What would you do?

[Fidel Castro]

In a perfect world l would love the Camel fuckers/Chavs fuck off and form a global league with the likes of PSG , Franco^s wanker etc. Really the Arabs would love to play games in the human right free zone middle East. One day they will make it happen .
The problem most of our lot are just as bent as them . They want their dirty money at all costs even if we are no hopers .

 

[Tomo]

There is a much longer arc, which is that the money that PSG, Man City and Chelsea have had lavished on them is finite, it will run out. Manchester United were screwed by the Glazers but the size of the support was so huge the club paid for itself and could/still can pay any money they want to buy a player.

It is better to be a self made millionaire, than the undeserving child of a billionaire. It's not about getting everything you want, if you want football to mirror real life, then you've picked the wrong team.

I started watching non league with my dad, we have seen so many teams come, go and follow the same pattern ad infinitum. At the moment it's Billericay paying way more than they could ever sustainably afford, they will pay great football, then their owner will get bored, they won't be able to sustain the legacy of high wages, the whole thing will collapse and the team will again find it's natural level. Maybe grass roots football is more closely wedded to the modern game than we'd care to admit, oh and if you think Billericay is a one off, let me give you some other name checks of the past, Rushden & Diamonds, Hornchurch, Canvey Island and there are more.. The truth is when you build a club on financial doping at some point it will all go to shit.

You can't just spend your way out of problems, it doesn't work in the real world, why should it work in football?

Click to shrink...

It’s a good point and I agree fully regarding United as they have earned their money, it’s not dope.

Problem is many of these Arabs are buying Western products because they know the oil will one day run out and so are building for the long term. Chelsea are now close to sustainable because they have grown their fan base with glory hunters and City will probably do the same, it takes decades but it can be done.

Not saying City will spend stupidly forever but they will likely always be cash rich.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Also in some cases there was civic pride . Directors tended to be local "black and white days " and there was a kudos if your team did well
Of course they must have had their hands in the treacle pud but it was different hence the variety of League winners , cup winners , Euro etc. Take the swinging 60s , far better than today kleptocracys.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. The "local" aspect was certainly more palatable I guess, but as I type this Sugar was local, so too Lewis for that matter, so there's an argument to be bored with should I have the energy to do so (I don't).

Bottomline is it's a professional game, always has been always will be. Professional = Business. Some owners are good, some well intentioned, some shit, some hopeless, some manipulative & scheming, some fraudulent, some criminal, some are fans of the club, some are not. I accept this because it's never been any different and it will never will be any different.

 

[Honest John]

I keep reading points of yours which are irrelivant.
.

Click to shrink...

Or you keep reading them because you know i'm right

 

[Mr S Pippo]

Or you keep reading them because you know i'm right

Click to shrink...

Right about what? You don't say anything.

You need to look at the bigger picture my friend.
What can I say about your comments...
You look at Tottenham at the wrong end of a telescope.
The clarity of comment is as clear as Dr. Seuss on acid.

Wake up and smell the shite.

 

[LeeMcl]

Would I walk away if we were bought by a billionaire with no scruples ?

Well we are already owned by a Billionaire, and I don’t know if he has scruples or not but currency trading is perhaps not without its fallen.

Lewis got rich at a time when a record number of people lost their houses, perhaps not his fault as such, but there is a moral reaction there.

It’s not money made directly off the back of the poor or the under trodden ( like Chelsea or Shity ) it’s fairly legit in comparison. However, we must be open and honest about it.

So that aside. No I would not walk away.

Football has always been about who had the most money + desire. Liverpool’s success was not off the back of some cheeky scallies trying hard in the 70’s. It was the Littlewoods Pools money.

Prior to that probably fair to say Spurs were not shy of spending to achieve in the 60’s and United certainly were not.

We were shit post 95/96 simply because Sugar would not spend as much post the Klinsman season. Once that happened we seemed to switch from a massive football club to a plucky under achiever who does great on the basis of zero net spend. That narrative does not hold up with my generation who remembers how it was in the 80/90’s period. We are not a plucky little club.

In the future we will see Wolves, Villa and probably Spew castle all on the rise with huge sums of money. That money + desire ethos again. How we compete against that as well as City etc on the zero net spend agenda I will never know.

For me it would seem that ( perhaps too simply put ) our biggest problem is that our owners desire is not 100% football based. ENIC eyes are on the bigger prize than Football - namely real estate. So the money + desire element is not as intense as with a Middle East ego or China funding, which is culturally driven to be seen as the best.

The football side seems to not only fund the on pitch battle but the wider economics of the whole area. Our existence should make ENIC owners more wealthy, because the club is the tool that has allowed them to buy up land “cheap”.

I am certainly not knocking them at all. They have to do what economics dictates they do. But the central reason for our continued austerity is the wider NLD project, not fear of going bust because we pay Harry Kane £200k a week or a desire to buck the trend and be the only mormans attending the orgy.

 

[Honest John]

Would I walk away if we were bought by a billionaire with no scruples ?

Well we are already owned by a Billionaire, and I don’t know if he has scruples or not but currency trading is perhaps not without its fallen.

Lewis got rich at a time when a record number of people lost their houses, perhaps not his fault as such, but there is a moral reaction there.

It’s not money made directly off the back of the poor or the under trodden ( like Chelsea or Shity ) it’s fairly legit in comparison. However, we must be open and honest about it.

So that aside. No I would not walk away.

Football has always been about who had the most money + desire. Liverpool’s success was not off the back of some cheeky scallies trying hard in the 70’s. It was the Littlewoods Pools money.

Prior to that probably fair to say Spurs were not shy of spending to achieve in the 60’s and United certainly were not.

