-
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
New takeover rumours
- Thread starter Nutter-Naylor
- Start date
milo
Jack L. Jones
Yes there is. The established clubs voted in favour of it because their owners wanted to be able to try and keep down their costs.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Re: ****ter Rumour
FFP will really come in to play in a few years when clubs will have to invest wisely. Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project are still benefiting from their pre FFP splurge.
In the future if your revenue is huge. Like Real and Utd. Then you will have an advantage. But the sugar daddy clubs will have to be more creative.
FFP will really come in to play in a few years when clubs will have to invest wisely. Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project are still benefiting from their pre FFP splurge.
In the future if your revenue is huge. Like Real and Utd. Then you will have an advantage. But the sugar daddy clubs will have to be more creative.
I have been Spurs for nearly 34 years.
If we end up winning trophies because a family/kingdom from halfway across the world deigns to make the club their latest bauble and effectively gives us the key to the mational bank, it would mean nothing to me. I have lost interest whenever I've used a cheat code in a video game - this would be the same.
I'm Spurs because of our history, push and run, the double, Ardiles, Hoddle, Waddle, Mabbutt, Gazza, Lineker, King, Modric, Bale, the 36,000 at the ground every other week and the millions around the world who care enough to follow the club however they can. All this has earned the club a certain level of success that is based on our heritage. If we were to get this injection of cash we may as well be starting from scratch. It could just as well be any other club that benefits, and in two seasons we wouldn't be able look at the 11 men on the pitch and say that is a Spurs team.
I may waver when the time comes if this goes through, but the way I feel about it now I think I would stop watching and caring about the club.
Jumpers for goalposts, innit.
If we end up winning trophies because a family/kingdom from halfway across the world deigns to make the club their latest bauble and effectively gives us the key to the mational bank, it would mean nothing to me. I have lost interest whenever I've used a cheat code in a video game - this would be the same.
I'm Spurs because of our history, push and run, the double, Ardiles, Hoddle, Waddle, Mabbutt, Gazza, Lineker, King, Modric, Bale, the 36,000 at the ground every other week and the millions around the world who care enough to follow the club however they can. All this has earned the club a certain level of success that is based on our heritage. If we were to get this injection of cash we may as well be starting from scratch. It could just as well be any other club that benefits, and in two seasons we wouldn't be able look at the 11 men on the pitch and say that is a Spurs team.
I may waver when the time comes if this goes through, but the way I feel about it now I think I would stop watching and caring about the club.
Jumpers for goalposts, innit.
Last edited:
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
They are almost as bad as a sugardaddy club.
They are the shop window of George Mendes. He ships his play in there to raise their profile and sells them on.
He pays the transfer fees. He is the reason they had Falcao, Costa and Aguero.
A club run by a football agent is a disgrace.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I hope you are as disinterested in our double-winning season, seeing as we outspent nearly everyone to win our trophies then as well, and continued spending more than most clubs throughout the 1960's, culminating in paying a British record fee for Martn Peters in 1970.
Our success was based on the same thing other professional football clubs based their successes on: money, an injection of it that allowed us to compete. Heritage didn't come in to it: we had very little heritage when embarking on our journey upwards in the fifties and sixties, it was spending large on players and finding the right managers that afforded us the success that then turned us into a club with a heritage some two or three decades later.
The eleven men on the pitch wouldn't be a Spurs team because we didn't follow ENIC's parsimonious profit-maximising methods when signing them? Really? In my eyes, a Spurs side is one that attacks with flair and seeks to dominate games, never stopping, always looking to score another goal, to win the game as comprehensively as possible as opposed to as conservatively as possible. How much the individual players cost, and whether or not they were bought by Joe Lewis using the club's own money or a sheikh intent on turning us into a world-class side doesn't come into it: and I'd certainly question the necessity of our fans paying absolutely, eye-wateringly ludicrous ticket prices to maintain the air of 'self-sustenance' when there's a sheikh available who wants to subsidise the tickets and make football affordable for the poorer fan again (see Emirates Marketing Project for a fine example of this).
Look, oppose a prospective Qatari takeover on moral grounds, if you want to (it is certainly galling to consider that the Qatari sheikhs may actually be leagues worse than the UAE sheikhs, who themselves are no paragons of human rights and respect for individuals). Or oppose it on the grounds of wanting to remain 'self-sufficient' for reasons which I can't quite stand but still maintain a sort of grudging respect for. Or perhaps oppose them on the grounds that bringing in world-class players will damage our home-grown youth players (that I can really get behind, to a degree). But don't say that being owned by a sugar-daddy sheikh will damage our heritage, or some stuff along those lines: every single Emirates Marketing Project fan (every single one) would hysterically laugh at you if you told them their heritage was being damaged by them winning titles and trophies galore while creating a fan-friendly, affordable viewing atmosphere and genuinely uplifting local communities in the Manchester area to boot.
Last edited:
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Being owned by the Caryle Group, the UAE guys, the Qataris, the Rusian Mafia or whatever. None of them are angels. the Qataris are slave driving scumbags. But if they want to buy the club I would live with it. Wouldn't be over the moon but would enjoy the success if it came.
Fair point regarding the 60s, though that is part of the history I'm talking about.
