New takeover rumours

[Spur of the moment]

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.

Doubt anyone is ever going to be able to put together enough solid evidence to resolve all strands of the argument one way or the other tbh. From my own personal recollection (I was in my mid-to-late teens at the time) Spurs were generally regarded as the biggest of all spenders during the late '50s. Man Utd probably took over that mantle in rebuilding their squad following the Munich disaster but that was basically after Spurs had put their Double-winning team together:

Albert Quixall £45,000 from Sheffield Wednesday, 1958
Maurice Setters £30,000 from West Brom 1960
Noel Cantwell, £29,500 from West Ham, 1960
Denis Law £115,000 from Torino, 1962
Pat Crerand £50,000-£55,000 from Celtic 1963

 

[Baleforce]

<_____Jimmy Greaves- greatest football player ever.

fixed

 

[milo]

Doubt anyone is ever going to be able to put together enough solid evidence to resolve all strands of the argument one way or the other tbh. From my own personal recollection (I was in my mid-to-late teens at the time) Spurs were generally regarded as the biggest of all spenders during the late '50s. Man Utd probably took over that mantle in rebuilding their squad following the Munich disaster but that was basically after Spurs had put their Double-winning team together:

Albert Quixall £45,000 from Sheffield Wednesday, 1958
Maurice Setters £30,000 from West Brom 1960
Noel Cantwell, £29,500 from West Ham, 1960
Denis Law £115,000 from Torino, 1962
Pat Crerand £50,000-£55,000 from Celtic 1963

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

For what it is worth, I have never seen anyone on here complaining about a club spending big but within their means.

 

[Baleforce]

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

For what it is worth, I have never seen anyone on here complaining about a club spending big but within their means.

city and chelsea spend within their means though don't they?

or do you mean balanced with their income?

 

[Maltese Falcon]

Many posts are quite ridiculous and clearly people have no idea of our history.

Spurs were hated because they spent big and outspent most of their rivals. In the fifties and sixties you could spend big if you had a big stadium and rich supporters.

Nowadays it if you are bankrolled by a sugar daddy.

Nothing different in fifty years....

 

[jimmyb]

Many posts are quite ridiculous and clearly people have no idea of our history.

Spurs were hated because they spent big and outspent most of their rivals. In the fifties and sixties you could spend big if you had a big stadium and rich supporters.

Nowadays it if you are bankrolled by a sugar daddy.

Nothing different in fifty years....

How much did that really help?

Gate receipts used to be shared between both teams rather than the home team taking the lot.

 

[Raziel]

Many posts are quite ridiculous and clearly people have no idea of our history.

Spurs were hated because they spent big and outspent most of their rivals. In the fifties and sixties you could spend big if you had a big stadium and rich supporters.

Nowadays it if you are bankrolled by a sugar daddy.

Nothing different in fifty years....

honestly, you don't see the difference in those two scenarios?

- option 1, a team invests in a larger stadium, they market well (part might be investing in a top tier player), build a large/wealthy fanbase, create success, spend more (different players, different years), create more success
- option 2, a **** no history team with no fan base is bought by billionaire, overnight the owner spend is exponentially bigger than others, 4/5/6 record type buys each year, club income still doesn't rise (outside of shady "sponsorship"), money keeps pouring in.

Not even close mate .. yes, you need to spend to win, that has always been the case, the difference is that money is no longer even remotely tied to/any % of what the club legitimately earns

 

[milo]

city and chelsea spend within their means though don't they?

or do you mean balanced with their income?

No they don't. They would never be able to afford the players that they have without being subsidised by their owners. Chelsea only break even when they sell players and would never break even if they had to repay the money Abramovic loaned them. City make big losses.

 

[Baleforce]

transfer fee's were paid by the board right, individuals put the money in, rather than from gate receipts?

