New takeover rumours

[Spur of the moment]

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 Figbirds for them and try to justify it.

Figbirds?



:lol:

 

[milo]

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

Yeah. I am saying something different. Dubai is saying that if you reject a rich benefactor now you should not celebrate our success in the early sixties. I am interested in whether the comparison stands up and whether the success was at the bequest of rich owners or were we just spending what we got through gate receipts etc.

 

[Baleforce]

Yeah. I am saying something different. Dubai is saying that if you reject a rich benefactor now you should not celebrate our success in the early sixties. I am interested in whether the comparison stands up and whether the success was at the bequest of rich owners or were we just spending what we got through gate receipts etc.

ok, i think we were spending more than we got through gate receipts, i think the quality of the players we had suggests that

 

[Spur of the moment]

How much did that really help?

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

Even so, it was clear from the overall pattern of spending that it was generally the clubs with the highest average attendances that had the biggest spending power. All the more credit tbf to clubs like Blackpool, Burnley and Ipswich that achieved success despite low gates and a lack of spending power.

 

[milo]

ok, i think we were spending more than we got through gate receipts, i think the quality of the players we had suggests that

I'd be really interested in seeing something that supported or contradicted this. I don't know the answer, I just feel uncomfortable with unsubstantiated statements (Dubai's not yours).

 

[Cochise]

So blood doping is fine?? I mean you still ran the race, did the same training as everyone else, just used something extra, something no one else had but still something of your own to improve your performance. You may have a weaker body than another athlete and poorer facilities to train in but this outside infuence is your trump card, so all's fair because it is yours. In football having money from a larger ground, the money from cup wins and using that to re-invest into a team is essentially the same as an athlete having a better body and training regimen/coaches and funding in this metaphor. Blood doping in this is the same as the financial doping in football. Both give an edge to the competitor that brings them above their limit, enabling them to achieve that which they can't do by normal means.

With regards to today's system and that of the 60's, I think a part of it is relative. Since Abramovic took over Chelsea they have inflated the transfer market and are one of the biggest reason's imo for the way it is today. I remember when they bought Essien, he was never worth what they paid for him and had they not been interested I doubt he would've gone for the £24 million that they paid, but once they were in the race Lyon's asking price went up. The story continues to this day with the transfer window essentially being split in two where the rich clubs in Europe do their shopping at the start and the rest of the normal clubs scurry around at the end of it picking through what's left. Even in cases where they meet the same asking price as another club, they can offer stupid wages to sway the player to their side. The cycle continues, the rich get the best proven talent and the rest of us invest in the rough diamonds only to shine them up so that they eventually sparkle in the billionaire's crown. This is where the whole system is lopsided.

From what I can see, there were more clubs than just us back in the 60's who were breaking transfer records, though I'd love to know what the wage structure was like back then at Spurs compared to the rest of the League.

 

[LesMedley]

Yeah. I am saying something different. Dubai is saying that if you reject a rich benefactor now you should not celebrate our success in the early sixties. I am interested in whether the comparison stands up and whether the success was at the bequest of rich owners or were we just spending what we got through gate receipts etc.

Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Limited was a Private Company at the time and it was difficult for anyone new to buy shares. Indeed when Irving Scholar bought the Club in the early eighties and made it public, he used the ruse of buying proxies for the votes at the AGM to get the board out and take over the Club, because he couldn't buy up the shares initially.
The shares had rarely changed hands and the shareholders tended to be the same for decades. They don't appear to have put any new money into the club at all by loan or new shares. For successful clubs like Spurs with a capacity of about 68,000 at the time, though the ground rarely had that many in, c 45,000 was all you'd get for most games, it was a licence to print money, because between about 1934 and the late sixties very little was done to the ground and facilities, though to be fair, the club did invest in a new training ground in Cheshunt in the 1950's and money was spent on floodlights in the mid to late 50's. Shareholders were not there to take money from the club but for the kudos within the community. So the excess of income over costs either sat in the bank or was used to buy new players. Up to 1961 players were on a maximum of £20 per week in the season and £10 pw in the summer. In the early sixties this didn't change too much, though there was great publicity when Tommy Trinder, the Chairman of Fulham made Johnny Haynes the first £100 per week footballer in England. Even in the early seventies players were getting second jobs, some for example as driving instructors (John Tudor of Saudi Sportswashing Machine comes to mind), to supplement their income. So those with money could spend it on transfer fees. In the sixties Tottenham had the reputation as the "Bank of England" club for this reason, as Everton and Sunderland had in previous decades.
So: Gate receipts.

 

[Baleforce]

Cochise, i'm not sure the analogy works as there are rules against blood doping, it's officially cheating.

 

[jts1882]

How much did that really help?

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

I suspect a lot, although not as much as if keeping all the receipts. A club with large gate receipts gets those for half their games, other clubs only share it once. Sharing also works the other way as the top clubs get a share of the higher attendances when they visit other clubs.

Back then gate and directors were the only things that could make a difference and I've seen nothing to suggest our directors were big benefactors.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I'd be really interested in seeing something that supported or contradicted this. I don't know the answer, I just feel uncomfortable with unsubstantiated statements (Dubai's not yours).

Post #318, I went into a bit of substantiation.

 

[Raziel]

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

That's actually wrong ..

In any other business in the UK, if I bought a company, upped the quality of the goods and started selling it on market at below cost/loss for an extended period of time, I would run afoul of numerous unfair business practice laws.

Again, the best comparison to Spurs back in the day would Manure today, large gate receipts, popular club, yes they spent 200M in last window and pay stupid wages (and may even be in significant debt), but it is actually tied to a sustainable business model.