I absolutely have a moral objection regarding the Qataris, but I thought about how I would feel about a morally benign billionaire taking over - same difference.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Well, I can't change how you feel, and really feelings don't operate on logical bases so I can't really say anything other than 'fair enough'. I can only advise you against citing our 'heritage' as a reason for your opposition to us acquiring a sugar daddy.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
:beer:
Cochise
Steve Carr
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Not sure how I'd feel about Aguero replacing Kane right now, so I feel strongly about that as well. But perhaps Aguero behind Kane.....
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Is this not part of the problem and attitude that allows countries and some sections of religions to get away with doing wrong because people do not stand up to them?
Was this outspending everyone in the 60s stuff that has come about lately in any way comparable to what we see these days with City and Chelsea? What was the disparity between ourselves and the rest of the clubs in the country? Were we running at a financial loss in order to pay for these players or were we merely spending the money that being a big club allowed us to spend?
Genuine question, being fairly young i don't know the ins and outs of that era
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
**** Emirates Marketing Project fans
Here there are at the Manchester derby in 2012 with Thaksin Shinawatra
This is the guy that left the club on the brink of financial collapse when he had to go on the run after what he did in Thailand finally caught up with him.
A guy that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reckoned was behind the killing, without trial, of people suspected of drug offences and political prisoners, as well as the murder of 2,500 people by security forces.
But he bought a few players for them once, before ultimately ****ing the club up.
City fans must be the most insular braindead lot in football. The type of definitely working class ***** that dont care what their benefactors have done to fellow working class people. The spineless little weasels that would have sucked up to bullies at school so they can laugh at some other unfortunate get the **** kicked out of them repeatedly.
Years later they still think of the human rights abuser and scum of the earth as "Frank" a funny foreign bloke with a funny name, a novelty to get a selfie taken with.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Was this outspending everyone in the 60s stuff that has come about lately in any way comparable to what we see these days with City and Chelsea? What was the disparity between ourselves and the rest of the clubs in the country? Were we running at a financial loss in order to pay for these players or were we merely spending the money that being a big club allowed us to spend?
Genuine question, being fairly young i don't know the ins and outs of that era
We bought Greaves for 99,999 pounds in 1961, if I remember correctly: the reason we did this was to avoid making him Britain's first 100,000 pound player. We then shed that inhibition and made Martin Peters Britain's first 200,000 pound player nine years later. Even before our double-winning season (in the late fifties under Nicholson), we routinely spent between 30 - 45,000 pounds on players, if I remember correctly, and made comparatively little back in outgoing transfers: this during a period when John Charles going to Juventus and Denis Law going to Torino were the most expensive transfers worldwide, costing the rich Serie A teams (at the time by far the most wealthy league in the world) 65,000 and 100,000 pounds respectively. All this during a rough fifteen year period in which we were the club with the highest average attendance in England just three times, all of them occurring in the years immediately after our double. Manchester United has the highest attendances eight times in that fifteen year period, all of them at or above the 50,000 mark: save for one stupendous season post-Double when we averaged 53,000, our league highest attendances usually hovered around the 45,000 - 47,000 band, which while considerable in comparison to the 16-20,000 average attendances elsewhere in the league, was still far below United's mark and below the 50,000 average that even Everton managed to register twice in that decade (while Liverpool and Chelsea, the other clubs with the highest average attendances in one year during that fifteen year spell, averaged around 42,000 - 45,000, same as us).
Long story short, we were in the top four or five in terms of attendances, but outspent everyone (including United) during a period in the late fifties/early sixties that laid the foundations for our later success. We didn't make much back on the players we did end up letting go (usually on frees) despite the enormous fees we paid to sign them either. There isn't much doubt that we were extremely heavy spenders during the late 50's/early 60's (and again in the late sixties), and that we spent in excess of our revenue capabilities at the time.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
**** Emirates Marketing Project fans
Here there are at the Manchester derby in 2012 with Thaksin Shinawatra
This is the guy that left the club on the brink of financial collapse when he had to go on the run after what he did in Thailand finally caught up with him.
A guy that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reckoned was behind the killing, without trial, of people suspected of drug offences and political prisoners, as well as the murder of 2,500 people by security forces.
But he bought a few players for them once, before ultimately ****ing the club up.
City fans must be the most insular braindead lot in football. The type of definitely working class ***** that dont care what their benefactors have done to fellow working class people. The spineless little weasels that would have sucked up to bullies at school so they can laugh at some other unfortunate get the **** kicked out of them repeatedly.
Years later they still think of the human rights abuser and scum of the earth as "Frank" a funny foreign bloke with a funny name, a novelty to get a selfie taken with.
Like I said, there's legitimate moral grounds to oppose a sugar daddy or prospective owner, if you want to go down that route (bear in mind that our owners at present aren't angels either). But whatever their moral deficits, City fans now have a couple of titles to etch into their history, a couple of cups, subsidized tickets to enable the poorer fans to watch the team they love, a fan-friendly atmosphere at games, a world-class training facility, and a lot of investment poured into otherwise deprived Manchester areas by the club's owners.
That isn't damaging to their 'heritage', and taking that line is just misguided. That's what I was getting at.