Baleforce
Vinnie Samways
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
thats not whats happening though, that would be cheating, no rules are being broken
thats not whats happening though, that would be cheating, no rules are being broken
-
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
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
parklane1
Vivian Woodward
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Oh yeah proper fans they'd be wouldn't they? You can stick your oil money don't want it near THFC.
Oh yeah proper fans they'd be wouldn't they? You can stick your oil money don't want it near THFC.
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Proper fans? You mean like those who would abandon the club just because it was bought by a rich benefactor?
Proper fans? You mean like those who would abandon the club just because it was bought by a rich benefactor?
Howard Webb
Clive Wilson
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
I suppose the difference between joe Lewis the sugar daddy top of Forbes rich list and another sugar daddy is, Joe Lewis likes marmite
I suppose the difference between joe Lewis the sugar daddy top of Forbes rich list and another sugar daddy is, Joe Lewis likes marmite
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Maybe, maybe not. They still boost revenue, and it's hard to think the atmosphere at the Lane could be any worse than it is these days.
Maybe, maybe not. They still boost revenue, and it's hard to think the atmosphere at the Lane could be any worse than it is these days.
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Proper fans that have stuck by us when we were fudging awful yeah those ones.
Proper fans that have stuck by us when we were fudging awful yeah those ones.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I can see why people are saying Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea are lucky, However I don't think for a second that RA etc just draw out of a hat which club they are going to buy.
They look for specific clubs. I.e Chelsea were on the brink or bankruptcy hence buyer steps in, he might have been waiting for a London club to be on the brInk like that for years. Emirates Marketing Project is obvious, Look how big manure are, they believe they can replicate that.
I can see why people are saying Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea are lucky, However I don't think for a second that RA etc just draw out of a hat which club they are going to buy.
They look for specific clubs. I.e Chelsea were on the brink or bankruptcy hence buyer steps in, he might have been waiting for a London club to be on the brInk like that for years. Emirates Marketing Project is obvious, Look how big manure are, they believe they can replicate that.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Well Chelsea and City, the football clubs, got lucky. Their buyers obviously picked well.
So effectively a well run club like Spurs becomes expensive to buy unless its leveraged buyout. So that limits the prospective owners. If the club was run irresponsibly and on the edge the pool of prospective buyers would increase. So strangely, if a sugar daddy is the only way of winning the league, then Levy is harming our prospects by being financially responsible. Levy Out!
Well Chelsea and City, the football clubs, got lucky. Their buyers obviously picked well.
So effectively a well run club like Spurs becomes expensive to buy unless its leveraged buyout. So that limits the prospective owners. If the club was run irresponsibly and on the edge the pool of prospective buyers would increase. So strangely, if a sugar daddy is the only way of winning the league, then Levy is harming our prospects by being financially responsible. Levy Out!
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
One of our big problems indeed is that ENIC would want a lot of money for us, and that could keep out potential benefactors.
Of course RA paid a hell of a lot for Chelsea because he took on their debts as well as paying out the former owners.
I doubt very much Chelsea got into trouble as part of a cunning plan. They went for champagne players on a lemonade budget, but got lucky when someone else picked up the tab. No-one did that for Leeds, who were arguably a bigger club than them before RA moved in. Though you could argue the power of London meant that Chelsea in effect were more attractive then Leeds.
One of our big problems indeed is that ENIC would want a lot of money for us, and that could keep out potential benefactors.
Of course RA paid a hell of a lot for Chelsea because he took on their debts as well as paying out the former owners.
I doubt very much Chelsea got into trouble as part of a cunning plan. They went for champagne players on a lemonade budget, but got lucky when someone else picked up the tab. No-one did that for Leeds, who were arguably a bigger club than them before RA moved in. Though you could argue the power of London meant that Chelsea in effect were more attractive then Leeds.
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
But wouldn't stick with us just because the new owner had a fair wedge and was prepared to spend a bit of it on the club?
Righto.....yeah, great fans.
But wouldn't stick with us just because the new owner had a fair wedge and was prepared to spend a bit of it on the club?
Righto.....yeah, great fans.
Bullet
Chris Jones
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Oh, OK then if you want to be pedantic. Imagine if Team GB had signed Usain Bolt because his grandma once had a scone in Windsor and we have much better facilities than Jamaica. Then he wins the 100m and we laugh in everyone's face jumping up and down with our backs turned to the track, doing the Poznan and proudly proclaiming how finally, after all these years of failure, we've finally broken the hoodoo and won the 100m at the Olympics.
