• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

It isn't entitlement to want owners who are at least as committed to the club as the fans are, though. Long, long gone, dead and buried are the prospects of fans actually owning the clubs they support here in England (the German model, which is close to perfect imo, will be stamped out here if it were ever tried very, very quickly). Failing that, let's at least not keep quiet when the owners contribute next to nothing to the club in the time they own it compared to what the fans put in every year, with loyalty to said owners ultimately turning some fans against their own kind and creating a fractious atmosphere that only too easily lends itself to the kind of venal back-and-forth mudslinging that we saw after those Ade comments.

Our fans aren't 'entitled'. Please, stop using that word: it is utterly macaronic, likely dishonest and completely vile given its ability to completely whitewash genuine fan concerns with an overwhelming sense of smug moral superiority and an 'us-versus-them' mentality.

You keep repeating this point but it's ridiculous.

You're demanding that two people contribute the same amount, annually, as 36,000 people combined.

Why should they? Other than Abramovich or Mansour, what owners have ever done such a thing?

As to use of the word "entitled", you can work yourself into a lather about it all you like but, because of the perpetual selfish behaviour that has ruined the experience of going to WHL for so many other fans, the people who you are trying to defend forfeited the right to be afforded any benefit of the doubt.
 
You keep repeating this point but it's ridiculous.

You're demanding that two people contribute the same amount, annually, as 36,000 people combined.

Why should they? Other than Abramovich or Mansour, what owners have ever done such a thing?

As to use of the word "entitled", you can work yourself into a lather about it all you like but, because of the perpetual selfish behaviour that has ruined the experience of going to WHL for so many other fans, the people who you are trying to defend forfeited the right to be afforded any benefit of the doubt.

Jack at Blackburn, got them a championship (just) and they went on to be a European powerhouse for ever more.
 
It is entitlement. Paying a high ticket price, voluntarily, and expecting something almost unreasonable in return. You pay for the privilege of being in the stadium, nothing more. I would never pay that much to go see something I don't like, but to see Spurs? Gladly. To go with the music analogy again: Some artists can charge the same obscene amounts because the demand is there, but don't buy Bieber tickets and moan about the quality of the music. You buy Bieber tickets because you want to see him perform live (for whatever reasons) .
 
You keep repeating this point but it's ridiculous.

You're demanding that two people contribute the same amount, annually, as 36,000 people combined.

Why should they? Other than Abramovich or Mansour, what owners have ever done such a thing?

As to use of the word "entitled", you can work yourself into a lather about it all you like but, because of the perpetual selfish behaviour that has ruined the experience of going to WHL for so many other fans, the people who you are trying to defend forfeited the right to be afforded any benefit of the doubt.

Agree absolutely. Going to WHL is not a pleasant experience with all the negativity
 
It is entitlement. Paying a high ticket price, voluntarily, and expecting something almost unreasonable in return. You pay for the privilege of being in the stadium, nothing more. I would never pay that much to go see something I don't like, but to see Spurs? Gladly. To go with the music analogy again: Some artists can charge the same obscene amounts because the demand is there, but don't buy Bieber tickets and moan about the quality of the music. You buy Bieber tickets because you want to see him perform live (for whatever reasons) .

You're right nobody is forced to go and everyone has the ultimate sanction of taking their business elsewhere if they want a better product. Me I love the club and turn up whatever rubbish gets served up and always will.
 
You're right nobody is forced to go and everyone has the ultimate sanction of taking their business elsewhere if they want a better product. Me I love the club and turn up whatever rubbish gets served up and always will.

I agree.

When I talk about entitlement (and I have certainly have in the past) I am not talking about people complaining about ticket prices, which I agree are high. I am talking about people who turn up to every game expecting us to win easily and get on the players' back if we are not a goal up after ten minutes. Not only does it make going to games unpleasant, it is totally counter productive and makes the team more cautious.
 
Reading this I am assuming that you were not watching the game?.... VDV had had it physically, we were outnumbered and losing the battle. If I remember correctly (and it was a while ago so I could be wrong!) after Parker came on we started to dominate the game and could even have won it despite being down to 10 men.
I think you must be thinking of the wrong match. VdV was shot and needed replacing but we were all over them before and after going down to 10 men. Other than their goal did they even have a shot on target?

Villa only needed a draw IIRC and played for it from the moment they scored. They weren't pushing up despite us being outnumbered.

The right choice at that time was to replace VdV with another player who could move the ball about, not someone to pirouette by our own corner flag. I'd even have accepted the old English "get a centre half up there in the mixer" - at least that would have been something. Redknapp just sat back for the draw and his 4th place bonus.
 
Nice to know I'm macaronic and dishonest, easy to see why you win so many people round with your reasoned argument and respect.

