NAMING RIGHTS THREAD: Liverpool really won't win the Premiership 2010-2011

I'm glad that Tottenham likely won't get the Olympic Stadium now.

Was just thinking, though, that Liverpool will probably finish above Tottenham in 2012, if not this year. Would be worth a bet if it weren't perhaps too mainstream a thought (and if one was into betting). I feel like the old Premiership Big 4 is going to be restored with City as 5th member, and Spurs a likely 6th place team.

I think it's more likely that Liverpool and Spurs will be scrapping it out for fifth and there'll be a new Big Four with Man City as fourth member. It doesn't yet feel like Liverpool have the sort of money to spend to catch up, or indeed a manager who'll build a dynasty Ferguson/Wenger style.

Or to put it another way, with Man City's money coming into play, Liverpool picked the worst possible time to drop out of the reckoning and it'll be very difficult to catch up.

It might be more likely that the Champions' League gets another expansion and we end up with a sustainable big five or six.

I fear Spurs' biggest danger might be in overreaching to try to make fourth before the new stadium makes money for them, especially with Harry's history. For all the talk about them not strengthening in the transfer window, they already have more internationals than any other club. The wage bill must be close to dangerously high levels.

I agree re City, didn't mean to say that they would finish 5th but that they would be major part of a new big 5, with the old big 4.

Agree that Spurs vs LFC will be fighting for the tail-end of that set. But think LFC will pull ahead again under KD, which will tend to leave Spurs 6th.

also agree that Spurs shouldn't have needed to buy players, when people spent several months previous saying 'they have the strongest squad in the league!'

a problem really has been not using the existing squad effectively.

Use / non-use of Jamie O'Hara arguably an example.

O'Hara's just come back from a serious back injury, he wasn't frozen out. Too much chopping and changing upfront and in defence has been the biggest problem, some of that enforced, some not.

OTOH, Liverpool and Spurs if they continue roughly on the paths they're on now will certainly be considered more of a threat to the top four than previous 5th and 6th placed teams - Villa, Everton, Blackburn (!), Bolton (!!!) etc. But yeah, events...

I should have put the Martin Jol era Spurs in that list as well.

Yes, O'Hara's been injured; but if he's now good enough to play, he's probably as good for Spurs as Pienaar, and wouldn't have cost £3m.

Except they play in different positions, you'd never put Pienaar in central midfield in a defensive capacity. He's probably better than Jenas though, although I assume that Redknapp has loaned him out to see how he progresses for the rest of the season rather than risk him in the Spurs midfield, can kind of see the point there.

http://www.footballticketsonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Top-5-wage-bill.png

Top five clubs' wage bills - Spurs looking okay there, unless it's ballooned recently.

IE we have a lot of players but individually they're not on ridiculous wages (relatively speaking). Breaking the bank for Gareth Bale's new contract might change that admittedly.

unless it's ballooned recently

A near-50 per cent rise in three years is not ballooning?

As a percentage of turnover it's reasonably healthy as well. Anyway, I don't think Levy will let Redknapp have control of the chequebook to that extent, he just won't trust him with it.

Compared to other clubs that stat looks remarkably good, sober and sensible for Tottenham.

I'm very surprised, for instance, that Arsenal's wages are approaching twice as high as ours. I thought they were abstemious.

Arsenal's turnover is twice as high as ours though, or at least it was in 2009.

Tottenham's turnover has gone up by about £20m since then so I don't *think* we're paying out dangerous levels of wages.

But these figures might not be entirely comparable or reliable seeing as football clubs are kind of selective when it comes to including player trading in the figures.

Yes, but Spurs' income is far smaller than the four other big clubs, and it's not rising by half as much as the wage bill is.

Arsenal's wage bill is far higher, but then the club's income in 2010 was £379.9mn (vs £120mn for Tottenham), up from just £200mn in 2007.

Bah, xp-ed.

Sorry, I posted last year's Deloitte table there in the second link, Spurs' turnover is actually up by almost £30m on 2009:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/10/deloitte-money-league-teams-manchester-spurs

Essentially, the only Premiership club who have been unequivocally better run than Spurs over the past few years have been Arsenal.

*cough* STOKE *cough*

Interesting definition of "unequivocal" you have there.

You could argue that Chelsea, Utd and Citeh don't have to be well run, as it doesn't fucking matter, someone's going to be around to bail them out.

If there were that many saviours around then maybe a few more might have bid for Liverpool.

