Modern football. It's not that great. Discuss.

It's all very cheery this. An email conversation between myself and a Manchester United fan. Make sure there are no razor blades in reaching distance. Bitterness, it consumes as all. Damn you green-eyed monster, stop feasting on my rotting flesh!

Utd fan: thanks to your boys for doing the usual put up a fight until we score then roll over routine that you’ve near perfected at OT!!

You NEED a striker!

spooky: Limp performance wasn't it. Adebayor to be announced soon.

Utd fan: Happy with Adebayor? He represents pretty much everything I hate about football, well, he did when he went to City. Guess he realises it’s not just about money, it’s actually good to play once in a while!

spooky: Will do as a loan deal, imo. He'll want to impress to bag yet another move next season. So it might benefit us - because we simply have to finish top 4 (well, that would be the clubs ambition in terms of keeping players etc).

City repulse me.

Utd fan: Indeed. I know that squad depth is important these days but the situation at City realistically is that the English players, that once showed so much promise, are going to disappear. Johnson (both of them, though the other is farmed out on load now at least), Barry, Milner, SWP. They will be the ones to fall down the pecking order, obviously not the new signings. Not that I actually rate any of them, except maybe A Johnson, but these are all players who have worn the England shirt and probably won’t wear it for that much longer.

They will win this year, or next at the latest and then what? Buy more players? At least Abramovich saw some sense and realised that spunking money isn’t actually that fun, especially when your team still can’t win the CL and play boring unattractive possession football. Worrying thing is that City’s Sheiks are way way way more rich then Abramovich and only the Financial Fair Play rules can slow them down (note, not stop them!).

I’m expecting a City dominated league for the next few years to be honest, maybe even a decade of dominance. I’m somewhat apathetic to the whole situation though. I should be fearing it, but it’s the way football is going. Rich owners have bought Malaga and PSG this year too. More will follow next year and even more the year after. Players will get even less loyal, TV deals will get even more lucrative so that players wages can keep going up despite the Financial Fair Play rules – which are too little too late in my opinion. At the same time we have a crooked, corrupt, clueless, out of touch maniac at the head of football who is obviously against technology in football as he can probably only just manage a text message on his mobile phone!

I’ve said for a while that football is heading in to a black hole, bursting at the seams and will implode soon. I just hope the splatters of real football left are enough to regain something meaningful!

spooky: Regarding what you cited about English/British players - completely agree, they will be marginalised and they will equally cost a bomb to sign. I personally don't get how City fans can (with a straight face) be proud of any progress or achievements.

Players are signing for them for the money and because of the quality of players being signed, the advantage is - they will win silverware. It's win win for them. Take the money away and there is no 'project'. There's no genuine build up to success.

Look at Utd as the perfect example of how it should work.

Chelsea were just as bad. They had build up, mind. They were progressing, but to make that final step they bought in Jose and spent untold millions.

Utd fan: I’ve said it before that you’re one of only a few people I can have a ‘real’ discussion about football with. My United mates are too biased and too success driven to see the bigger picture and my City mates, well, they are mostly exactly as you say, not at all shamed by the way in which they are going to end up winning – beat United at all costs seems to be their only mantra. I do understand to it to a degree, but that empty, slightly hollow feeling that they’ll have when they see <insert captain> lift the Prem trophy can never be filled be their ruthless approach to winning at any cost.

The Ageuro signing almost went by unnoticed – can you imagine that being the case 3, even 2 years ago? We’ve already come to expect it as normal, which is almost as scary as them winning the title!

We are a good example but I’m not going to deny that we had a helping hand (float on the stock exchange, aggressive business marketing thus sucking the soul out of the club, and we were one of the forerunners of corporate hospitality – all things I despise about football). Though whilst we did break a few transfer records along the way (something my City fans love to point out) we maintained a rigid wage structure with a sensible ceiling. This actually prevented us from signing lots of players through the years (if rumours are to be believed anyway, it’s the reason why Kluivert and Batistuta didn’t sign). City don’t have that in place. Their wage bill is bigger then most smaller countries GDP I reckon!

It’s only 2 games old (1 in your case) and already I am starting to feel sorry for Arsenal (urgh!!) and have handed City the title in my head (double urgh!).

If you can keep Modric and sort his head out and get in Adebayor and Diarra (obvious a replacement for the disappointing Palacios) I reckon you can easily squeeze Arsenal out of that 4th spot and you might be able to challenge Chelsea. I saw enough in your performance at OT to warrant that. You played some lovely pass and move football and found lots of space (though our defence is probably the youngest you’ll ever face!) but just lacked that cutting edge. Think RvdV needs a certain type of player to play off. Not sure that player is necessarily Adebayor, but he is certainly better then Crouch or Defoe, and Pavlyuchenko is way too inconsistent.

