How far would you go for success

[Tomo]

We all know the issues with our current ownership. For me the lack of a coherent football vision for other the lack of spending and of course it’s hard not to be jealous of Liverpool’s well run team thinking we would love that, I know I would take their owners and how they are run.

However all the debate with the House of Saud one the worlds worst human right governments plus a funder of extreamist organisations including at times ISIS. What would be your limit?

I hope no one hits the last one which is deliberately nasty but that is what unlimited would mean so we need to be honest about what unlimited would be morally speaking.

 

[Mrs Perryman]

I don't use Starbucks or Amazon because they are tax dodgers. However I signed up for Amazon Prime on a free trial to watch the Spurs documentary.
By that measure, I should think the same about Joe Lewis, but if I had his money, I might find myself living in tax exile too.

 

[skywalker68]

I might start not eating Chinese as a way of getting back at the murderous regime does that count.

 

[FightingIllini]

By the way, who says the fans of these clubs have to be the simplistic rubes they are counted upon being?

Newcastle fans should rejoice in the well-deserved, long overdue investment in their club’s on-field product and unfurl a “Justice For Jamal Khashoggi” banner at games anyway. I don’t think there’s any hypocrisy in that at all.

As a matter of fact the message would probably mean more coming from them than anybody else.

 

[hiatus]

Why can't we just get your run-of-the-mill evil billionaire like Bezos to buy Spurs? No one else can afford to buy the club AND pump money into it.

The bar for me is literally "just don't be a a nation-state using Spurs for sportswashing." That shouldn't be too hard to clear.

 

[sammyspurs]

Anyone who raged about the Super League, who now wants to be bought by Saudi Arabia is a dick

 

[Deuterz]

Anyone who raged about the Super League, who now wants to be bought by Saudi Arabia is a dick

Why? Winning the lottery of ownership is by far the most reliable way to challenge the established elite clubs.

Those established elite clubs came up with the super league in part to stop that and create a closed club for good.

You could be pro Saudi ownership and anti the super league without being a hypocrite.

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

Voted Glazers, but only because in the poll they represent a middle ground between Lewis and Abramovich.

Newcashle have been bought by an abhorrent regime that epitomises much of the worst traits of people in positions of power. I'd walk away if they had bought us. There would be no joy or sense of achievement in any trophy purchased.

 

[sammyspurs]

Why? Winning the lottery of ownership is by far the most reliable way to challenge the established elite clubs.

Those established elite clubs want no other clubs to rise up with the potential to challenge that.

You could be pro Saudi ownership and anti the super league without being a hypocrite.

Oh please, crying about the “death of football” and it’s “our club not yours” and how it’s a “closed circle” of those who can win something etc etc

There is zero difference

That’s why Newcastle will win things now, when they were shit before.

They’ve just joined a super league anyway.
One of 5 PL clubs who can win something.

 

[Airfixx]

Oh please, crying about the “death of football” and it’s “our club not yours” and how it’s a “closed circle” of those who can win something etc etc

There is zero difference

That’s why Newcastle will win things now, when they were shit before.

They’ve just joined a super league anyway.
One of 5 PL clubs who can win something.

I make that 4 clubs..... Liverpool will once again join the also-rans once the Klopp-juice dries up.

 

[Deuterz]

Oh please, crying about the “death of football” and it’s “our club not yours” and how it’s a “closed circle” of those who can win something etc etc

There is zero difference

That’s why Newcastle will win things now, when they were shot before.

They’ve just joined a super league anyway.

Have they? City or PSG are still yet to even win a Champions League. PSG didn't even win the league title last season, in France of all places. Is that a closed shop? Or is it just that they've been able to artificially join the top clubs who were dominating anyway? Before City or Chelsea existed it was United crushing the league for decades, before that Liverpool.

And regardless, there were a lot of different reasons to oppose a Super League. The main one for me was that it all sounded incredibly dull, and I had zero interest in watching the same 5-6 teams play each other weekly.

But yes, Newcastle will (probably) win things now. But in a super league situation no new club would ever have had the chance to do that, money or not. Because it would've been a permanently closed league. I'm not saying it's any better, but it's a very different kind of situation.

