How far would you go for success

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

What is you limit for success such as winning the quadruple?

  • I am pure, even Joe Lewis and his greed is to much, I don’t really follow Spurs much because of it

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • Joe Lewis is about as much as I can go

    Votes: 22 38.6%

  • I can live with the Glazers despite them taking £1bn of Uniteds clubs money via what was legal means

    Votes: 8 14.0%

  • Abramovich is my limit. He is a gangster but not a murdering dictator

    Votes: 10 17.5%

  • I would take the Abu Dhabi even though I wouldn’t feel comfortable with it

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • I have no limits. If a gay man needed to be thrown off the stadium roof it would be worth it

    Votes: 6 10.5%
  • Total voters
    57
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
MemphisWill said:
There have never been 2 decades across Europe when fewer clubs have claimed the spoils of football. Its bossed by some of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Everything is about commercialization, all staged for broadcasting revenue.

Its odd to me that you can manage to claim to like that.
Click to expand...
All of that is true, but if I interpreted your earlier post correctly, your idea is to allow for a closed shop with enforced parity a la American leagues?

That's not even throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that's chucking the baby and leaving the bathwater.

I mean lets be real here, "modern football, innit" is the only football you and I have ever known. And we both support one of the glittering global brands of the sport that are the "haves" of this system.

I thought you said it really well earlier, that the American-style system serves to sever the business element of sports from the on-field competitive aspect.

Whether it's soccer, college football, Formula 1, sports where the teams are genuinely competing against one another, rather than a league-managed simulacrum of competition, are much more meaningful and compelling, IMO.

That's why there's a bright-line difference between City buying the league and the ESL.
 
FightingIllini said:
All of that is true, but if I interpreted your earlier post correctly, your idea is to allow for a closed shop with enforced parity a la American leagues?

That's not even throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that's chucking the baby and leaving the bathwater.

I mean lets be real here, "modern football, innit" is the only football you and I have ever known. And we both support one of the glittering global brands of the sport that are the "haves" of this system.

I thought you said it really well earlier, that the American-style system serves to sever the business element of sports from the on-field competitive aspect.

Whether it's soccer, college football, Formula 1, sports where the teams are genuinely competing against one another, rather than a league-managed simulacrum of competition, are much more meaningful and compelling, IMO.

That's why there's a bright-line difference between City buying the league and the ESL.
Click to expand...
You realize that you've just mentioned 3 of the least competitive sporting competitions on the planet, right? The same organizations win those competitions year in and year out, and F1 is practically unwatchable now its such a foregone conclusion (and has been, either Red Bull or Mercedes in turn, for going on 2 decades). Its like you keep stringing together words and ignoring their actual meaning.
 
meaningless-friendly said:
We also don't just sell them weapons, we have human beings who go and adivse them on their military operations that involve killing lots and lots of civilians. So how much does it really mean to people when they'd go out and vote for a Conservative government "but oh please don't buy a football club here."

We all choose hypocrisies to live with, it's just funny that things to do with football make people go "this is too far!"
Click to expand...
Letting them interfere with the civilian war in Yemen and having them as allies and a controlling force in middle east is not the worst military option tbf.

But again, letting them interfere in other ways, lobbying our politics, controlling our mosques, and some of our most valuable exports such as the PL is not a very good idea.

Moral and ethics is usually about choosing the least worst option available.
 
MemphisWill said:
You realize that you've just mentioned 3 of the least competitive sporting competitions on the planet, right?
Click to expand...
We're defining "competitive" differently.

In none of those three competitions are you rewarded for losing, and in fact the punishments for losing are such that being bad begets more being bad.

Those stakes are totally absent in a closed system with enforced equality a la the NFL or NBA. Two successful leagues that put on an entertaining show and, critically, lavishly reward their capital owners with massive guaranteed profits through exploitation of labor and cartel shakedowns of local governments.

To each their own, a matter of taste. But the open competitions with real stakes are the ones for me, and while maybe Spurs are a "have" in that unbalanced system, my beloved Illini are, uh, not.

BEAT WISCONSIN
 
My long running theory that I still stand by is that Spurs will be sold, at least in part to either a American or East Asian consortium in the next 5 years. With the new owners eventually buying ENIC out in full.

So many of our sponsorships and corporate partnerships are either with East Asian or North American companies that a new owner coming out of either of those regions seems very likely to me.
 
River Lea Banks said:
Letting them interfere with the civilian war in Yemen and having them as allies and a controlling force in middle east is not the worst military option tbf.

But again, letting them interfere in other ways, lobbying our politics, controlling our mosques, and some of our most valuable exports such as the PL is not a very good idea.

Moral and ethics is usually about choosing the least worst option available.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more than letting them if 'we' are actively helping them prosecute the war. And far more serious/morally repugnant than them buying a football team, in my opinion.

I'm not even saying this from a particularly partisan standpoint. I think the world is fucked and I largely put it down to the sheer greed of those who have everything but want even more.

The Premier League should have never allowed the Russian crook to buy Chelsea, but again various governments have allowed the same type of people to buy up London homes and stash their ill-gotten gains in properties they don't even live in. And here we are, with even richer and ever worse people doing whatever they want with their endless money. And I think, like almost everything else, there will be a bit of outrage and then the show will go on. Probably because we have allowed ourselves to be fucked up the arse so far already, what's another inch?
 
FightingIllini said:
We're defining "competitive" differently.

In none of those three competitions are you rewarded for losing, and in fact the punishments for losing are such that being bad begets more being bad.

Those stakes are totally absent in a closed system with enforced equality a la the NFL or NBA. Two successful leagues that put on an entertaining show and, critically, lavishly reward their capital owners with massive guaranteed profits through exploitation of labor and cartel shakedowns of local governments.

To each their own, a matter of taste. But the open competitions with real stakes are the ones for me, and while maybe Spurs are a "have" in that unbalanced system, my beloved Illini are, uh, not.

BEAT WISCONSIN
Click to expand...
I don't watch sports to see teams get "punished" for losing. And if having that system means that the outcome becomes increasingly predictable, then whats the point?

The attraction of sport is its unscripted nature, the unpredictability. If extreme financial disparity renders that moot, then whats the point?

To me it doesn't matter if you're talking about United's "earned" domination in the 90s-00s or City's current "unearned" domination. Its all boring as hell.
 
BF3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What makes you think we’ll be second tier? Leicester & Everton look like they have access to more spending than we do. Or are you expecting change?
 
Difficult question. I supported Spurs in the sixties when we broke the transfer record buying Greaves and again Chivers. Did not think about where the money came from and have no idea if the owners contributed. MU have always been rich but Chelsea, MC and even flittingly Blackburn have mega bucks. Not really that concerned politically where they get their money but do not like the way it has distorted the PL. Problem is if you cannot beat them the join them. However cannot see ENIC going anywhere at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom