Match Day Thread WATFORD v MANCHESTER CITY

We had three home games in the week following the Swindon game
Southport - 18,000
Crewe - 19,000
Hartlepool - 20,000

try getting those figures against that opposition today.

Then finished our home fixtures with
Plymouth - 22,000
Reading - 21,000

 

3 years later Swindon got their highest ever crowd of 32,000 for a cup game against Arsenal. Our plus 30,000 crowds were also for FA Cup matches. Along with about two thirds of all league clubs whose record attendances were also for FA Cup matches - how times have changed. Unfortunately the FA cup is one of the biggest casualties of modern football. Does anyone remember our cup game at Oxford Utd where we were all crowded onto the London Road End so much that it all spilled onto the pitch ?

 

I was there when the brick wall collapsed due to the surges. I also missed part of the game due to an invitation from a member of the local constabulary to view the outside of the stadium.

 

Just been catching up on MotD... notably the disallowed Huddersfield goal which was discernably tighter than either of City's two debatable allowed goals.

 

Watching AC Milan v Udinese on BT3HD... Udinese had a goal ruled out for offside after a tv review!!!! Could've done with that yesterday!

Now 1-0 to Milan....... 1-1as I type, 28mins in.

 

Yes - that was only about a fortnight after the Ibrox disaster. A surge on the terraces caused a wall to collapse if I remember rightly. Losing the replay for that match affected me so much that went to the other side of the world to live three weeks later.

 

With the equaliser by that well-known Italian Lasagna...

 

And now a Milan goal disallowed on a tv replay. Not entirely convinced that is correct on this occasion. 2-1 and 4mins plus left.

 

over the years im sure we have been at the same game

 

ok but how many at the start of the season we used to walk round from the cinder bend

 

So what you are saying is that it's only money that counts ?
Has it always been so?
And if so, why do we bother?
I don't disagree for a moment with your premise-if that is what it is-but it invites 3 questions, not for you but everyone.
1) How did Leicester manage it?
2) Will it happen again?
3) Have Sky (aka Murdoch) wrecked our idea of football ?

Finally, and perhaps linked to other threads
Is it 'right' that money wins ?
If so is it right that money stays tied up in few hands-probably best answered on another thread-or to be more blunt, does acquiring/having money ensure the drawbridge is pulled up behind you, to ensure it is denied to everyone else ?

 

I was not moralising just stating the obvious, even before Sky's silly money. Those with a larger capacity have usually been able to attract the better players. There will always be occasions such as cup games and the example of Leicester but the amount of money available to the chairman is usually the deciding factor over a season.

Leicester managed it due to a group of players that stayed in form, and Kante.
It will not happen again.
I would say the Sky money has been a positive move. English clubs can attract a lot of the best players in the world. The tv coverage is excellent, it is great to see Watford's extended highlights on Sat night. Without the Sky money the Pozzo's would not be anywhere near us. With the 'red hat' plonker we would be playing Northampton and Bury in the league.

Money is the deciding factor in most spheres of life, just a fact.

 

If money = players = success is what it all comes down to then why do Premiership clubs so often insist on being skittled out of the Champions League before the semis ? I read that from the 10 richest clubs in Europe 6 are from the Premiership so it appears they are not getting value for money if they are being constantly upstaged by clubs like Atletico Madrid. With the money that the Premiership clubs have belongs also the demand for instant success - which, in turn, leads to the lack of continuity which can be so devastating. Bayern Munich are a 51% member owned club ie. 51% of the shares belong to the 100,000, or so, club members - no millionaire can come in and buy them, and consequently demand instant success. As a result the player turnover at Bayern is minimal compared to other top clubs. Arsenal are probably richer than Bayern (or equally rich, I don't know for sure) yet the real comparison comes on the pitch and we all saw what happened last year.

 

I was of the understanding that the riches in the Spanish top league are not fairly shared out as well as the EPL, doesn't most of the money go to the top few clubs? Bayern Munich are probably one of the riches clubs in Germany regardless of the ownership. The difference financial investment makes to a team stretches right through the leagues and indeed to many other sports.

Chris Froome is a fantastic sportsman but where would he be without Sky's ability to assemble the best team around him. Although many in the UK applaud a Brit constantly winning but I'm sure many think their dominance has spoilt events like the Tour de France.

I doubt it will happen but the only way to equalise things is to have a strictly enforced spend cap per club. The attempts to impose limits in the FL have so far been a disastrous mess.

2-0 to the Russian oligarchs and oil sheiks

 

I dont think Watford should dwell on the Man City result as they will do that to most of the premiership teams......You have a good team, good enough to beat enough teams to finish in the top half, Well very close at least...