 

[Airfixx]

Voted Glazers, but only because in the poll they represent a middle ground between Lewis and Abramovich.

Newcashle have been bought by an abhorrent regime that epitomises much of the worst traits of people in positions of power. I'd walk away if they had bought us. There would be no joy or sense of achievement in any trophy purchased.

As far as ownership goes; they are what people fear ENIC are........ They just have bigger revenue streams at their disposal to manipulate.

Them managing us wouldn't be pretty at all.

 

[Deuterz]

I make that 4 clubs..... Liverpool will once again join the also-rans once the Klopp-juice dries up.

I see no reason why this would be the case, should they appoint a successor who isn't incompetent. All the structure is there at the club currently to continue being successful for a long period of time, as long as no seriously bad decisions are made.

I honestly think City will struggle just as much if not more when Guardiola leaves.

 

[sammyspurs]

Have they? City or PSG are still yet to even win a Champions League. PSG didn't even win the league title last season, in France of all places. Is that a closed shop? Or is it just that they've been able to artificially join the top clubs who were dominating anyway? Before City or Chelsea existed it was United crushing the league for decades, before that Liverpool.

And regardless, there were a lot of different reasons to oppose a Super League. The main one for me was that it all sounded incredibly dull, and I had zero interest in watching the same 5-6 teams play each other weekly.

But yes, Newcastle will (probably) win things now. But in a super league situation no new club would ever have had the chance to do that, money or not. Because it would've been a permanently closed league. I'm not saying it's any better, but it's a very different kind of situation.

Who’s winning everything in the PL and why?

 

[Deuterz]

Who’s winning everything in the PL and why?

City are the dominant club .. as for why, it's because they have lots of money but also are superbly run with a long-term plan built in for a single manager (Guardiola) which is now seeing them reap the benefits of that. United have spent just as much if not more in the same period but aren't nearly as good.

But they're still yet to win a European trophy. And have only ever retained their title once, personally I don't expect them to win it this season. They're obviously an extremely good side, but the Premier League has seen years before oil money where United would win it nearly every single season. Is it a more closed shop than it was then?

I didn't say oil money won't make you a much better side, I just refute the idea that it's said money which is causing leagues to become closed shops. That was the case long before they arrived, they've just added to the list of the clubs capable of dominating, and knocked the traditional powerhouses noses out of joint.

 

[Airfixx]

I see no reason why this would be the case, should they appoint a successor who isn't incompetent. All the structure is there at the club currently to continue being successful for a long period of time, as long as no seriously bad decisions are made.

They won't have the financial muscle to keep up..... They're a bit like us in that, unless they sell Salah (see Kane) they're gonna have to re-build the hard way (with hard cash).

I honestly think City will struggle just as much if not more when Guardiola leaves.

No reason why they can't keep the train rolling with the next hot-shot manager.

 

[cretinousgoat]

Why? Winning the lottery of ownership is by far the most reliable way to challenge the established elite clubs.

Those established elite clubs came up with the super league in part to stop that and create a closed club for good.

You could be pro Saudi ownership and anti the super league without being a hypocrite.

If you’re pro Saudi ownership you’re a human rights hating git. End of

 

[cretinousgoat]

I feel the Leicester ownership/model would be best

 

[hiatus]

I make that 4 clubs..... Liverpool will once again join the also-rans once the Klopp-juice dries up.

In 3 years it will be:

Newcastle, City, Chelsea and United.
Then Liverpool, Spurs and Woolwich.
Then Leicester and Everton.
Then the rest.

The bottom 3 rungs can move about, but no one can compete financially with that top 4. Honestly, United may even be on it's own tier between the oligarchy clubs and Liverpool/Spurs/Woolwich.

 

[Deuterz]

If you’re pro Saudi ownership you’re a human rights hating git. End of

Did I say I was 'pro' Saudi ownership? I'd rather none of these people were involved in football, but here we are.

I simply don't have this naive vision of football before oil money, where it was apparently really competitive and not closed off to the little teams. It's always been dominated by a small group of teams, they were just owned by a different group of people.