And we've done it the right way, oh yes.
Just pointless.
Oh and Jimmy, some people have principles.
Oh, OK then if you want to be pedantic. Imagine if Team GB had signed Usain Bolt because his grandma once had a scone in Windsor and we have much better facilities than Jamaica. Then he wins the 100m and we laugh in everyone's face jumping up and down with our backs turned to the track, doing the Poznan and proudly proclaiming how finally, after all these years of failure, we've finally broken the hoodoo and won the 100m at the Olympics.
And we've done it the right way, oh yes.
Just pointless.
Oh and Jimmy, some people have principles.
parklane1
Vivian Woodward
parklane1
Vivian Woodward
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Fans who will support the buying of trophies and when that stops will move on to the next financial doping team.
Right, as you say great fans.
Fans who will support the buying of trophies and when that stops will move on to the next financial doping team.
Right, as you say great fans.
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Would they be any worse than the fans we've got ATM who make going to the Lane such a depressing experience.
But as I say it matters not in the greater scheme of things, as far as the key determinant of money goes. We'd get more fans with a team that won things, we'd get more revenue, and we'd be a far more likely team to win the Big 2 trophies if we had a benefactor like City and Chelsea behind us. If some fans walked away, that's their choice, more would join than left.
People keep going on about the importance of Cl money. Money's money, if we had plenty of it, we could win major trophies like City and Chelsea have done. I doubt very much the atmosphere at their grounds is any worse than the Lane.
As long as the fans bring money in, that's what ENIC are after and all those coveting CL money are effectively wishing the same. Not glory, money.
Would they be any worse than the fans we've got ATM who make going to the Lane such a depressing experience.
But as I say it matters not in the greater scheme of things, as far as the key determinant of money goes. We'd get more fans with a team that won things, we'd get more revenue, and we'd be a far more likely team to win the Big 2 trophies if we had a benefactor like City and Chelsea behind us. If some fans walked away, that's their choice, more would join than left.
People keep going on about the importance of Cl money. Money's money, if we had plenty of it, we could win major trophies like City and Chelsea have done. I doubt very much the atmosphere at their grounds is any worse than the Lane.
As long as the fans bring money in, that's what ENIC are after and all those coveting CL money are effectively wishing the same. Not glory, money.
Last edited:
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal
Principles? What principles?
If we happened to be bought by a wealthy benefactor, what would we be doing wrong by continuing to support the club? In the past, we've been bought by owners that took us to the brink of bankruptcy. We've been bought by an owner who squandered a hundred year heritage and the opportunities offered by the nascent Premier and Champions Leagues, allowing the club to slip into a decade of what could easily have become a terminal mediocrity. We stuck by the club then. So why on earth should we suddenly be considered unprincipled if we continued to stick by the club if it happened to be bought by an owner who actually took it to a bit of success? It's a preposterous notion, mate.
People throw around words like cheating. But investing money in a company isn't cheating, is it? Rich owners have been lavishing money on their clubs for many, many decades. It's how a significant number of them grew to be great clubs. Yet because those clubs now operate within their (vast) means, they're okay? It's just a matter of timing, surely?
Is it somehow fairer that a club like Man Utd can outspend most other clubs by hundreds of millions per annum just because they generate their own money? Is it good for competition? Why is it right or healthy for a very few clubs to have a massive financial advantage over all others in perpetuity, purely because of past success (itself possibly gained as a consequence of investment)? Such logic leads only to a virtuous circle for those few clubs and a vicious circle for the rest. The truth is, outspending other clubs by a massive margin is unfair regardless of where the money comes from. There is no level playing field. Trying to behave as if there is is an act of Canute-like futility.
It's not as if Spurs are some no mark, no fan, no history club that would rise through the divisions merely on the back of a tide of unearned money.
If we were bought by a wealthy benefactor, his wealth would only augment what is already there - a big club with great history and a huge fan base that is only prevented from reaching the very top by the financial disadvantage we suffer (and will always suffer unless there is investment) by comparison to four or five other clubs. What's more, it's a gap that will only widen. The likes of Utd haven't even begun to tap their full commercial potential. The likes of Chelsea and City WILL find loopholes in FFP. And it's likely that more clubs will, in time, join the billionaire club. Arsenal included. And Alisher Usmanov is richer than Abramovich.
