• 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

Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked

The stadium is playing a large part in the glumness imo.

Yes they are all professionals but they also human, and where we as fans are getting peeved off with the delays and having to go back to Wembley and play, so will they imo.

Last season was different - we all (players, fans etc) bought into the one whole season at Wembley - it was known. This season just feels like a drag now, due to the uncertainty.

Again this season I have a season ticket, but I haven’t been to any league games at Wembley. It’s not time conducive, I don’t particularly enjoy the experience, I don’t particularly enjoy the atmosphere on the whole, and I don’t think we play as fluidly there.

I’m sure I’m not alone and if the fans are feeling glum about it then maybe some of the team/management are too.

It’s an unavoidable situation unfortunately.

Providing we are in for Jan, this will be a season of 2 half’s imo. The stadium will provide the required lift. If we’re currently in the worst half of the 2 then I’ll take the 21 points from 10 games as a positive.
 
StephenH said:
As I’ve said before Pochettino has been with us for a while now and the players may well need to hear a ‘new voice’.

But who’s voice?

I can’t think of anybody at the top of the managerial tree who contemplate coming to Spurs atm, with no funds for players.
We will be looking at the likes of Eddie Howe and he might think twice.
Click to expand...

Howe has spent fairly freely at Bmuff.
 
the dza said:
Madrid are the biggest job in the game. I agree with your arguments for not going there, but if you do go as a manager, you get to spend untold millions, you can draw the worlds best players with the money and stature of the club and you have a genuine crack at winning the biggest prizes. I think any coach would be tempted.

I think Utd would be a more likely fit, as I think they'd give Poch time. They haven't won the Champions League for ten years, they haven't won the Premier League for 5 or 6 years. In that time, Poch has got us closer to the title than they have been. With the money they have, the history for developing youth, I think for Poch, Utd would just be an upgraded version of us. They have the money where a coach like Poch could potentially build a team to dominate, but he'd get more time to do it than at Madrid because they haven't had the recent success in the major competitions.
Click to expand...

Real Madrid would be a very bad career move, they dont have the money to replenish that squad, but the fans think they do.
Utd dont bring through youth - they had the class of 92 its different, however i see that and city (after pep leaves) as the only real options for poch
 
the dza said:
Madrid are the biggest job in the game. I agree with your arguments for not going there, but if you do go as a manager, you get to spend untold millions, you can draw the worlds best players with the money and stature of the club and you have a genuine crack at winning the biggest prizes. I think any coach would be tempted.

I think Utd would be a more likely fit, as I think they'd give Poch time. They haven't won the Champions League for ten years, they haven't won the Premier League for 5 or 6 years. In that time, Poch has got us closer to the title than they have been. With the money they have, the history for developing youth, I think for Poch, Utd would just be an upgraded version of us. They have the money where a coach like Poch could potentially build a team to dominate, but he'd get more time to do it than at Madrid because they haven't had the recent success in the major competitions.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt he would be tempted by Madrid, who wouldnt? My argument is simply that I dont think its the obvious slam dunk for them - because I think he would have very valid concerns about stepping into that sort of role. Its square peg/round hole stuff.

Somewhere like PSG? A little off the radar with all the same benefits? Well thats a more obvious yes to me.

I can certainly see the logic in Utd, and the chairmans recent clashes with Mourinho over young players suggests that they want more of a Poch type ethos - so it is entirely possible they could tempt him. I think it depends on whether or not they are willing to put the time in, or they want more instant success. When Mourinho goes I think its just as likely they go for someone like Zidane than Poch.

I dont disagree with your argument - it all depends on which Utd make him an offer. The one with 3 seasons to build something, or the one that wants a title straight away?
 
Legohamster said:
Why is that different to now?
Click to expand...

List out all the good owners / investment groups - then list out the bad.

Top Group

Chelsea - Owe Abromovich 1billion
Emirates Marketing Project - Not sure on their financial model and if this is a gift or a loan
Arsenal - Owned by Silent Stan who everyone hates
Man Utd - Leveraged Buy-out, slagged off by everyone, yellow and green scarfs anyone
Liverpool - Owned by an investment group the same as us, appears they shelved the new ground instead buying players

Middle Tier (Easier as shopping for 20mil not 80mil players)

Leicester - Invested (ignore the random season)
Everton - Basket case financially
West Ham - Basket case financially

Go through this list and see the amount of Investment companies and net worth of Billions, and then decide which one would come in and everything changes with no risk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs
 
Legohamster said:
Why is that different to now?
Click to expand...

