Does it not feel pretty hollow celebrating finishing above us after spending vastly more every season for at least a decade? I bet you'd still celebrate beating us too so it wouldn't be dead regardless of whether you want to ignore it when you're the ones finding it tough.
It's not even specifically tottenham, I don't want to see any more clubs go down the Chelsea/city route and not just because it will knock us out of the top 4. Unfortunately it's the only way clubs will ever be able to compete with them..
I get that you wouldn't like it, I don't want it to happen to us either but the rivalry wouldn't disappear or even diminish, in my opinion.
Great point YV. For all their bleating about money, Arsenal have the 4th biggest budget and that's 90% the reason they always seem to finish in the top 4.
90%? It's nearer 100%. The final league table pretty much reads as a list of the richest clubs. Our league is more competitive than most, but doing appallingly is finishing 2 places below your position in ther wealth table. Punching above your weight is 2 places above.
It was a sarcastic post taking the piss out of two influential nations for the two (one) religion(s) who go to extremes.
As I said earlier-I would hate it BUT Most of the teams now have sugar daddies-some have more than others. Spurs are owned by Mr Lewis. Arsenal by a South African and Russian (correct me if I am wrong), Newcastle have Ashley sports Direct, QPR have Mr Fernandez of Fly Asia, Hull have a tiger man, Cardiff have a red supporter, Man Utd, Liverpool and Villa are all subsidiaries of American sport teams and the list goes on. If ENIC were to spend like Man Utd just have and are supposedly going to in January, Would we complain? Does it really matter who the owner is or how much they are willing to spend?
There are two different things I wouldn't like, for different reasons. The first is an owner who makes the clubs a rich person's toy, rather than a business (though FFP makes that harder, where there's a suitcase full of untraceable bills, there's a way). The second is an owner who IMO has made his or her money in a more unsavory way than most: so, petrokingdoms, petrooligarchs, etc. I can't imagine supporting another club. But I think I would grow steadily less enthusiastic if we had an owner who fit either or both of the above bills. Parts of what I find so compelling about Spurs are that they're always a long shot to succeed, and that, all things considered, they're a proper club, run the right way, with players who seem like a remarkably decent bunch for a collection of rich young athletes.