What would it take for you to change your stance and ditch the stubborn belief in our superior virtue? That Spurs could expect, at best, to finish 5th? 6th? 7th? That we miss out on the formation of a European Super League? That, say, Arsenal and Chelsea go from strength to strength while we shrink and fade to virtual irrelevance? I'm not suggesting that all of these things would necessarily happen (though I suspect that they're not far off the truth). I'm just interested to know how far down your "principles" would take you - and Spurs.
Oh, and fans behaving like gobby tacos and laughing in the faces of others, should we win the league, would be equally likely and equally smack-able regardless of whether we do it by operating within our own means or with the help of a wealthy benefactor. It's not an argument you can use against investment.
"Fans" who insist that they would walk away from the club if it was bought by a wealthy benefactor should ask themselves this. Do they want to be like Canute (according to common misconception), standing impotently in the waves, raging at them to stop? Or do they want to be like Christopher Columbus, the fortunate recipient of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain's patronage, sailing on the waves and on to glory?
P.S. I've replied in here but since this discussion belongs more in the Financial Fair Play thread, I've also posted it there, if you want to reply!
Principles? What principles?
If we happened to be bought by a wealthy benefactor, what would we be doing wrong by continuing to support the club? In the past, we've been bought by owners that took us to the brink of bankruptcy. We've been bought by an owner who squandered a hundred year heritage and the opportunities offered by the nascent Premier and Champions Leagues, allowing the club to slip into a decade of what could easily have become a terminal mediocrity. We stuck by the club then. So why on earth should we suddenly be considered unprincipled if we continued to stick by the club if it happened to be bought by an owner who actually took it to a bit of success? It's a preposterous notion, mate.
People throw around words like cheating. But investing money in a company isn't cheating, is it? Rich owners have been lavishing money on their clubs for many, many decades. It's how a significant number of them grew to be great clubs. Yet because those clubs now operate within their (vast) means, they're okay? It's just a matter of timing, surely?
Is it somehow fairer that a club like Man Utd can outspend most other clubs by hundreds of millions per annum just because they generate their own money? Is it good for competition? Why is it right or healthy for a very few clubs to have a massive financial advantage over all others in perpetuity, purely because of past success (itself possibly gained as a consequence of investment)? Such logic leads only to a virtuous circle for those few clubs and a vicious circle for the rest. The truth is, outspending other clubs by a massive margin is unfair regardless of where the money comes from. There is no level playing field. Trying to behave as if there is is an act of Canute-like futility.
It's not as if Spurs are some no mark, no fan, no history club that would rise through the divisions merely on the back of a tide of unearned money.
If we were bought by a wealthy benefactor, his wealth would only augment what is already there - a big club with great history and a huge fan base that is only prevented from reaching the very top by the financial disadvantage we suffer (and will always suffer unless there is investment) by comparison to four or five other clubs. What's more, it's a gap that will only widen. The likes of Utd haven't even begun to tap their full commercial potential. The likes of Chelsea and City WILL find loopholes in FFP. And it's likely that more clubs will, in time, join the billionaire club. Arsenal included. And Alisher Usmanov is richer than Abramovich.
What would it take for you to change your stance and ditch the stubborn belief in our superior virtue? That Spurs could expect, at best, to finish 5th? 6th? 7th? That we miss out on the formation of a European Super League? That, say, Arsenal and Chelsea go from strength to strength while we shrink and fade to virtual irrelevance? I'm not suggesting that all of these things would necessarily happen (though I suspect that they're not far off the truth). I'm just interested to know how far down your "principles" would take you - and Spurs.
Oh, and fans behaving like gobby tacos and laughing in the faces of others, should we win the league, would be equally likely and equally smack-able regardless of whether we do it by operating within our own means or with the help of a wealthy benefactor. It's not an argument you can use against investment.
"Fans" who insist that they would walk away from the club if it was bought by a wealthy benefactor should ask themselves this. Do they want to be like Canute (according to common misconception), standing impotently in the waves, raging at them to stop? Or do they want to be like Christopher Columbus, the fortunate recipient of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain's patronage, sailing on the waves and on to glory?
P.S. I've replied in here but since this discussion belongs more in the Financial Fair Play thread, I've also posted it there, if you want to reply!