The FT has run an article claiming that, if we were taken over, it would be the final nail in the coffin of the glory game As opposed to, say, letting Rupert Murdoch create the Premier League, or Uncle Roman's purchase of Chelsea, or one club being bought by a Thai war criminal and the state of Abu Dhabi in the space of a few years...
Have you considered the idea that they may be pointing you out as the last bastion of how the game used to/should be? Every post so negative
Have you considered the idea that, by that logic, there's numerous clubs such as Ajax or Dortmund who would surely be considered bastions of how the game used to/should be? Maybe try understanding a comment before you reply to it, eh?
Diego to English ... translating ... done : Once again I have been exposed as a gobsh*te on here, and I am exiting before I embarrass myself even more.
The FT has run an article claiming that, if we were taken over, it would be the final nail in the coffin of the glory game HIBIC has already pointed out that there are clubs in other leagues as in 5 major leagues in Europe so i wonder why they chose to use Spurs as an example? Maybe because they were talking about the English league and Spurs are one of the "big six" in that league that have not yet been sullied by money? I am only trying to point out that not everything in the press is a negative angle on your club but if you wish to see it that way i can't help you.
Deigo's actually right. I can't find a copy of it, but I read it yesterday. It's written by a Spurs fan who doesn't want to see the club sold off to rich overseas owners.
And if it was aimed at the English game, the game which peddled its ass to Rupert Murdoch thirty years ago has been turning a blind eye to state-owned clubs since 2008, why is the writer pretending that Brighton or Brentford don't exist? Ever occur to you that I was setting you up to blunder down that particular cul-de-sac...?
Because Brentford and Brighton don’t play champions league football and have a financial ceiling due to their club infrastructure that means their teams will likely get picked apart before they ever will? As we’ve said many times in recent years on this forum, Spurs are in a somewhat unique situation.
Which is also the point (one of many) the reporter misses: his mates in the press try to pick our squad apart on a regular basis, after all this season there's a steady drip of "Kane to Man Utd" stories, while last season began under the cloud of Gary Neville bumping into H on a golf course to try and engineer a move to the Mansourites The fact they were successful when it came to Kyle Walker is something else he conveniently misses
I might be wrong and by all means tell me if I am but instinct would suggest that the ex editor of the FT likely has somewhat of a different journalistic back catalogue than the hacks from the Sun and Mail. With that said I haven’t read this article yet. So going off what I’m reading on this thread.
I've found a copy: Spoiler: Quite long, so I'll hide it. "As a diehard Tottenham Hotspur fan, I’m inured to disappointment. The team I’ve supported for 60 years has seen managers come and go like recent UK prime ministers. Most of the players are not a patch on Jimmy Greaves, Martin Peters and Ossie Ardiles, who set White Hart Lane alight in the 1960s and 70s. As for silverware, nada — apart from the odd triumph in cup competitions. However, the news this week that Spurs could be flogged off to a US billionaire with a stake in the Phoenix Suns basketball team marked a new low. Jahm Najafi, the Iranian-American private equity mogul from Arizona, is Harvard-educated, knows his classical music and is vice-chair of McLaren Racing, a Formula 1 team. But what does he know about football? Call me a little Englander, but Spurs are the last of the top clubs in the money-mad Premier League to be English-owned. What Hunter Davies, in his account of a season spent with Tottenham in the early 70s, called the “glory game” has become a playpen for American plutocrats (Chelsea, Liverpool) and Gulf petrostates (Manchester City and Newcastle), with the Qataris knocking on the door at Manchester United, whose present owners are based in Florida. This is not the “Wimbledon effect”, where a powerful brand draws the world’s top talent to, say, the City of London. It’s the Wild West. In the January transfer window alone, the top clubs splurged £815mn on new players, double the previous record. Chelsea spent more than all the top tier clubs in Italy, Spain, Germany and France combined. Jealous European rivals have accused the Premier League of “doping” the transfer markets. When it comes to “light touch” regulation, the Premier League is, well, in a league of its own. Only this month, after a four-year investigation, it quietly accused star-studded Manchester City of 100 breaches of financial regulations. The club denies the charges. One man, Daniel Levy, the hard-nosed Spurs chair, has consistently warned that the amount of money spent on players is unsustainable. Levy has ruled the roost at Spurs since 2001, the longest executive stint in the Premier League. Recommended John Burn-Murdoch Manchester City’s outsized domination is hurting