New takeover rumours

[clevelandspur]

Financial fair play is a joke basically just keeping the rich richer... If we were to get a sugar daddy owner though as long as we don't go absolutely crazy in transfers and wages (which we probably wouldn't need to) we would be fine. We already are among the 15 most wealthiest clubs in the world. If Leyton Orient got a sugar daddy they would be domed

 

[Modric THFC]

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.

I couldnt give a **** about heritage. Taking money from evil ***** is my problem in return for giving them some form of respectability.
Emirates Marketing Project fans would be happy enough if they were bought by a consortium of Ian Watkins, Glitter, Ian Brady and Rose West if they had money.

 

[LutonSpurs]

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?

Yes it is Chich. And believe me, due to my Pakistani heritage and knowing what the Qataris do to Pakistani labourers I hate them. But it must be a case of desensitisation. Not sure. But the truth is that I would still support Spurs whether it was owned by the Caryle group or the Qataris.

Not that I think the Qataris will buy us.

 

[Raziel]

Spurs till I die means exactly that ..

Just as we didn't walk away when idiots like Sugar owned us, won't walk away when/if a Sugar Daddy buys us.

Don't like blood money, but if you want to really change that, become a political activist or get into politics, not buying a ticket to see the side you love won't make a **** of a difference ..

 

[braineclipse]

Spurs till I die means exactly that ..

Just as we didn't walk away when idiots like Sugar owned us, won't walk away when/if a Sugar Daddy buys us.

Don't like blood money, but if you want to really change that, become a political activist or get into politics, not buying a ticket to see the side you love won't make a **** of a difference ..

I don't think Modric is saying that we should stop supporting the club if that happens. Just that he doesn't want it. Or have I missed something?

 

[Superhudd]

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.

Out of interest.. What was the wages of our team in comparison to others back then. Compare that to today and is the gulf similar, same with net spend on transfers.. Let's take the net spend of the city owners the first three seasons compared to the rest of the league and then compare the gulf to the 50s and 60s.

the comparisons of sugar daddy is quite simply like comparing a ladybird to a stag beetle. Just because we outspent then, it would be like everyone today having a net spend of 10m and us 12m.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I couldnt give a **** about heritage. Taking money from evil ***** is my problem in return for giving them some form of respectability.
Emirates Marketing Project fans would be happy enough if they were bought by a consortium of Ian Watkins, Glitter, Ian Brady and Rose West if they had money.

Again, it is relative. I agree with you in that a football club is meant to be something special that we as fans use to escape the drudgery of daily life every weekend, and so should be held to different standards: however, moral quagmires are notoriously difficult to navigate once you get sucked into them. An investigation into an awful, almost grotesquely nightmarish paedophile ring that murdered kids in the eighties is afoot in Westminster: an investigation that seeks to prove the existence of this ring, which was allegedly comprised of MPs, High Court judges, the great and good of society.

If proven true (note: if, although the noises from the police haven't been particularly dismissive of the allegations), then some of the people who rule over the ordinary man in the UK possibly take the cake when it comes to being utterly evil and brutishly animal-like. Against that, does a somewhat sordid Qatari seeking respectability via ownership of a football club really seem that outre?

Moral quagmires are very difficult to navigate, once you wallow into them. That's why I advise against using that argument, although it is still valid in my opinion.

 

[Bonsaiboy]

I'd still support Spurs if we were bought by a sugar daddy but it wouldn't be the same. Life isn't about where you get to it's the journey getting there that matters. Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project fans miss out on entire area of being a football fan - uncertainty. They know they will compete for the league pretty much year in year out, it was a certainty that Chelsea would win the Champions League as much as it is that Emirates Marketing Project will eventually. What does it ever matter if they blow 30 million on a player and he turns out to be rubbish? They can just go out and get another one. They don't get to see the struggles of youth players working their way up the ranks and into the team.

Not for me thanks.

 

[Raziel]

Out of interest.. What was the wages of our team in comparison to others back then. Compare that to today and is the gulf similar, same with net spend on transfers.. Let's take the net spend of the city owners the first three seasons compared to the rest of the league and then compare the gulf to the 50s and 60s.

the comparisons of sugar daddy is quite simply like comparing a ladybird to a stag beetle. Just because we outspent then, it would be like everyone today having a net spend of 10m and us 12m.

This, there is no precedent pre PL era that is line with the Cheat$ki/City investments

 

[milo]

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.

