• 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

Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal

Proper fans that have stuck by us when we were fudging awful yeah those ones.

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.
 
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal

thats not whats happening though, that would be cheating, no rules are being broken

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.
 
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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!
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Post brought over from the Arsenal thread:

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.

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?
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Post brought over from the Arsenal thread:



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?

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, that is a brilliantly constructed post - point very well made.
 
Re: Let's NOT Laugh At Arsenal

Wrong again, jpeg.

I'm not wrong again, I'm right again.

Incidentally my name isn't in honour of a picture format, but James Peter Greaves whose 357 top flight goals are still the highest recorded by any player in English football.
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

That's a very fine post Jimmy, but what I mean is that if Spurs, Cheatski, City were all given £1,000,000,000 to construct a team it wouldn't interest me much, because it ruins the game when you can just buy whoever you like.

I don't want to join in with the cheats, I want the cheats to be culled.

I know you'll say that is a pipe dream, but whilst we can fight and keep heading upwards, it is far more interesting to watch than if we just got fed up and threw a billion at it.

Our rise from mid-table nobodies to top 4 has made me far more proud than just jumping into the elite due to a benefactor, and long may our rise continue.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Jimmy - some of us feel that a club bought by a rich benefactor (Abramovich and the Mansours of this world) loses it's identity, meaning there would be no club left to support, so I wouldn't be walking away from the Club, the Club would be in my mind - finished. I can't make any arguments for the way football was in the past all i can do is pass judgment on how it is run now and how i want to see it run in the future.

paying money to follow an extremely wealthy man throwing his ill gotten money around is not something id have any interest in doing, in fact the abhorrent vulgarity of it all makes me feel ill just thinking about it
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Jimmy - some of us feel that a club bought by a rich benefactor (Abramovich and the Mansours of this world) loses it's identity, ...

I'm not sure about this. Chelsea have given John Terry and Ashley Cole new contracts.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

That's a very fine post Jimmy, but what I mean is that if Spurs, Cheatski, City were all given £1,000,000,000 to construct a team it wouldn't interest me much, because it ruins the game when you can just buy whoever you like.

I don't want to join in with the cheats, I want the cheats to be culled.

I know you'll say that is a pipe dream, but whilst we can fight and keep heading upwards, it is far more interesting to watch than if we just got fed up and threw a billion at it.

Our rise from mid-table nobodies to top 4 has made me far more proud than just jumping into the elite due to a benefactor, and long may our rise continue.

Jimmy - some of us feel that a club bought by a rich benefactor (Abramovich and the Mansours of this world) loses it's identity, meaning there would be no club left to support, so I wouldn't be walking away from the Club, the Club would be in my mind - finished. I can't make any arguments for the way football was in the past all i can do is pass judgment on how it is run now and how i want to see it run in the future.

paying money to follow an extremely wealthy man throwing his ill gotten money around is not something id have any interest in doing, in fact the abhorrent vulgarity of it all makes me feel ill just thinking about it

I understand where you fellas are coming from. I really do. Of course it would be better if we could make it to the very top, and stay there, without any outside investment. But the reality is that that's not going to happen. We will always be struggling to keep up; always having to compromise on the players that we buy; always losing our best players to clubs that can pay considerably more.

And there will be plenty of such clubs.

There are many things I can tolerate. But the absence of hope is not one of them.

And short of a utopian ideal in which all football revenues are evenly distributed among all clubs, affording each of them the equal opportunity for success, there is no real hope that a club like ours could ever consistently challenge at a level to which we aspire if the current financial imbalance is to remain in perpetuity.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

If can't beat them join them? Not for me either. I would prefer to compete with the also rans than effectively remove Spurs from the the league and just compete with the same 3-4 uber rich teams every year. That for me is not being competitive, it is the opposite.

I do not look at anything that Chelsea or City have done with any envy. In fact they're almost empty spots on the league table . There is nothing glorious about anything they have achieved because they did little to earn it. It is about the journey as much as the destination.

If we got sugar daddy I'd have a passing interest in the result, but I'd loose all genuine interest I think.
 
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!


excellent post
 
Back