City/Cheat$ki are not sustainable business models, they probably could not support the wages (far less the transfers) without either further money doping or sales from previous money doping purchases.

I'm struggling to understand how people don't see there is a massive difference in those two approaches

 

[Cochise]

Cochise, i'm not sure the analogy works as there are rules against blood doping, it's officially cheating.

That is the point of it. Blood doping is illegal because it gives an unfair advantage. My argument is that the financial doping clubs like Chelsea have undergone is essentially the same thing, yet it's fine.

 

[Raziel]

That is the point of it. Blood doping is illegal because it gives an unfair advantage. My argument is that the financial doping clubs like Chelsea have undergone is essentially the same thing, yet it's fine.

See my post above, it isn't, its just somehow we don't apply basic business fair practice rules to football

 

[Spur of the moment]

I'd be really interested in seeing something that supported or contradicted this. I don't know the answer, I just feel uncomfortable with unsubstantiated statements (Dubai's not yours).

Even though admission prices were very low, income from attendances would nevertheless have made a substantial difference to a club's disposable income in those days. Other sources of income such as through tv, advertising and sales were either non-existant or trifling in comparison. So a club averaging over 50,000 a season - as Tottenham did several times between 1949-1961 - would have been taking up to three times as much at the gate compared with some of the less well-supported clubs like Burnley and Blackpool.

Until the abolition of the maximum wage in January 1961, top players at the biggest clubs were paid the identical ridiculously low maximum wage as those at the smallest. So aside from transfer outlays and stadium build costs, overall running costs for the biggest cubs would hardly have been vastly different than for the smallest. Neither would there have been anything like the difference between north and south as there is now.

So it's hardly an unreasonable assumption that for well-supported club like Tottenham a significant amount of the additional income from higher average gates would have been available for the transfer kitty.

 

[Baleforce]

That's actually wrong ..

In any other business in the UK, if I bought a company, upped the quality of the goods and started selling it on market at below cost/loss for an extended period of time, I would run afoul of numerous unfair business practice laws.

Again, the best comparison to Spurs back in the day would Manure today, large gate receipts, popular club, yes they spent 200M in last window and pay stupid wages (and may even be in significant debt), but it is actually tied to a sustainable business model.

City/Cheat$ki are not sustainable business models, they probably could not support the wages (far less the transfers) without either further money doping or sales from previous money doping purchases.

I'm struggling to understand how people don't see there is a massive difference in those two approaches

like amazon you mean?

 

[Modric THFC]

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

Legal in which country?
Abramovich wouldn't have been able to direct that oil money into his own pocket in Britain. He wouldn't have got the rights to it neither.
Shinawatra wouldn't have been able to award himself the mobile licence that he got all his money from. Imagine Blair getting the one mobile licence back in the day and selling it for billions to Vodafone all into his own pocket.
Imagine the British royals using the country's oil wealth like it was theirs like the sheiks are doing.

 

[Baleforce]

I meant source to the football club, nothing further, shouldn't matter if it comes from sponsorship, ticket revenue or personal investment, a pound of jack walkers money is worth the same as a pound of the shirt sponsors money

 

[milo]

Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Limited was a Private Company at the time and it was difficult for anyone new to buy shares. Indeed when Irving Scholar bought the Club in the early eighties and made it public, he used the ruse of buying proxies for the votes at the AGM to get the board out and take over the Club, because he couldn't buy up the shares initially.
The shares had rarely changed hands and the shareholders tended to be the same for decades. They don't appear to have put any new money into the club at all by loan or new shares. For successful clubs like Spurs with a capacity of about 68,000 at the time, though the ground rarely had that many in, c 45,000 was all you'd get for most games, it was a licence to print money, because between about 1934 and the late sixties very little was done to the ground and facilities, though to be fair, the club did invest in a new training ground in Cheshunt in the 1950's and money was spent on floodlights in the mid to late 50's. Shareholders were not there to take money from the club but for the kudos within the community. So the excess of income over costs either sat in the bank or was used to buy new players. Up to 1961 players were on a maximum of £20 per week in the season and £10 pw in the summer. In the early sixties this didn't change too much, though there was great publicity when Tommy Trinder, the Chairman of Fulham made Johnny Haynes the first £100 per week footballer in England. Even in the early seventies players were getting second jobs, some for example as driving instructors (John Tudor of Saudi Sportswashing Machine comes to mind), to supplement their income. So those with money could spend it on transfer fees. In the sixties Tottenham had the reputation as the "Bank of England" club for this reason, as Everton and Sunderland had in previous decades.
So: Gate receipts.

Thanks.

 

[milo]

Even though admission prices were very low, income from attendances would nevertheless have made a substantial difference to a club's disposable income in those days. Other sources of income such as through tv, advertising and sales were either non-existant or trifling in comparison. So a club averaging over 50,000 a season - as Tottenham did several times between 1949-1961 - would have been taking up to three times as much at the gate compared with some of the less well-supported clubs like Burnley and Blackpool.

Until the abolition of the maximum wage in January 1961, top players at the biggest clubs were paid the identical ridiculously low maximum wage as those at the smallest. So aside from transfer outlays and stadium build costs, overall running costs for the biggest cubs would hardly have been vastly different than for the smallest. Neither would there have been anything like the difference between north and south as there is now.

So it's hardly an unreasonable assumption that for well-supported club like Tottenham a significant amount of the additional income from higher average gates would have been available for the transfer kitty.

Thanks.

 

[milo]

Post #318, I went into a bit of substantiation.

Thanks but I would say that it was supposition rather than substantiation. We all know that we broke transfer records at the time, so did several clubs, what you haven't shown is that we grossly spent beyond our means.