Read it again. It is a stupid, macaronic, vile word, and I stand by that. But I bear you no ill will, other than perhaps being a bit disappointed that you're accusing me of vehemently attacking you: It's a point of pride to me that I generally refrain from attacking anybody personally, regardless of how much I disagree with their views.
 
You keep repeating this point but it's ridiculous.

You're demanding that two people contribute the same amount, annually, as 36,000 people combined.

Why should they? Other than Abramovich or Mansour, what owners have ever done such a thing?

As to use of the word "entitled", you can work yourself into a lather about it all you like but, because of the perpetual selfish behaviour that has ruined the experience of going to WHL for so many other fans, the people who you are trying to defend forfeited the right to be afforded any benefit of the doubt.

33 million is contributed annually by the thirty six thousand people, whose entire worth combined would probably at most equal that of our owners. They stand to make huge profit selling us on to someone else, after investing little compared to the amount the fans have put into the club during the time they've been here. You're goddamn right I want them to put more into an 'asset' they're eventually going to turn a large profit on anyway, especially given the bad decisions they've recently been making and the guff about 'ambition' they've recently been spinning: that, or lower the prices, let the young and poor 'uns back into the stadium they were locked out of, and stop pulling this charade of 'backing' the club with the fans' own money and then claiming credit for it. I'm just rather sorry that you think this expectation 'ridiculous'.
 
It is entitlement. Paying a high ticket price, voluntarily, and expecting something almost unreasonable in return. You pay for the privilege of being in the stadium, nothing more. I would never pay that much to go see something I don't like, but to see Spurs? Gladly. To go with the music analogy again: Some artists can charge the same obscene amounts because the demand is there, but don't buy Bieber tickets and moan about the quality of the music. You buy Bieber tickets because you want to see him perform live (for whatever reasons) .

Do you consider yourself a supporter of Spurs, or a contented customer of what they offer? The difference explains the different valuation of what a ticket is worth, IMO.

And, if that analogy you provided above is accepted by the majority of the current members who are throwing around the word 'entitlement' like it's going out of fashion, then please don't complain about the moaners and whiners, because they paid for the right to sit on a lump of plastic bolted to a similarly lifeless spot of pre-stressed concrete, same as you did. What they do after they acquire the 'right' to get into the stadium is their own damn business, and you as a 'customer' cannot judge what other 'customers' do with their purchased goods. If they ruin your viewing experience, that is similarly their right as a customer, seeing as they aren't breaking laws and are free to do what they wish since there's no such thing as 'consensus' among mere customers.

Sigh. We are fans, not customers. That comes with a certain sense of belonging, and a set of expectations about the club we support and the team we fund. I wish people would understand that, and stop throwing the world 'entitlement' around with such gusto. Maybe then em can understand each other's concerns and arrive at some sort of consensus: but no, people want to be customers first and foremost, tutting and harrumphing at the oiks who spoil your spectating joie d'vivre.
 
Last edited:
But why pay all that money for something you know you're not going to enjoy? It's like the dingdongheads that ruin a concert by talking through all the songs or the guy at a GNR gig that spends 3 hours shouting 'Where is Slash?'. As another paying customer I do reserve the right to be annoyed at those that are actively trying to ruin the experience for others.

The entitlement issue comes from the fact that our tickets being more expensive than, say West Ham, somehow means we are more deserving of success, in fact entitled to it.

All that money is spent on the team, it's not taken by some greedy owner. The owners are supposed to be the custodians of the club, not benefactors with bottomless pockets. Occasionally they happen to be the latter, but it's quite frankly ridiculous to be expecting that from them.
 
Do you consider yourself a supporter of Spurs, or a contented customer of what they offer? The difference explains the different valuation of what a ticket is worth, IMO.

And, if that analogy you provided above is accepted by the majority of the current members who are throwing around the word 'entitlement' like it's going out of fashion, then please don't complain about the moaners and whiners, because they paid for the right to sit on a lump of plastic bolted to a similarly lifeless spot of pre-stressed concrete, same as you did. What they do after they acquire the 'right' to get into the stadium is their own damn business, and you as a 'customer' cannot judge what other 'customers' do with their purchased goods. If they ruin your viewing experience, that is similarly their right as a customer, seeing as they aren't breaking laws and are free to do what they wish since there's no such thing as 'consensus' among mere customers.

people who pay to watch football are customers. they may be a fan too, but the very fact that they are paying for goods/services makes them a customer. i really dont understand why football fans struggle to get their heads around this.

the only reason fans are allowed to shout vile abuse at the business is because those act in such a manner make up a large part of the customer base. If those fans made up only 1% of the stadium-attending fan base, they would be banned. In the same way they would be banned if they behaved like that in Wimbledon Tennis or in a restaurant.