English football Sir Alex Ferguson, the most successful football manager in history during his 26 seasons at Manchester United, once complained that negotiating with Levy was more painful than his hip replacement. When I interviewed Fergie at the Barbican in 2013 in front of 500 United fans, I identified myself as a Tottenham supporter going back to 1961. “No problem,” he retorted, “that was the last time Spurs won the League, right?” Levy has been a brilliant businessman, though less successful on the pitch. He masterminded a glittering new stadium which houses 62,850 fans and doubles up as a boxing venue and concert arena. Spurs also sponsors the London Academy of Excellence at Tottenham, an academically selective 16-19 free school. But the club’s last trophy was the League Cup in 2008. Essex-born Levy is a Cambridge graduate who understands how education can level up and cares about the club’s roots and commercial development in one of the most deprived areas of London. He is tight with the club’s owner Joe Lewis, the 86-year-old East End billionaire who lives on Aviva III, a 223ft super yacht in the Bahamas. A tax exile, Lewis left school at 15 to work at his family’s café, developed a string of successful restaurants and made a fortune betting against the pound on Black Wednesday when sterling crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. Spurs fans are certainly agitating for change, siding with the coach, serial winner and ex-Chelsea manager Antonio Conte, a grumpy Italian who spends every other post-match press conference musing aloud about Tottenham’s ambition as a super-club. This must drive Levy half-crazy because he has paid out £500mn on players since the new stadium opened. The trouble is that too many have failed to live up to their inflated price tags. Only Harry Kane, the very local boy from Walthamstow who this month eclipsed Greaves as the club’s all-time record scorer with 267 goals, has truly excelled this season. The fans are looking enviously at their North London rivals Arsenal, restored to their fluent best under Spanish manager Mikel Arteta. Maybe Conte’s system is too rigid, relying too much on the counter? Maybe he should leave when his contract runs out at the end of the season? That’s above my pay grade. But here’s my five cents’ worth: Levy (and Lewis) should stick with Tottenham and not sell off yet another great English brand to the highest bidder. Keep it real. Keep it local.”
Weirdly, the article's vanished behind a paywall, when last night it wasn't (which at the very least gives Diego an excuse for not reading it, merely mouthing off like an eejit...) At best the article can be summed up by the following phrase: Spurs can't do anything right And that's the issue: we try to do things the old school way the press try to pick our team apart and definitely not insecure fans of rival clubs demonstrate that they have as many jokes as the average transphobe, but if we look to get investment we're selling the game out...as if that didn't happen thirty years ago when the Premier League was founded (and let's not forget that 9.9% of Man Utd which was owned by an R. Murdoch Esq for several years, because nothing quite says "Soul of the game" like the bloke who holds the broadcasting rights to the league having a stake in a team) He's also guilty of the exact same mistake that World of Hotspur dickhead did in their overly long and utterly pointless rant that kept getting plastered on here a few weeks ago, bringing up Bacon face saying that negotiating with Levy was more painful than his hip replacement but neglecting to mention the context of that comment, namely Levy telling somebody who was publicly tapping-up our players to pay up or **** off - which is the exact same stance he took last summer when the current incumbent of the title Manchester's Most Obnoxious Manager tried similar bullshit Also, that comment about fans siding with Conte bears as much fruit as a piece of driftwood at the bottom of a volcano
No, he isn't. I instantly dimensioned his "last bastion" comment by : 1. nationality of a club owner 2. the means by which the owners acquired their wealth/finances in order to be able to buy the club 3. the manner in which the club is run ( "business of its own account" , state-sponsored etc) 4. subsequent on=pitch improvement (entertaining play, trophies won etc) So dimensioning by #1, does the owners being UK denizens matter more than - #2 (the owner has/had Abramovich-esque business dealings etc) - #3 (the club is a financial "house of cards" , the owners use the club as their personal piggy bank - immense profit extractions as dividends etc) Similarly for dimensioning by #2 / #3 / #4. Tis pure coincidence, and not by design, that Spurs happen to : - be owned by UK denizens, - whose prior wealth was acquired by (comparatively) far more virtuous means than nearly all other club owners (though as I have long stated - Joe Lewis and "Black wednesday" sits uneasy with me) = have forced the club to operate as a "business of its own account" There is nothing to stop other potential owners, UK denizens or not, with kindred backgrounds/wealth, from coming forward and doing exactly the same as ENIC have.
