predictable.

What about when Wigan beat Man City in the final?

 

[Easy 10]

Well I was delighted. That was the last piece in my acca today (Liverpool, Arsenal, Naarch, Chelsea). That got me a few beer tokens.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ultimately, money spoke yet again in modern football. The squad/team that cost many £100m's in fees and player wages, out powered the team that cost a fraction of that. Pretty predictable.

while literaly true, in the case of Spurs that fraction is probably about 4/5ths.

 

[Pavilionaire]

while literaly true, in the case of Spurs that fraction is probably about 4/5ths.

Let's get the facts right. Chelsea's starting 11 cost £187.8mill - Spurs cost £47mill so exactly one-quarter. This is because they had Rose, Bentaleb, Mason, Townsend and Kane all produced by their system.

The benches both cost around £80mill because Spurs included flops Soldado and Lamela, but that's being kind to Chelsea because Drogba cost them £24mill first time around. Factor that in to the equation and Chelsea's matchday squad cost them £292mill to Spurs' £129m.

So, yes, it is all about money.

 

[Superphil]

Well I was delighted. That was the last piece in my acca today (Liverpool, Arsenal, Naarch, Chelsea). That got me a few beer tokens.

Damn, I bottled it and just did Narich and Chelsea

 

[Bombadier Botty]

Ultimately, money spoke yet again in modern football. The squad/team that cost many £100m's in fees and player wages, out powered the team that cost a fraction of that. Pretty predictable.

Well I won't be shedding any tears for those wankers from White Hart Lane. Clubs like ours are just an irrelevance as far as both Chelsea and Spurs are concerned.

 

[Weststander]

Let's get the facts right. Chelsea's starting 11 cost £187.8mill - Spurs cost £47mill so exactly one-quarter. This is because they had Rose, Bentaleb, Mason, Townsend and Kane all produced by their system.

The benches both cost around £80mill because Spurs included flops Soldado and Lamela, but that's being kind to Chelsea because Drogba cost them £24mill first time around. Factor that in to the equation and Chelsea's matchday squad cost them £292mill to Spurs' £129m.

So, yes, it is all about money.

Don't let FACTS get in the way of someone else's guessed argument.

 

[Weststander]

Well I won't be shedding any tears for those wankers from White Hart Lane. Clubs like ours are just an irrelevance as far as both Chelsea and Spurs are concerned.

No tears for me as well, they are over-hyped and arrogant PL clubs. Just saying that it was all quite predictable - the stinking rich club were able to acquire a higher grade of player and so beat the quite rich club to the silverware. With the odd exception, this is very much the norm of modern ££££ English and €€€€ European football.

 

[El Presidente]

So, yes, it is all about money.

It's the same with women.

 

[Hampster Gull]

It's the same with women.

"Women" are attracted to money, i have seen that