However in football, those fans are large, and have the most inelastic demand. Therefore they contribute a lot of money, and hence they are tolerated.

Sigh. We are fans, not customers. That comes with a certain sense of belonging, and a set of expectations about the club we support and the team we fund. I wish people would understand that, and stop throwing the world 'entitlement' around with such gusto. Maybe then em can understand each other's concerns and arrive at some sort of consensus: but no, people want to be customers first and foremost, tutting and harrumphing at the oiks who spoil your spectating joie d'vivre.

Everything you mentioned above applies to people who claim they are "Apple fans" not customers (Apple as in iPod/Mac). And when you see if from this perspective, hopefully you can see how ridiculous it is to not consider yourself a customer of tottenham hostpurs. basically you (like the rest of us) just have a highly inelastic demand for the services that tottenham hotspurs offers.
 
But why pay all that money for something you know you're not going to enjoy? It's like the dingdongheads that ruin a concert by talking through all the songs or the guy at a GNR gig that spends 3 hours shouting 'Where is Slash?'. As another paying customer I do reserve the right to be annoyed at those that are actively trying to ruin the experience for others.

you are spot on sir. regardless of whether this behaviour is deemed ok by law, it is certainly not a civil way to behave, and is also very childish. people only behave like this because thats how its always been. that doesnt make it right.
 
I'm a customer (we all are, anything you hand money over for is a purchase), I really don't think I have an entitlement issue in the correct definition of the word, I have an expectation issue, and when results and performances fall outside of the zone of reasonable expectation I don't think it's unreasonable to complain

it's no different to a concert, or a new microwave, or a bar of chocolate
 
But why pay all that money for something you know you're not going to enjoy? It's like the dingdongheads that ruin a concert by talking through all the songs or the guy at a GNR gig that spends 3 hours shouting 'Where is Slash?'. As another paying customer I do reserve the right to be annoyed at those that are actively trying to ruin the experience for others.

The entitlement issue comes from the fact that our tickets being more expensive than, say West Ham, somehow means we are more deserving of success, in fact entitled to it.

All that money is spent on the team, it's not taken by some greedy owner. The owners are supposed to be the custodians of the club, not benefactors with bottomless pockets. Occasionally they happen to be the latter, but it's quite frankly ridiculous to be expecting that from them.

feeding his big snake...:D
 
seriously...how many dingdonghead millionaires out there actually give a toss about anything else except themselves & money?..Jack walker is dead. chances are we would end up with someone like venkys or vincent tan or gawd help us ashley..i presume on the face of it most of us don't want a sugar daddy to come buy us titles but deep inside cast envious glances at them lot that do have one especially when the likes of aguero puts 4 pass us..either way it's a straw argument this malarkey about fans/customers and whether new owners would be any better than what we have now. in that sense football has changed...for the worse and i for one still believe that businessman levy will continue to try his bald-headed humanly best to make us as great as possible (for his evil intention of flogging us off to make more money) and whilst this goal persists in congruence with mine, better the devil you know as far as i'm concerned..
 
But why pay all that money for something you know you're not going to enjoy? It's like the dingdongheads that ruin a concert by talking through all the songs or the guy at a GNR gig that spends 3 hours shouting 'Where is Slash?'. As another paying customer I do reserve the right to be annoyed at those that are actively trying to ruin the experience for others.

The entitlement issue comes from the fact that our tickets being more expensive than, say West Ham, somehow means we are more deserving of success, in fact entitled to it.

All that money is spent on the team, it's not taken by some greedy owner. The owners are supposed to be the custodians of the club, not benefactors with bottomless pockets. Occasionally they happen to be the latter, but it's quite frankly ridiculous to be expecting that from them.

So, tickets being more expensive than West Ham doesn't given anyone the right to expect higher levels of decision making or commitment by our owners, and is 'entitlement'. That's your view, and it's eminently reasonable: that is, reasonable as long as you also agree that your ticket explicitly only allows you to be in an allotted spot in a stadium at an allotted time, and thus expecting anything more than that (like an 'experience' not ruined by those around you) is blatant entitlement. What right do you have to be annoyed at the people around you? You seem to be implying an entitlement to something more than just the guarantee of no one else being in your seat during the allotted hours: ergo, I hope you'll be as reasonable as you were with regard to other fans being annoyed at the chairman/players/manager, and cease being annoyed at your experience being ruined: after all, that would be entitlement, and illogical.

That is why I hate that word: it turns otherwise perfectly intelligent, reasonable people into hypocrites, and sets up arbitrary divides between a fanbase that, more than anything else, is desperately crying out for unity right now. If you reduce the experience of being a fan of the club that I have no doubt you love as much as I do into its bare legal nature (you pay for access to a tiny bit of a stadium on average once or twice a week for 90-180 minutes), then expecting anything more than that becomes 'entitlement'. From there on, what entitlement is subsequently varies from fan to fan based on what they consider to be reasonable, which differs drastically between people. But what is common among everyone using that word is the absolute desire to set themselves up as superior to the ones they consider 'entitled', and the creation of an 'us-vs-them' mentality between fans, who in the end are all united by a love for the club that is supposed to transcend such stupidly illogical divides.

