I prefer rhetorical question davey but fair enough.
In respect of what I am hoping to achieve;
I want the Levy fanboys to cast their vote for their mentor and justify it.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Management Abramovich poll
- Thread starter Kosher Kid
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
In respect of what I am hoping to achieve;
I want the Levy fanboys to cast their vote for their mentor and justify it.
What my freind says. Hell no.
Our crooks are morally superior to Roman it seems.
There is that. Suppose the only answer is to give up supporting Spurs and follow a non-league club.
(Personally, I'd just give up football as it's Tottenham that I love)
My view, with hindsight, is that Levy should have sold the club if Spurs best interests, at that time, were the priority.
Spurs would probably have picked up the trophy count that propelled Chelsea to the top table and as a bonus; there would probably be no trophies in the Chelsea cabinet.
Instead; Spurs supporters have endured a 24 year period of Daniel Levy being the best paid chairman in the league, charging some of the most expensive ticket prices in Europe while winning one League Cup.
He has also paid himself hefty bonus payments for doing this and sold Spurs all time record goalscorer.
At one point Chelsea had something like 7 of the 10 most expensive signings of all time. 12 of the top 20.
They led to the first big acceleration in ridiculous transfer fees … and then we had Man City do the same.
Both have made it harder for well run clubs to compete by being smart.
Chelsea and Man City have been cancer.
They led to the first big acceleration in ridiculous transfer fees … and then we had Man City do the same.
Both have made it harder for well run clubs to compete by being smart.
Chelsea and Man City have been cancer.
It is a difficult one and imho one of those rare forum events where everybody is right.
Look coming from the south and literally fighting more Blue Scum than Red they make West Ham look almost acceptable.
I can't remember the exact story but meetings were held but no offer made.
My only caveat is that as it stands no title they won under him is asterisked "won using blood money" hopefully that will change one day
Look coming from the south and literally fighting more Blue Scum than Red they make West Ham look almost acceptable.
I can't remember the exact story but meetings were held but no offer made.
My only caveat is that as it stands no title they won under him is asterisked "won using blood money" hopefully that will change one day
Is his “blood money “ less bloody than Middle East blood money.
Didn’t he really but Chelsea to keep his profile up so he wouldn’t be murdered by the Russians?
What are Levy and ENIC using your metaphor?
Gonorrhoeae or scabies?
They’ve grown the club massively in a sustainable way. Our progress over 20 years has been clear. This season is a huge regression. If it’s a blip then we’re good. If it’s consistent then all that progress will be undone. At that point they should sell.
You really believe that?
A blip?
Spurs are back in the same territory Alan Sugar had us in before he sold up to the miser.
Levy had a good run off the back of plundering West Ham and Leeds when they had financial problems.
He exploited those clubs in the same sickening manner he has exploited the loyalty of match attending Spurs supporters since his arrival.
Chelsea and Man City supporters have great memories of happy, trophy winning times.
Spurs supporters have been on a diet of jam tomorrow for 24 years.
Time is up for Levy and ENIC.
Recognise the symptoms.
Yeh we are, our owners are scumbags just not on the Abramovich level.
Their trophies are cheap. I don’t envy them at all.
Your mileage may vary.
It's not really a question. Abramovich was generous with his money, paid out compensation to his staff, and bought the players that the manager wanted. He was also the first Premier League chairman to respond compassionately and practically to COVID and offered to sort things out for his players when their family members were kidknapped abroad.
Aside from potential politics and being ruthlessly financially free, it is pretty easy to respect the rest of his character.
Aside from potential politics and being ruthlessly financially free, it is pretty easy to respect the rest of his character.
I’d have hated it the ownership but I hate the current one. Only difference is we’d be sitting here with two champions leagues in the bank and a fuck load of amazing memories.
Personally would have welcomed his investment in the club.
Just think what our trophy room would now look like.
Instead we are now sitting a few points of relegation, owned by people with little interest in football by their own admission.
We would have gained more respect around the world than we do now, we are the banter club talks a good game never delivers.
Did none of you live in London in the 2000s or are you all in your 20s?
The Chelsea plastics were the object of derision by everyone. They popped up everywhere. Probably quickly sold their United shirts.
Joke of a club.
The Chelsea plastics were the object of derision by everyone. They popped up everywhere. Probably quickly sold their United shirts.
Joke of a club.