Your defence looked unbeatable for the most part at OT, some great interceptions/interventions particularly in the first half! On a side note, are Fulham now your second team?

spooky: I'm actually doing my best to detach myself from the entire mess and just fall back in love, without complications, with football at its purest level. Just supporting Spurs, loving the shirt, loving the players that want to pull on the shirt. Singing, getting drunk and applauding and joyfully celebrating moments of vibrant brilliance. And any success that is attached to that, I obviously welcome as another slice of history to be placed proudly in amongst our rich tapestry of tradition.

The reality is, I still find myself thinking that Top 4 is essential because otherwise we might find ourselves stuck in this perpetual game of catch-up, selling players who want to move to CL teams, buying new ones, then going through the same thing again. We spent so long dreaming of competition for top four and the CL that now we've achieved it, going a step back would be gut wrenching. Such is the way modern football works, CL is has devalued cup wins. Even though, if we are all brutally honest, winning a trophy (domestically) in terms of a cup might not be the same as it was in the 80s and before but it still retains a certain undeniable quality. You can't ever take a way a Wembley win. Its there, black and white, in history and its silverware. Even if its not respected as it once was. Finishing 4th is hardly what dreams are made of.

But finishing 4th consistently is the only way to ever become equipped for a title push.

Wish things were far more simple. Don't think football will implode either. Not yet. Only way is for the likes of Spurs and even Arsenal to push out the likes of City and Chelsea.

Its a little like asking Norman Wisdom to inform Godzilla he can't be knocking down any buildings.

Utd fan: I promised myself I would do that last season but the babies really put a stop to it but I’m going to try again this season I reckon.

You are right, there is still much to enjoy, much to love about football and this implosion won’t happen for a while (too many people making too much money at the moment). I intend to get to more pubs to watch matches this season and the occasional outing to OT when the chance arises!

spooky: Onwards.

Hating

I was sent this article (taken from the football365 mailbox section) by an Arsenal fan in peace asking the question the quoted article poses: 'Is it possible that hatred for Man City and Chelsea could ever supersede that of a local rival?'

It struck a chord with him (for reasons apparent in how Chelsea have affected Arsenal in recent years). Does it struck a chord with us? Well obviously it will do - 'Bitter' as we are at the apparent simplicity of being able to compete consistently with the aid of money money money. Sure Chelsea have toned down their spending in comparison to City who are still in a transition and will obviously seek consolidation in the next year or two.

The rest of us (that copyrighted bitterness aside) know that you can hardly compete with a club regardless of the club's unquestionable status prior to winning the lottery if said club are spending the money. They will always sign the better players. It's an easier choice for any prospective signings.

You spend = you show ambition. Relentless and unquestionable and practically unanswerable in terms of said ambition because you can attract any one simply because you are moving in the right direction. Up. it breeds hype and confidence and results.

Let's not be naive about it. A project is always going to best a club that doesn't have the clout on the negotiating table. We're not in the CL, we can't compete wage wise, therefore...see ya. That's very much a broad overview, but if you take a look at some of the signings made by City if we had attempted to step in and compete with them we'd have been brushed aside. You hope the nature of their progression retains an air of instability due to the ego and manner of the foundations being built.

You hope.

They didn't falter last season. Unspectacular and at times with fear to attack, but they got the points. Had we been perhaps more focused, little club Spurs would have taken a further step in breaking the mould and attracting players because of qualification to that compeition.

Personally think Wenger has been cany in the past with their (Arsenal) ability to compete with wages and his shrewd transfer policy, but arguable he has suffered and they are continuing to do so (they appear to be feeding City players at the moment). Although remaining very much competitive, they are not as comfortable as they wish to be.

Here's the article in question:

Hatin'
Jumping on the back of Philip Brady's mail this morning, is it possible that hatred for Man City and Chelsea could ever supersede that of a local rival?

As a youngish Gooner, I waited for 10 years as Arsenal strove to become as good as Manchester United. This was a club that was signing the right players, brining in new dietary and training doctrine, breaking even, not doing a Leeds, recognizing its origins and traditions and gaining momentum through footballing success. We were playing catch up with a club that had had its ups and downs but learnt from its history and overcame its challenges. Man Utd employed and stood by a brilliant manager and had become a formidable machine through its own series successes both on and off the field. A fair fight ensued, one which culminated in Arsenal deservedly becoming United's major challengers towards the end of the 90s and early Naughties and winning in a couple of doubles along the way. So, the future was exciting- 10 years of excellent work by Wenger and Dein et al. had started to pay off and it was time to move to a new stadium and cement our place as a serious contender for years to come.

