This one is solely to give them lot an extra day
to recover after a CL group stage game.
Duly noted in the "season compass" article,
and I hope Nemesis has similarly noted said games.
Club watch
- Thread starter The RDBD
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
This one is solely to give them lot an extra day
to recover after a CL group stage game.
Duly noted in the "season compass" article,
and I hope Nemesis has similarly noted said games.
THST looking to coordinate a protest for the first home game of the season, think this is the first time they’ve ever done as such, fully back it too, about time this club realised how much they’re alienating their fanbase.https://twitter.com/thstofficial/status/1686286971671322624?s=46
You must log in or register to see media
I thought almost all fans criticise ENIC for not spending enough. But at the same time they oppose them raising more revenue? If fans won't put in £25 more a season why should an investor put in £100m or £1b?
I do know the PL in general and Spurs in particular are pricing lower paid fans out of the game but I don’t see a football solution to that. In Germany a lot less is charged for admission and more is raised through sponsorship. But the sponsors are not doing it out of kindness...they get the money back by increased income from fans.
I do know the PL in general and Spurs in particular are pricing lower paid fans out of the game but I don’t see a football solution to that. In Germany a lot less is charged for admission and more is raised through sponsorship. But the sponsors are not doing it out of kindness...they get the money back by increased income from fans.
I think the Trust’s position is very reasonable here and it’s a total false equivalence to put what a supporter pays in the same decision making bracket as an investor in or sponsor of the club making a decision to spend money on Spurs. This decision does not raise a statistically significant amount of money for the club and would be cancelled out if every fan affected, let along season ticket holder too, simply refused to spend on F&B concessions in the stadium every game.
It’s tone deaf from the club at a time they need supporters on-side more than ever and given the relatively small amount of money it will raise for the club in aggregate, it’s a baffling decision.
The only way any investor will get a return is by fans paying more, one way or another.
And this small amount of money argument is getting used all over the place. If to facilitate transfers we spend £2.5m extra on every player we sign, reduce the fee by £2.5m on every player we sell and pay each player £2.5m extra wages to attract the best then people will post that each of those is eminently affordable for one of the richest clubs in the world but it would still cost £60m a year in total and the paying fans are not happy with coughing up even 5% of it.
And I know many fans can't afford any increase, but a lot can and there should be a better way of spreading the burden.
An investor would surely be more likely to consider the revenue of the club in its entirety, of which non- season ticket ticketing revenue is an increasingly small amount? Surely an investor would be more interested in maximising sponsorship revenue, which is more likely with a positive, engaged fanbase who are not disillusioned with the ethos of the club and who don’t regard the club poorly because of decisions such as the one that has been taken?
2.5m is not going to move the needle on a transfer fee. 2.5m annually is a weekly wage for a player of about 48k which could be significant but overall it’s a small sum in the grand scheme of things. And we can only spend the money once, after all.
I just think it’s a weird move from the club that is totally tone deaf. We’re supposed to be in the business of cutting several players from the squad, including Lloris, who is one of the highest earners. In a season of transition it seems an odd and financially unnecessary move to further alienate the fanbase when patience is required. All this has done is make the situation more toxic.
It is definitely a wrong call but a protest against it inside the ground just makes it worse all round.
I think they’re protesting outside the ground tbf. I’d much rather see that, than raucous support inside the ground, than a protest inside.
Have they named the new captain yet or are they waiting for the Kane situation to be put to bed as I'm sure the armband would be used in a deal put to him
I expect they’ll make it official when they confirm squad numbers. But if Kane is here it’ll be likely to be him. VC candidates you’d think would include Son, Davies and Dier (sorry) but also Bissouma who seems to be an Ange favourite and suddenly a big personality in the group.
Technically we haven't created the opening yet, what with Hugo still being here
You must log in or register to see media
The interesting part is where Ange talks about leadership being something as seemingly small as a moment that can rouse the team or the fans
At the very least that's why Cuti being vice captain makes a lot of sense, because Cuti is the sort of player who can rouse a team and the crowd by putting a reducer on somebody at a critical moment, and if he wins the ball and sets us going that is both going to get the blood up with our crowd - and potentially demoralise the opponents who were rolling around expecting a free kick
...wait, am I going Total War instead of Football Manager again?
Don’t give a ****. I’ll just fight anyone for him.
I’d two foot any of my cousins if he asked me to. Studs up and everything.