We were shit post 95/96 simply because Sugar would not spend as much post the Klinsman season. Once that happened we seemed to switch from a massive football club to a plucky under achiever who does great on the basis of zero net spend. That narrative does not hold up with my generation who remembers how it was in the 80/90’s period. We are not a plucky little club.

In the future we will see Wolves, Villa and probably Spew castle all on the rise with huge sums of money. That money + desire ethos again. How we compete against that as well as City etc on the zero net spend agenda I will never know.

For me it would seem that ( perhaps too simply put ) our biggest problem is that our owners desire is not 100% football based. ENIC eyes are on the bigger prize than Football - namely real estate. So the money + desire element is not as intense as with a Middle East ego or China funding, which is culturally driven to be seen as the best.

The football side seems to not only fund the on pitch battle but the wider economics of the whole area. Our existence should make ENIC owners more wealthy, because the club is the tool that has allowed them to buy up land “cheap”.

I am certainly not knocking them at all. They have to do what economics dictates they do. But the central reason for our continued austerity is the wider NLD project, not fear of going bust because we pay Harry Kane £200k a week or a desire to buck the trend and be the only mormans attending the orgy.

Click to shrink...

What a brilliant post. Well thought out, measured and completely unbiased

 

[Johnboy40]

I like the way we do things. I'm proud that Spurs are a club whose values are purely football and family.

There's a fascinating article in the Guardian about City's plan, under Soriano, to expand the "business" of football. I never want to be part of that.

Click to shrink...

and you know what the funny thing is...City want the same end product as us, business wise..developing kids, sticking to a budget, breaking even. its the way they are going about it is monstrous. Does anyone really think Girona is nothing but a shell club so they can have an equivalent hothouse to la masia. its why they went for a club in catalonia. same rules as Barca have to , on paper at least, abide by.

 

[ArcspacE]

Valid point but completely different owners. We are owned by a bussinessman who sees us purely as an investment, City are owned by a prince worth tens of billions from a family network worth apparently a trillion if the internet is to be believed.

City are essentially a play toy to be built up for prestige, we are not.

Click to shrink...

I don’t disagree. Just wanted to point out we’re already owned by someone very rich

 

[Fidel Castro]

Would I walk away if we were bought by a billionaire with no scruples ?

Well we are already owned by a Billionaire, and I don’t know if he has scruples or not but currency trading is perhaps not without its fallen.

Lewis got rich at a time when a record number of people lost their houses, perhaps not his fault as such, but there is a moral reaction there.

It’s not money made directly off the back of the poor or the under trodden ( like Chelsea or Shity ) it’s fairly legit in comparison. However, we must be open and honest about it.

So that aside. No I would not walk away.

Football has always been about who had the most money + desire. Liverpool’s success was not off the back of some cheeky scallies trying hard in the 70’s. It was the Littlewoods Pools money.

Prior to that probably fair to say Spurs were not shy of spending to achieve in the 60’s and United certainly were not.

We were shit post 95/96 simply because Sugar would not spend as much post the Klinsman season. Once that happened we seemed to switch from a massive football club to a plucky under achiever who does great on the basis of zero net spend. That narrative does not hold up with my generation who remembers how it was in the 80/90’s period. We are not a plucky little club.

In the future we will see Wolves, Villa and probably Spew castle all on the rise with huge sums of money. That money + desire ethos again. How we compete against that as well as City etc on the zero net spend agenda I will never know.

For me it would seem that ( perhaps too simply put ) our biggest problem is that our owners desire is not 100% football based. ENIC eyes are on the bigger prize than Football - namely real estate. So the money + desire element is not as intense as with a Middle East ego or China funding, which is culturally driven to be seen as the best.

The football side seems to not only fund the on pitch battle but the wider economics of the whole area. Our existence should make ENIC owners more wealthy, because the club is the tool that has allowed them to buy up land “cheap”.

I am certainly not knocking them at all. They have to do what economics dictates they do. But the central reason for our continued austerity is the wider NLD project, not fear of going bust because we pay Harry Kane £200k a week or a desire to buck the trend and be the only mormans attending the orgy.

Click to shrink...

We could compete/wanted to financially with Liverpool in the 70s , 80s but just didn' buy as well or has such good management.
Today as you say we are just a property package for that old geezer in the sunshine .
He's on his last legs .

 

[Maccer]

Joe Lewis is worth around 5.7bn USD

Just saying

Click to shrink...

Strange thing is , some seem to love the fact that Uncle Joe is not the slightest bit interested in football or how we do, he's only here for the coin to be made out of Spurs, yet somehow that is seen as the honourable thing compared to a billionaire who takes nothing from his club and is only interested in seeing them win trophies.

 

[Honest John]

Strange thing is , some seem to love the fact that Uncle Joe is not the slightest bit interested in football or how we do, he's only here for the coin to be made out of Spurs, yet somehow that is seen as the honourable thing compared to a billionaire who takes nothing from his club and is only interested in seeing them win trophies.

Click to shrink...

 

[Arthur Wensleydale]

Very few clubs aren't owned by rich bloke(s) with egos.... For me it's about where the money has come from.

I was too young to be socially/politically conscious at the time of Maxwell's supposed take-over, but the thought of it makes my flesh crawl now.

FFP was meant to protect us and the game from this bullshit.... Obviously it was/is bollocks!

Click to shrink...

I feared that if Maxwell had bought the club, we would be dead in the water.

 

[Arthur Wensleydale]

There's that porky North Korean bloke . Maybe worth a punt .
He could nuke the opposition, its our only chance of success .

Click to shrink...

Don't want anymore players that see us as a Korea move. (Gets coat.)