Different fans have different expectations from the club, even though they all obviously care for it. It is utterly infuriating to see the rush to occupy the moral high ground in those circumstances.

As for what the owners do, they're custodians who will earn hundreds of millions of pounds when they sell up. And at the same time, they're supposedly running a football club, a romantic endeavour that turns scholars into simpletons and allows cynical, weathered people to feel like children again for ninety minutes. Given those facts, it isn't exactly insanity to expect that they be there to help push the club over the line when we're chasing glory, or when a new manager's making a hesitant start, or when the fans are chafing in uncertain times and need a bit of relief. It doesn't have to be all three: hell, it doesn't even have to be undue backing from their own coffers, just a risk taken with the security of their own enormous assets in the background should that risk not work out and future income fall.

But no, to them we're customers, no better than the patrons of a supermarket. To hell with fans, or glory. Profitability, and as little involvement as we can manage: that will do perfectly fine for us, cry Levy and Lewis. And they know that when their relative lack of input begins showing and the club struggles in between our slow bumping up and down in upper mid-table mediocrity, the customers (who ideally shouldn't be so mouthy, but seem for some reason to occasionally dare to expect things from them) will always be pacified with a ritual sacrifice of a manager here, or a DoF there. They then quiver with fear when someone asks them to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to their oft-warbled 'ambition', and when the occasional 'ENIC OUT!' banner starts making the rounds, they swoop like vultures, clamping down on all dissent and turning the fanbase further into a quagmire of conflicting opinions.

If you're asking me to thank them for at the very least not actively taking money out of the club, that doesn't exactly reflect well on them, you know.
 
people who pay to watch football are customers. they may be a fan too, but the very fact that they are paying for goods/services makes them a customer. i really dont understand why football fans struggle to get their heads around this.

the only reason fans are allowed to shout vile abuse at the business is because those act in such a manner make up a large part of the customer base. If those fans made up only 1% of the stadium-attending fan base, they would be banned. In the same way they would be banned if they behaved like that in Wimbledon Tennis or in a restaurant.

However in football, those fans are large, and have the most inelastic demand. Therefore they contribute a lot of money, and hence they are tolerated.



Everything you mentioned above applies to people who claim they are "Apple fans" not customers (Apple as in iPod/Mac). And when you see if from this perspective, hopefully you can see how ridiculous it is to not consider yourself a customer of tottenham hostpurs. basically you (like the rest of us) just have a highly inelastic demand for the services that tottenham hotspurs offers.

I hear that 'you're only a customer' spiel far too often from my SO for me to be swayed by hearing it (on average) once a year on the web, mate. :) In January 2013 ( I think), I wrote a long-winded post about how that wasn't the case: I'll try to fish out and see if I can't offer an alternative opinion. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with that view at all.
 
If I'm a customer of Tesco, and I get fed up with my local store then I'll happily switch to Sainsbury's over vice-versa, assuming there's a convenient store to do so. Whichever supermarket I shop at to be honest doesn't really bother me, I certainly don't spend hours obsessing about the formation of the groceries, or whether we should bring fish fingers and ditch olive oil, or whatever.

It may be that ENIC want us to become more like customers, but if we do, maybe we should just switch to a better brand like Chelsea or City or Arsenal for example.

I don't see myself a s a customer but as a loyal supporter of Spurs for over 50 years, and I could no more switch brands now than fly to the moon using a hang glider.

I give myself to Spurs on a daily basis, not that they particularly care. I'm more akin to a devout believer than a customer. I'm also probably extremely stupid to 'worship Spurs'. But I'm hooked, addict is another word tha describes me better than a customer.

One of the things I can't stand about ENIC, and indeed the whole 'nanny state mentality' you get in sterile grounds today is that they want us to be meek well-behaved consumers, paying our money, not making too much noise, no drinking in the ground, no waving flags, blah, blah, bloody, blah. Modern football is rubbish!!! :)

I'm just glad I don't waste my money going to the Lane anymore, and indulge my addiction on an affordable basis, from the comfort of my home with a can of cheap supermarket lager to console me.
 
Personally i like that we run a self sustaining business - i wish all clubs had to run themselves this way. means to me that as a paying supporter i do have an effect on the club (however insignificant my ST money is in the grand scheme of things) i wouldn't feel that if i was just paying an entrance fee to watch a game of football where someone was spunking their own money - like at Chelsea/City etc or under a similar Sugar daddy here.
 
Back