 

[Baleforce]

No they don't. They would never be able to afford the players that they have without being subsidised by their owners. Chelsea only break even when they sell players and would never break even if they had to repay the money Abramovic loaned them. City make big losses.

yeah, but they ARE subsidised by their owners, hence they can afford it

if I suddenly get told a long lost uncle has died and left me £5m I can buy a house for £2m "within my means"

 

[milo]

Many posts are quite ridiculous and clearly people have no idea of our history.

Spurs were hated because they spent big and outspent most of their rivals. In the fifties and sixties you could spend big if you had a big stadium and rich supporters.

Nowadays it if you are bankrolled by a sugar daddy.

Nothing different in fifty years....

Is there any need for this attitude? We are having a discussion around what Spurs spent at the time. Happy to learn something if you have something to add to the conversation but arrogance and bad a attitude don't add much.

 

[milo]

transfer fee's were paid by the board right, individuals put the money in, rather than from gate receipts?

Both City and Chelsea are owned outright by their owners and would not be where they are without being bankrolled by them.

 

[Baleforce]

Both City and Chelsea are owned outright by their owners and would not be where they are without being bankrolled by them.

that was in response to how transfers were done in the old days

and yes they are, I don't see how that makes it invalid, my parent's paid my sisters way through university, her qualifications are not worth less because of this

 

[milo]

that was in response to how transfers were done in the old days

and yes they are, I don't see how that makes it invalid, my parent's paid my sisters way through university, her qualifications are not worth less because of this

A strange metaphor, I am not sure that I see the similarities.

Back to the original question. I would be really interested to hear whether we did spend beyond our means in the early sixties or whether our transfers were funded by our income.

 

[Baleforce]

A strange metaphor, I am not sure that I see the similarities.

Back to the original question. I would be really interested to hear whether we did spend beyond our means in the early sixties or whether our transfers were funded by our income.

i don't think its either or, as i said above, back in the day the board bought players out of their own money, its not funded by income but its not beyond the clubs means either as the money exists, its never going to be called back

 

[milo]

i don't think its either or, as i said above, back in the day the board bought players out of their own money, its not funded by income but its not beyond the clubs means either as the money exists, its never going to be called back

I think that we are arguing at cross purposes.

 

[Modric THFC]

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.

I don't really know what the trying to say. It's okay for human rights abusers to own football clubs because there were pedos in the British government??


To summarise if we are taken over by human rights abusers. I'm done.

I don't care what other clubs have done. And I find it disgusting that fans of other clubs happily turn a blind eye, make excuses for them and try to justify it.

 

[Spur of the moment]

A strange metaphor, I am not sure that I see the similarities.

Back to the original question. I would be really interested to hear whether we did spend beyond our means in the early sixties or whether our transfers were funded by our income.

Don't ever recall any speculation at the time that we might be spending beyond our means. We were universally regarded as a rich club. The directors - the Dearmans and the Wales - were thought to be well-loaded. Also our gates were consistently among the highest over the period, topping the averages six times (one of those even as a Second Division club) and second highest thrice between 1949-1963.

 

[Baleforce]

I think that we are arguing at cross purposes.

maybe, my point is that i don't think the source of the money is relevant as long as it's legal, it doesn't matter that chelsea and city were gifted the money, its theirs to spend, i think there is a definite similarity to how transfer fee's used to be paid, even quite recently (in his latest book Redknapp talks about a player Bournemouth signed whom he and the chairman personally paid for), i think back in the day thats how almost of our transfers were funded and we bought a lot of top drawer players, how much would it cost to get the likes of Blanchflower, Brown, Smith and Mackay in the same squad now, that would be like picking up Messi, Ronaldo, Neuer and Kroos in January

 

[milo]

Don't ever recall any speculation at the time that we might be spending beyond our means. We were universally regarded as a rich club. The directors - the Dearmans and the Wales - were thought to be well-loaded. Also our gates were consistently among the highest over the period, topping the averages six times (one of those even as a Second Division club) and second highest thrice between 1949-1963.

Thanks. It's a bit before my time, so I am genuinely interested.