I suppose I'd put United in a different category to Chelsea and City, if and when financial catastrophe strikes then they have to hope for someone with very deep pockets to pull them out. Chelsea and Man City just have to hope that their benefactors don't walk away.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51183000/jpg/_51183304_011228714-1.jpg

laughed out loud in the library at the thought of his celebration being a levitating act. :'(

made me think of
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Mission-impossible.jpg

http://twitter.com/#!/ianprior/status/35750924542685184

Lack of comma before "with" suggests Ian Prior has tamed his hubris.

https://shop.nufc.co.uk/cgi-bin/live/ecommerce.pl?site=theclubshop_nufc&state=item&dept_id=85&sub_dept_id=10&product_id=300506

Asked why Torres's form had been so stodgy in the first half of the season, Agger said: "That is a big question, isn't it? How to explain that ... Look at the team we played awful, we were shit. And he is a part of the team. When every element of the team plays well, he plays a lot better. It is the same for everybody for me, for Stevie [Gerrard], everyone. When the team are performing, look at every single player and he is playing better. But when we are losing, everybody is on top of us. Everybody is playing poorly."

^^^ And this looks like a timely moment to mention that Roy Hodgson has been given the West Brom job.

It's just not Chris Hughton's year, is it?

It's a sensible appointment and probably a good fit, even if I'm surprised at Roy taking it so soon. He must just want to work as much as he can I guess.

However if it's a scrappy relegation-avoiding side they're after, which it must be or they'd've been as well keeping di Matteo, he's absolutely not the man for that. Always takes a while to get going, and even though he managed it with Fulham that was a surprise to everyone probably including him.

It's a bit late to develop a scrappy defensive side with the players they've got. Better to take a chance on someone who can get them playing, don't see the point in bringing in Sam Allardyce who whoever to toughen them up when the transfer window's closed.

But he did keep them up? And then got them to a European final within two years? Just because he did *less than perfect* at Liverpool, he has more form in relegation battles than Houghton or Allardyce or the other shitty options.

The former Malmo man Hodgson has long been regarded as a safe pair of hands - quite a contrast to United Legend Sir Bobby Charlton, who, tragically, has Parkinsons disease - and he will have been delighted to have moved on so soon after what many will have seen as a disappointing spell at the Merseysiders Liverpool.

xp I saw them at Newcastle at Easter in that relegation run-in and they looked certainties for the drop - just about competent but no bottle at all, outfought by Keegan's Newcastle ffs (it was his first win for them in that spell after a comedy streak following his return). That they were posting big comebacks under massive pressure just six weeks later was astonishing.

Anyway, good luck to him. His managerial CV is amazing, it's like a sine wave of prestige:

1971–1972 Maidstone United (Assistant Coach)
1976–1976 Carshalton Athletic
1976–1980 Halmstad
1980–1982 Bristol City
1982–1982 Oddevold
1983–1985 Örebro
1985–1990 Malmö FF
1990–1992 Neuchâtel Xamax
1992–1995 Switzerland
1995–1997 Internazionale
1997–1998 Blackburn Rovers
1999–1999 Internazionale
1999–2000 Grasshopper
2000–2001 FC Copenhagen
2001–2001 Udinese
2002–2004 United Arab Emirates
2004–2005 Viking
2006–2007 Finland
2007–2010 Fulham
2010–2011 Liverpool
2011–date West Bromwich Albion

he has more form in relegation battles than Houghton or Allardyce or the other shitty options

Don't recall anyone touting Houghton for a job

Really? I've only seen his name since Di Matteo left.

Hughton not Houghton.

yes, Bob Houghton's pretty secure in his job managing the Indian national team iirc.

I'm sure Roy will steady the ship.

Manchester derby imminent: both managers have opted for one-up-front negativity again. If it's going to be 0-0 again, I'd rather know now so that I don't have to watch it.

beautiful city move to set up that silva miss

More chances in the first ten minutes of this than in the whole match at Eastlands.

That was one of the worst games I've ever seen.

idk, still pretty shit

y'nahtid are a disgrace as usual, ferguson should fucking die already

Chief football writer Phil McNulty at Old Trafford: "Manchester City have shown positive intent from the start but how expensive will that miss from David Silva prove to be? Time, space, only a yard or two out and did not even hit the target."

"quick-silva"

fucking spineless y'nahtid fans chanting the name of the fat cocksucker who wanted to sign for citeh all of four months ago

And yeah this is dire, how are man u going to win the league, they are so painfully shit.

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2010/140/6/e/Wayne_Rooney___10_by_marknuttall1987.jpg

Y'NAHTID LEGEND