• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

billyiddo said:
There's nothing in there that hasn't already been argued and debated already - unless I'm missing some new angle or information within it, then if so please highlight it
Click to expand...

What i'm looking for is for someone (as usually happens) to say how that piece is WRONG and that our owners HAVE NOT caused us to be where we find ourselves overall due to showing a lack of ambition.

An example of a key line i'd love someone to argue against:

“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
 
DubSpur said:
Chelsea and Arsenal weren't our peers when ENIC took over. Have a look again at the time ENIC took over and come back and give a comparison to our peers at that time.
Click to expand...
I would say Chelsea and Arsenal have always been our peers alongside West Ham given their location, comparable fan bases and other demographics.
If you disagree that’s fine but that’s my view
 
glorygloryeze said:
What i'm looking for is for someone (as usually happens) to say how that piece is WRONG and that our owners HAVE NOT caused us to be where we find ourselves overall due to showing a lack of ambition.

An example of a key line i'd love someone to argue against:

“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
Click to expand...
As @billyiddo said, it's already been discussed and debated a number of times.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Who are our peers and rivals?
Sorry, seen you have posited that above
Chelsea arent miles ahead by the way
Despite their £B spend they are stil making it up as they go along
Click to expand...
I would say that given Chelsea at the time ENIC took over had one league, a few fa and league cups and one European trophy and now have a trophy haul we would die for and an international exposure far greater than ours and are a far more attractive option than we are.

I don’t think they are making it up as they go along, you can argue they are manipulating the system and probably the rules but I think they have a plan and it’s working better than our one currently
 
glorygloryeze said:
What i'm looking for is for someone (as usually happens) to say how that piece is WRONG and that our owners HAVE NOT caused us to be where we find ourselves overall due to showing a lack of ambition.

An example of a key line i'd love someone to argue against:

“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
Click to expand...

How about when reading these sorts of articles you have a think about what in it has already been discussed on here multiple times and what the arguments for and against it were, rather than expecting someone else to connect the dots or rehash them for you? This is the third article link to an article I've seen since Sunday that hasn't said anything new - literally just an opinion piece on a topic we've been discussing here non stop for weeks & months on end. Just because it's posted on a news website or a blog doesn't make the points any different.
 
RigorMortis said:
I would say Chelsea and Arsenal have always been our peers alongside West Ham given their location, comparable fan bases and other demographics.
If you disagree that’s fine but that’s my view
Click to expand...
There's more to being our peers than that. In the league at that time our peers were the likes of Villa, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Leeds.
Arsenal were a top team for the 10-15 years before ENIC came in and Chelsea were getting a huge injection of oil money at the time.
 
RigorMortis said:
I would say that given Chelsea at the time ENIC took over had one league, a few fa and league cups and one European trophy and now have a trophy haul we would die for and an international exposure far greater than ours and are a far more attractive option than we are.

I don’t think they are making it up as they go along, you can argue they are manipulating the system and probably the rules but I think they have a plan and it’s working better than our one currently
Click to expand...
Their plan was to let let the oil money flow in and reap the rewards, same as City have been done in the last 10-12 years.
 
billyiddo said:
How about when reading these sorts of articles you have a think about what in it has already been discussed on here multiple times and what the arguments for and against it were, rather than expecting someone else to connect the dots or rehash them for you? This is the third article link to an article I've seen since Sunday that hasn't said anything new - literally just an opinion piece on a topic we've been discussing here non stop for weeks & months on end. Just because it's posted on a news website or a blog doesn't make the points any different.
Click to expand...

As i've said, there are usually a lot of rebuttals to said articles that criticise the owners/Levy (whether they be blogs, from a news website etc).....imo, the silence here is deafening..
 
glorygloryeze said:
I posted this in the ENIC thread..so far it seems no-one has taken the time to offer any rebuttals to the piece (usually someone will say how the writer 'is a Gooner', 'has an anti-Spurs bias', explain how the details are ommiting x or y etc). Maybe someone will in this thread...


www.theguardian.com

A chronic lack of ambition has laid waste to Tottenham | Jonathan Wilson

Ange Postecoglou has serious shortcomings as Spurs manager. But he has hardly been helped by a team trying to do things on the cheap
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I keep saying 'ambition' and 'back the manager' has infinite connotations.
When the budget to drive it is finite.
If you don't know the budget parameters it's just wish speak. Coulda woulda shoulda.

It's like someone's shopping trolley analogy....I'm sure if we let our kids put whatever they liked in the trolley we'd have a problem at the checkout. That's why we've all had a conversation with our kids that 'you can have that but you'll have to put that back' ...and that's because, as the grown ups, we have the household budget in our heads. Budget constraints are a bugger but they are a thing.

In the article Wilson doesn't know any of that but nevertheless he knows the keywords to gain traction with an audience (plus that brick piece on Ange the other day does him zero favours)
 
glorygloryeze said:
What i'm looking for is for someone (as usually happens) to say how that piece is WRONG and that our owners HAVE NOT caused us to be where we find ourselves overall due to showing a lack of ambition.

An example of a key line i'd love someone to argue against:

“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
Click to expand...

Surely attempting to do it in a sustainable manner is more ambitious than what City and Chelsea have done.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I keep saying 'ambition' and 'back the manager' has infinite connotations.
When the budget to drive it is finite.
If you don't know the budget parameters it's just wish speak. Coulda woulda shoulda.

It's like someone's shopping trolley analogy....I'm sure if we let our kids put whatever they liked in the trolley we'd have a problem at the checkout. That's why we've all had a conversation with our kids that 'you can have that but you'll have to put that back' ...and that's because, as the grown ups, we have the household budget in our heads. Budget constraints are a bugger but they are a thing.

In the article Wilson doesn't know any of that but nevertheless he knows the keywords to gain traction with an audience (plus that brick piece on Ange the other day does him zero favours)
Click to expand...

Tbf to him, you judge by the outcomes: who gets bought, who gets targeted etc.
Yes, a lot of transfer outcome discussions end up as "shoulda, woulda, coulda"

Wilson, like us, knows that we are always listed very high up in the Football money league tables, that despite having won diddly squat for a decade plus, our position of being a regular PL top 6 club over the same time often gives us more transfer clout than some of the top teams on the continent who are more successful than us historically, and that clout is there to be used...it didn't seem to be used last summer after narrowly missing out on top 4.

Whilst, i can separate the poor management/use of the team by Ange (imo) from last summer's dealings, it certainly didn't look like we were aiming to push on. Ultimately, if you often aren't willing to do so, you often end up going backwars, as we are now seeing.

Tbf, i'm taking a broader view beyond last summer with may last point and i think Wilson is too
 
RigorMortis said:
I would say that given Chelsea at the time ENIC took over had one league, a few fa and league cups and one European trophy and now have a trophy haul we would die for and an international exposure far greater than ours and are a far more attractive option than we are.

I don’t think they are making it up as they go along, you can argue they are manipulating the system and probably the rules but I think they have a plan and it’s working better than our one currently
Click to expand...
I think any plan that spends a £Bn has a fair chance of being better?

But Chelsea have finished 12th, 6th and are currently 6th....so is that better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back