I'd love to see some data to back up you saying we outspent nearly everyone in the early sixties.

 

[Raziel]

I'd love to see some data to back up you saying we outspent nearly everyone in the early sixties.

It would be relevant if we were able to stay solvent. People miss the point, most clubs that are successful spend more money than the majority of their rivals.

Being able to spend more money because you have bigger crowds, better merchandizing, bigger fanbase even an owner willing to do some up front investing is not cheating or somehow unusual.

A owner buying some bit part ****ing club with little history of success prior and spending a BILLION ****ing pounds is not the same. I hate Manure, but to compare their success (and they have bought it) to Cheat$ki/City is not even remotely applicable.

 

[milo]

It would be relevant if we were able to stay solvent. People miss the point, most clubs that are successful spend more money than the majority of their rivals.

Being able to spend more money because you have bigger crowds, better merchandizing, bigger fanbase even an owner willing to do some up front investing is not cheating or somehow unusual.

A owner buying some bit part ****ing club with little history of success prior and spending a BILLION ****ing pounds is not the same. I hate Manure, but to compare their success (and they have bought it) to Cheat$ki/City is not even remotely applicable.

That's a different argument. I am interested in the accuracy in Dubai's claim that our early sixties success was built on outspending our rivals. I honestly do not know the answer to this. Obviously the salary cap was in force until 1961, I cannot see us breaking any transfer records during that period but I do not know the cost of our first team and how it compares to our rivals.

 

[glasgowspur]

Again, it is relative. I agree with you in that a football club is meant to be something special that we as fans use to escape the drudgery of daily life every weekend, and so should be held to different standards: however, moral quagmires are notoriously difficult to navigate once you get sucked into them. An investigation into an awful, almost grotesquely nightmarish paedophile ring that murdered kids in the eighties is afoot in Westminster: an investigation that seeks to prove the existence of this ring, which was allegedly comprised of MPs, High Court judges, the great and good of society.

If proven true (note: if, although the noises from the police haven't been particularly dismissive of the allegations), then some of the people who rule over the ordinary man in the UK possibly take the cake when it comes to being utterly evil and brutishly animal-like. Against that, does a somewhat sordid Qatari seeking respectability via ownership of a football club really seem that outre?

Moral quagmires are very difficult to navigate, once you wallow into them. That's why I advise against using that argument, although it is still valid in my opinion.

After the debacle of sir Jimmy getting away with it for years any hint of child abuse at a high level has to seen to be thoroughly investigated, and rightly so. But it highlights what I think a lot of the objections people would have with morally dubious owners- guilt by association.
Now almost anyone in politics from the 80s or entertainment from the 70s is sitting wondering if they will be next for investigation.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Spur of the moment]

That's a different argument. I am interested in the accuracy in Dubai's claim that our early sixties success was built on outspending our rivals. I honestly do not know the answer to this. Obviously the salary cap was in force until 1961, I cannot see us breaking any transfer records during that period but I do not know the cost of our first team and how it compares to our rivals.

Some of our major buys over the period. Compare with the British records here (but note the very highest fees were being paid by Italian clubs for British players): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_British_football_transfer_fee_record

Alf Ramsay £21,000 from Southampton, 1949 (British record for a full-back; Spurs were a second-tier club at the time)
Ron Reynolds £10,000 from Aldershot, 1950 (then a massive fee for a gk reserve to Ted Ditchburn)
Danny Blanchflower £30,000 from Aston Villa, 1954 (British record stood at £34,000 but that was for a striker)
John Ryden £10,000 from Accrington Stanley, 1955
Bobby Smith £18,000 from Chelsea, 1955
Maurice Norman £28,000 from Norwich City, 1955
Terry Medwin £25,000 from Swansea, 1956
Cliff Jones £35,000 from Swansea, 1958
Dave Mackay £32,000 from Hearts, 1958
John White £20,000 from Falkirk, 1959
Les Allen £20,000 from Chelsea, 1959
Bill Brown £16,500 from Dundee, 1959
Jimmy Greaves £99,999 from AC Milan 1961 (set the record fee paid out by a British club, substantially higher than previous record of £55,000 paid by Emirates Marketing Project for Dennis Law in 1960)
Pat Jennings £27,000 from Watford, 1963
Alan Gilzean £72,500 from Dundee, 1964
Cyril Knowles £45,000 from Middlesbrough, 1964
Alan Mullery £72,500 from Fulham, 1964
Laurie Brown £40,000 from the Arseholes 1964
Terry Venables £80,000 from Chelsea, 1966
Mike England £95,000 from Blackburn Rovers,1966
Martin Chivers £125,000 from Southampton, 1968
Roger Morgan £110,000 from QPR, 1969
Martin Peters £200.000 from West Ham, 1970 (set new record paid by a British club)