Then BAM. Chelsea.

Out of nowhere, an overspending, underachieving, upper-mid table outfit gets the deal of a lifetime and subsequently blow Arsenal out of the water.
A comfortable period of transition to the new stadium that we had earned had now become unsustainable as Chelsea bought their way to success in the space of 2 seasons. 10 years earlier and there would have been no Champions League place to soften the blow either.

Now to our North London neighbours.

Through a catalogue of errors with management, player investment and board decisions, Liverpool rightly drop out of the top four. The players, team selections and tactics were all wrong and Liverpool got what they deserved.
No Champions League football. Tottenham, waiting in the wings and the natural heirs to fourth place move up and take their rightful place. Whilst not setting the world on fire, this was where they had deserved to be. For two seasons they had outperformed Liverpool and had earned the right to represent the Premiership in the Champions League. There or there abouts for the past 5 seasons, this was finally a great moment for London and a great moment for Tottenham.

Enter Manchester City.

A pre-packaged sugar daddy's dream club with a shiny, modern new stadium basically handed to them, City became the wealthiest club in the world after a handshake and (no doubt) a few backhanders. Greedily lusting after the Sheikhs millions and having already having made a mockery of the fit and proper persons test with the Shinawatra debacle, they were allowed to prostitute themselves out again and, this time, they made sure it was done properly. Tottenham's second season of outperforming the outgoing member of the big four was lost. Manchester City waltz in and take the glory of Champions League football thus augmenting their ability to sign top quality players (the wages weren't enough at one point) and essentially stealing Tottenham's European revenue stream to boot.

As a Gooner with as much hatred for Chelsea as for anybody else answer me this Tottenham fans- Can you ever hate City as much as you hate Arsenal?

I guess the hate/hate relationship with Arsenal will always remain strong(er) by virtue of history. But there's a hatred that is birthed out of annoyance of the likes of City simply because they are attracting players thanks to their wealth rather than anything else (although I get it, because of their wealth they 'compete' and because of that they are a better option. Cruel cruel world).

Their fans (City) have had it bad in recent years with their yo-yo existence and mis-management so its fantasy football for them to be in this current position of financial power. A club in the shadows can now compete with their dominating neighbour. Why shouldn't they enjoy it? I guess they have a right. Although that underlining arrogance based on luck is what pulls most of us back from patting them on the back.

Clubs like Spurs, we've spent millions but we've done so within our own means. Actually wasted a few million in the process of attempting to climb into the top tier. If we were suddenly 'blessed' with untold riches and able to offer any wage to top top players then power would probably shift back to us if we competed for CL football. Two billionaire clubs become three and so on. Then the power is with the players who can pick and choose based on CL football and which club wishes to pay that extra 100k to claim the signature.

Fair Play Rules might control the insanity (loopholes permitting). Fact is, football is driven by money and immediate feasting on the hunger players have for top tier football. We'll only survive if we consolidate by breaking back into the top four again (as underdogs) and remain there. We're on a knife edge. We can only improve and get stronger by plucking players that are out of scope with the richer teams. But (as witnessed) will always be susceptible to losing them if we can't quite get back into the 'big league'.

I guess I do hate the arrogance that oozes from the likes of City and Chelsea but then again, that same arrogance has always been strong with the Arsenal and Man Utd. Except both are now having to fight pound for pound season in and season out.

Until the state of flux the top tier is currently in is levelled out, we'll have to wait and see. Potential for another 'monopoly' to be birthed. Or perhaps a five/six way team battle royale. Hopefully the latter.

Ironically, if 'we' become part of 'it', we become part of the thing we love to hate. But the silver lining is that we do so without cutting corners. As much as I hate Arsenal for being Arsenal they've challenged without the necessity to lift a passing skirt up and blow their load on anything that moves.

Chelsea got themselves in a competitive position. They then consolidated thanks to the untold riches and attracted a manager who arrived because of said untold riches. City, same thing, but more spending and quite possibly still requiring a manager upgrade. We'll see.

That's modern football. Ah diddums and all that. But I still hate Arsenal more. It would be completely ungentlemanly for me not too and I would be quite disappointed if they hated on someone else more.

Doomed if we do, doomed if we don't

So, I'm sitting here tucking into a tuna salad (I'm on a health kick at the minute) discussing the state of football at work. The Man Utd fan is overwhelmingly disillusioned with the game (damn you Fergie and your relentless quest for silverware).

