The Tottenham Hotspur "Spiral" Watch

Look we got lucky, we wouldn't have won all that ****, we were a top 6 club who sneaked a trophy every 2 or 3 years before Roman, any Chelsea fan who denies this is deluding themselves.
But I fail to see how Man United's 90's backroom "financial nous" (ie bringing out 9 shirts a season made by vietnamese toddlers and whoring themselves on the stockmarket) has anything more or less to do with football than Roman Abramoviches cash.
Man United werent even a football club any more, they were a ****ing PLC.
Should Arsenal's money from the Highburys flats be written off as "illegitimate income" because it is not football related? They got lucky because of inflated London house prices, because of our ****ty government not building enough affordable housing. Does that have more to do with football than Abramovich's ill gotten gains?

 

The difference is that the first gets the virtuous circle
going by repeated/sustainable on-pitch success
(winnings, sponsorship/ad revenues etc) , and
the latter sits there hoping their lottery ticket gets picked.


"And is effected how, by the fans?"

Nowadays, by merchandising etc.
Before the PL era, it used to be by bums on seats.

 

So in your opinion... finishing above Man City is the only justification needed to conclude that Spurs haven't wasted money on any duffers the last few seasons? A simple yes or no to that would suffice just to confirm your (lack of) footballing knowledge

You're still avoiding some key questions and it's looking increasingly like you simply can't answer them:
1. Why does spending money that is available for the club to spend make you a badly run club? Or why does having money sitting in a bank account make you a well run club?
2. Why does the bank balance of Spurs football club have any impact on you to the point that you 'care'?

 

To answer number one it depends on the situation, City clearly aren't spending money that they've genuinely earned and the sponsorship fiasco is a sham to get around FFP.

They are completely and utterly bankrolled to success and would be no where near without it.

As a Saints fan I can honestly say I'd hate to become what City have.

 

Any fan is not going to care too much how their own team achieved their success, it’s true.

However there is a certain contempt reserved by most others for those teams who just spend and spend, courtesy of an owner with bottomless pockets, and buy their success that way.

There will always be far more general respect for a side like Leicester who achieved their success on a relative shoestring budget.

Sorry to those who don’t like it, but that’s the way it is...

 

Especially when some fans of those clubs act like football doesn't exist outside the top clubs.

 

Except from some Spurs fans ironically. (Not you though)
T'is true though, winning the league on that budget was a mental achievement! like many have said, one of the greatest sporting achievements of modern times.

 

I didn't say earned, I said money that was available to them. Whatever anyone feels about how they get their money, they do have that much money available to spend... and they spend it to try and achieve more than they did before. Indeed, if they didn't spend I'd say they were badly run. Spending what is available to you to spend is the logical thing to do. And being sugar daddied is the only way any club can consistently reach the level of the traditional big clubs. If you're being bankrolled then go for it I say.

So what? Jealousy creeping out...

Yeah maybe. Not convinced by anyone with this argument though. It's smacks of being a saying someone comes out with who's just jealous. You've got a ferrari? Pff, never wanted one anyway. You've had a threesome with Blake Lively and Scarlett Johansson? Pff, never thought they were that attractive anyway.

 

Yes Leicester won the league and it is probably one of the greatest sporting achievements ever. But that one-off achievement alone does not mean Leicester are a well run club. They've subsequently done all the things that other 'big' clubs get castigated for. Spending millions on tat. Hiring and firing. They get respect for their achievement, not being a well run club.

 

Are they well run if the owners want to cut back at somepoint and therefore risk the future of the club? Hypothetical of course but still...

I made the second point as they haven't been successful by smart and shrewd business have they? They've thrown money at it which anyone could do if they had it.

Hardly jealous as the next part you quoted shows

I don't give a **** if you believe me or not, hardly comparable to the things you've said either.

Pretty sure anyone who has read my posts regularly will believe me when I say that, supporting my club isn't all about success to me.

 

I agree with that post.

 

Me either, but my team keep winning, so what can I do?
I am not gonna stop supporting the club I love because some ****tards on a forum want to find fault with our owners business strategies.
Because they care oh so much about the Russian people...

 

Eh? If they cutback at some point they wouldn't risk their future would they?

But........ so what? I really don't get what difference that makes. We support football clubs, not businesses.

All supporting a club should be about to anyone is enjoying watching your team playing football. And the financial side of a football club is utterly irrelevant to that which is why I just don't get why anyone would care whether they were financially bankrolled or not, spend their money or not, get sugar daddied or not or whether their rivals do any of those activities etc. I couldn't give two stuffs whether City get bankrolled or not and I'm pretty sure their fans don't care either or worry about whether they have the respect from random fans they've never met or give two hoots about.

 

Where have I suggested you do?

That part you quoted was in response to cini saying he was skeptical of me saying I'd hate to become what City have.

 

didnt mean you specifically.

I just find it hilarious that people claim I want respect from other fans for Chelsea's achievements
Especially forum folk
I argue my point, but I aint going to change the minds of people like Piskie. So it is fruitless.
He needs that caveat of Chelsea's money, for some reason.

 

I'm sure they don't give a **** and nor do I expect them too.

I know we support clubs rather than businesses, though we're treated more like customers than supporters now.

But you seem to be arguing that they are a very well run club when the reality is they haven't needed to be as they've just thrown money at it.

You say what's wrong with it I say clubs spending money they don't have is both potentially dangerous and also making a mockery of so called competitive sport.

To me it's not just about City, but a wider issue where money is ruining the game at the highest level to a ridiculous degree and City symbolise that more than anyone.

 

We’re going around in circles. I’ve already said, and agreed, that the vast majority of fans couldn’t give a toss how their club gains success. And, if being well run doesn’t bring success then the average fan won’t see any benefit. The only benefit we will have is a new stadium that will accommodate more fans.

But as I posted earlier also, these are businesses, whether fans like it or not. The days of the wealthy philanthropic owners are long gone. These guys are here to make money!

 

if City, PSG, are left completely unchecked by the so called authorities, they’ll buy everything and anything. They’ll destroy any effective competition as none of them will be able to compete financially.

Look at the money PSG have spent this last summer! Who’s gonna compete with that!?? Some €400mill on two players alone!...

 

Thank you Roman

 

Chelsea's case is very different though, especially at the time. You literally went from being bang average to having more money than sense. I think fans of other teams have every right to be pissed off with how Chelsea operate, even your loan and youth policies are a disgrace.

Man City followed suit but can't be as frowned upon as Chelsea as they didn't show the way - Roman did.

What Chelsea have to realise is their behaviour directly effected how much of a financial cesspit football now is.

Yes Liverpool and Utd spent a lot of money back in the day in comparison to other teams, but that was over a period of time and was mainly earned. Chelsea didn't earn anything and just turned the game into a monopoly, in their favour.

Yes other teams now do the same and it's just how things are and there's not a lot fans can do about it.
Times have changed, the game has changed, but Chelsea will always be stained with beginning the financial meltdown in England.