Fuller list (minus the odd omission, eg Jim Iley, John Ryden):

http://www.topspurs.com/thfc-transfers.htm

 

[milo]

Some of our major buys over the period. Compare with the British records here (but note the very highest fees were being paid by Italian clubs for British players): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_British_football_transfer_fee_record

Alf Ramsay £21,000 from Southampton, 1949 (British record for a full-back; Spurs were a second-tier club at the time)
Ron Reynolds £10,000 from Aldershot, 1950 (then a massive fee for a gk reserve to Ted Ditchburn)
Danny Blanchflower £30,000 from Aston Villa, 1954 (British record stood at £34,000 but that was for a striker)
John Ryden £10,000 from Accrington Stanley, 1955
Bobby Smith £18,000 from Chelsea, 1955
Maurice Norman £28,000 from Norwich City, 1955
Terry Medwin £25,000 from Swansea, 1956
Cliff Jones £35,000 from Swansea, 1958
Dave Mackay £32,000 from Hearts, 1958
John White £20,000 from Falkirk, 1959
Les Allen £20,000 from Chelsea, 1959
Bill Brown £16,500 from Dundee, 1959
Jimmy Greaves £99,999 from AC Milan 1961 (set the record fee paid out by a British club, substantially higher than previous record of £55,000 paid by Emirates Marketing Project for Dennis Law in 1960)
Pat Jennings £27,000 from Watford, 1963
Alan Gilzean £72,500 from Dundee, 1964
Cyril Knowles £45,000 from Middlesbrough, 1964
Alan Mullery £72,500 from Fulham, 1964
Laurie Brown £40,000 from the Arseholes 1964
Terry Venables £80,000 from Chelsea, 1966
Mike England £95,000 from Blackburn Rovers,1966
Martin Chivers £125,000 from Southampton, 1968
Roger Morgan £110,000 from QPR, 1969
Martin Peters £200.000 from West Ham, 1970 (set new record paid by a British club)

Fuller list (minus the odd omission, eg Jim Iley, John Ryden):

http://www.topspurs.com/thfc-transfers.htm

Thanks.

To support Dubai's argument we need to be able to compare the cost of the team to other successful teams at the time. To really make the parallel he is drawing stick he needs to show that we grossly outspent them and the club was run in an unsustainable manner with the cost being underwritten by the owners.

 

[Baleforce]

yep you do, but look at that list!

4 times in 9 years we went out and bought the best player in the world [/hyperbole]

 

[jts1882]

We did break the record a few times, as we had done before, but that doesn't mean we were spending beyond our means. I've never seen anything saying our owners funded transfers.

In the 50s and 60s the revenue of football clubs was almost entirely gate money. It was before TV money and sponsorships would have been small if they existed. We had one of the highest gates for most of that period, when not the largest. We complain about the high prices for London clubs now and I don't see any reason not to think that prices were higher in London back then too. It wouldn't have needed much of a London premium (say 20%) to make us the richest club. And the only way we could put this to advantage is through transfer fees. Even after the maximum wage was abolished wages were relatively low. Players were owned by the club until the club decided to sell, regardless of contract length, so players had little leverage (e.g. Moore staying at West Ham).

Edit: Apparently there was a minimum ticket price in 1960. The league took the outrageous decision to raise it to half a crown (2s. 6d. = 12.5p). Source

 

[metalgear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_British_football_transfer_fee_record

it looked like the record transfers was quite progressive and spread out over a number of clubs, until the 90's and Man U.

 

[Spur of the moment]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_British_football_transfer_fee_record

it looked like the record transfers was quite progressive and spread out over a number of clubs, until the 90's and Man U.

In the context of this discussion that list is slightly skewed in that it omits all buying records set by British clubs between 1952-61, including the £99,999 paid by Tottenham for Jimmy Greaves in 1961.

 

[GGyid]

<_____Jimmy Greaves- greatest Spurs player ever.