He's not renewing his season ticket (he's a proper manc by the way - not a Surrey dweller - who lives and works in London but travels up for most games). He's a little sick of all the greedy money obsessed players. The Ronaldo saga is obviously a sticking point, but more so Carlos Tevez who will be (probably) joining Man City, not for the money, but because of the football as United have failed to make him feel part of the furniture at Old Trafford. I'm guessing Carlos will be part of City's five man strike-force including Bellamy, Robinho, Santa Cruz and Elano. No bench warming for the Argentine then.

In all likelihood Elano won't be part of the set-up next season. I can only pray and sacrifice a Chirpy effigy to the footballing Gods that Harry doesn't look towards Eastland's with a cheeky £15M bid for mad man Craig.

Even with the high tax rate taking a bite out of their wage packet (some of the poor blighters are only bringing home £40,000 a week after tax) they can rest assured that there is still legal room to wriggle around in. Much like City are doing at the moment with the Eto'o personal terms negotiations.

Little clubs like us will struggle to compete. Logistically, there ought to be no difference between us and City with regards to what we can offer players in the way of ambition. But as seen with Gareth Barry (who decided against Champs League with Liverpool or possibly Arsenal) money talks. Eto'o has no reason to sign for us. Not because we are not in Europe like City but because we can't offer £250,000 a week or sign other players of similar ilk for similar wages.

I guess the issue at the heart of the no-limit ethos is around the argument as to whether players are ambitious and prefer to join a team that can challenge from the off (or near enough) rather than a club that will not be able to attract world class players. So if you want to challenge, you need to remove the hurdles in front of you and only attempt to jump the one at the end. It's a short-cut, that may or may not work. What's ironic, and suggested to me by the manc, is that Spurs are a prime club for a billionaire.

Rather than spend £15M on several decent players which don't always pan out too well, why not make massive ridiculous bids for 'superstars' and just go for the Top 4 jugular with a razor sharp short-cut?

But alas, we are safe from such dramas. And it all feels a little too superficial. Too easy. Not that it is, but it's easier. But how would we react if it happened? Fans always scoff at the prospect for reasons I've already given. But would it be ok because we have a far more richer history than the likes of City? Or would that be an excuse to appease ourselves from the hypocrisy?

You will probably find that the hunger for success will out weigh everything else in the end.

Such is life.

We cursed Chelsea for doing something similar when Roman pumped his millions into the club. But they were already a Champs League side, and the attraction there for players was mainly down to the fact that they appointed the Special One. Who only signed on because he knew he'd have plenty of money to play with and that players would join because of his reputation. Chelsea without the money is not the same proposition. If you look at the pre-Roman days, they did more than well and signed plenty of big name players - but they were still way off the pace of title winners.

We might be in a better position with our wage budget, in comparison to our prior generosity. So say the rumours and having terminated the reserve side, there is more money in the kitty than usual to spend on first team affairs. More money, but nothing stratospheric. Meaning we are not in the same league to compete with City purely on the side of contract offers (imagine City with money AND Champions League).

But all this shouldn't cause mass depression. The Utd fan is just pissed off because modern day players are more detached than ever. But we all know this already. It's nothing new. But rather than clubs striving to match their fans expectations through the traditional ways, the option for whoring themselves out to billionaires who want a plaything seems to be the only viable desperate solution to play catch-up and catch-up fast.

As for me?

I'm undecided about City and whether I want them to do well.

Usually, outside the Top 4, we attract the most hype in off-season with transfers. In fact, we probably get more coverage than they do as we are firm favs of footballing agents and lazy journalism. We've been linked to around 80 players so far this season (if not more). At a guess, only 10 (maybe less) of them are possible genuine targets. Regardless of the stats, the pre-season dark horse tag is usually shared between us and Everton. Mainly because we splash out millions. But things have changed. City are now the team to watch as they go in search of cracking the monopoly.

So the pressure is off for a start. Hughes will have to produce the goods and man-manage with confident skill to keep all his superstars in check. It won't be easy. But they are buying up decent players, not just offensive by also defensive.

If they break up the top 4 then one of the current elite will re-join the peasants. Which would be more than humorous as that would place (the de-throned club) on our level, and they will suffer more so because of the dip in money and attraction stakes. But the consequence of this is that City will cement their place by spending even more money and being able to attract even bigger stars because of their newly gained position.

I'm undecided because from the perspective of ambition, how can we ever expect to break into the Top 4 if someone else gets there first?

And what's worse? City, buying their way into the Top 4 or Everton, spending little and getting there on a tiny budget? The latter would qualify as football justice IMO, but would have us asking questions about our obvious mis-management with our endless £15M purchases.

So do I want City to succeed? Or do I want Hughes sacked before Christmas with City bottom half?

I've decided. I simply want us to finish above them. At least that way Noel and Liam will be even more miserable than usual.