Fair point, but our current owners are at least spending the club's money on the club (stadium, training ground instead of players, everyone can argue the pros and cons of that of course). Someone like Kroenke at Arsenal seems to be more concerned with taking money out of the club, same for the Glazers at Utd. We want the increased revenues going back into the club on the pitch, instead of paying for a new owners buyout whilst they try to maximise the NFL angle.
 
the dza said:
I agree, I think new owners would be a huge risk for us. I fear we'd end up with some yank who would be more concerned with our NFL-ready stadium than our team being a success.
Click to expand...

This feels like it is already been set in motion and is not too far of Enic's plan.
I think Spurs will be well catered for in the short term (15 years). This is very Levy and would allow him to spread the risk regarding EPL TV money etc decreasing. If he has an NFL partner he has options and that's his goal 'options'. The EPL will change for good and bad but the NFL side will be a type of hedge against that
 
Off-Topic and been over thousands of times in other threads, but it seems to rear its head every year

Maybe somebody could ring round this list https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/3/#version:static - Stick to the top 100, some are already taken, lIke Mittal at 18billion currently ripping it up at QPR
We need somebody willing to buy us for 1.5billion i guess, then fancies giving Poch 200-300mil risk free to have a pop

Last year it was, we are going to lose all our players, poch because we wont pay the wages, 12 months on and a new contract for Kane and Poch and one incoming for Dele and that seems to have gone quieter. Now we are back to we have to spend some money, oh but by the way Sissoko is brick how did we spend 30mil on him, oh and Lamela was a waste at 30mil. So what we really want is to spent 50mil that defo is going to be Messi.
 
StephenH said:
This feels like it is already been set in motion and is not too far of Enic's plan.
I think Spurs will be well catered for in the short term (15 years). This is very Levy and would allow him to spread the risk regarding EPL TV money etc decreasing. If he has an NFL partner he has options and that's his goal 'options'. The EPL will change for good and bad but the NFL side will be a type of hedge against that
Click to expand...

Personally i have no issue with us financing football using a NFL franchise, seems like a sensible way to go and sustainable to me.

And for anyone who says i'm a traditionalist, probably need to go check the history books about how football teams were paired with cricket teams.
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
Personally i have no issue with us financing football using a NFL franchise, seems like a sensible way to go and sustainable to me.

And for anyone who says i'm a traditionalist, probably need to go check the history books about how football teams were paired with cricket teams.
Click to expand...

Just compare/contrast with the Olympic stadium.

OS = literally only useful for football matches, 25ish a year, except for the summer where it can be utilised otherwise (at great expense and hard work). Limited facilities as well, its basically a car park with some food stands. And, as a stadium, its not actually successful anyway.

WHL MKII = Already holds a number of attractions to encourage daily attendance. Massive corporate facilities. Ability to host any number of events, sporting or otherwise, year round. Set up as a high class viewer experience, a proper stadium.

One is an archaic throwback, compromised and ultimately a failure - the other is a year round money making machine.

I welcome the NFL, and the darts, and the concerts, and the CL finals, and anything else because we can host it all - and it all benefits the club and team.

WHL MKII is a bloody masterpiece.
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
Personally i have no issue with us financing football using a NFL franchise, seems like a sensible way to go and sustainable to me.

And for anyone who says i'm a traditionalist, probably need to go check the history books about how football teams were paired with cricket teams.
Click to expand...

Anything that can drive additional value in for the team and trim out debt piece is a good thing
 
Neville: "We hear people talk regularly about not liking clubs who spend more than they should, but Tottenham run the club very well. Daniel Levy is the best operator in football...

"What are you shaking your head at?

Carragher (aka Spit the Dog): "I'm shaking my head because they have a net spend of £29m!"

Neville: "Daniel Levy doesn't get messed around by agents, he doesn't get messed around by managers, he doesn't get messed around by players, he has them all on long-term contracts and very rarely loses them on a free transfer, as some clubs have done in the last few years, namely Arsenal and Liverpool.

"But he runs the club very well under a budget, you can't be critical of that."

Well said, Gary.
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
Personally i have no issue with us financing football using a NFL franchise, seems like a sensible way to go and sustainable to me.

And for anyone who says i'm a traditionalist, probably need to go check the history books about how football teams were paired with cricket teams.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with that either. I'm just wary of a takeover where the new owner is more concerned with the NFL side than our side, which is why I hope Levy/Lewis stay. Better the devil you know.
 
the dza said:
I have no issue with that either. I'm just wary of a takeover where the new owner is more concerned with the NFL side than our side, which is why I hope Levy/Lewis stay. Better the devil you know.
Click to expand...

In the UK? I doubt it.

Football is the prime sport here, its where the money is. NFL is a novelty.

A smart owner, even one focused on the NFL would know that they have to keep the footy going well while the NFL takes time to take off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back