Exactly, every club going has had external money pumped in (even Spurs)
Slate the whole game or don’t. Don’t pick and choose
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- 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
-
Exactly, every club going has had external money pumped in (even Spurs)
Slate the whole game or don’t. Don’t pick and choose
Have they? Even if that's true, I think that scale matters.
It's not comparable to the situation in Germany with Hoffenheim and Leipzig, admittedly.
Their 50+1 rule seems to create it's own issues, though.
The scale is different yes, so where’s the cut off for money being acceptable?
By owners of THFC ??
I am unaware of Scholar / Sugar / ENIC putting any of their own
money into the club beyond that needed to take ownership.
As always, I am ready to be educated on the reality.
When the finances massively distort the club's position, in my opinion.
Preventing them from going under? Fine. Buying up trophies left, right and centre? Not so much.
But what if they went under from spending beyond their means? Then they deserve to be saved?
I don't think anyone wants to see clubs going under because of some pillock overspending.
There aren't many sides that are too far from that at the moment, unfortunately.
A few bad years and chasing losses will put you against the wall.
No I don’t want to see any club go under, but just wondering why some excessive spending is seen as good and others is bad
It's nice of Wayne Rooney to try to take some of the heat off his old teammate, Giggs.
Not sure it'll work. His missus' reaction might do it, though...
Not sure it'll work. His missus' reaction might do it, though...
You are wondering about the nature of morals
(the subjective reasoning that people use to deem
why some behaviours are "good" and others are "bad" ) .
You are wondering about the nature of morals
(the subjective reasoning that people use to deem
why some behaviours are "good" and others are "bad" ) .
Yeah maybe. I just don’t get why some spending is seen as good and others is bad, even when it’s for the same thing (usually players or wages), it seems to vary depending on who’s spending the money.
The simple way to look at it is if there's a sudden leap in the cash they're spending
That's why I brought up Fulham under Fayed, because at the time no team in the third tier were paying £1m for a player and yet that's exactly what they did (presumably with Championship-level wages to go with it) which came directly after Al-Fayed's takeover, as they were barely out of the fourth tier when suddenly he was chucking money at them to get through the lower leagues as quickly as possible. Same can be said for The Sheikh Mansour Team considering there's a much shorter period of time between them playing in the third tier and buying a spot in the CL final (1998-9 to 2020-21) than there was between their being in the third tier and their previous honours (1975-6 to 1998-9)
In the case of Chelsea, they were spending money before Uncle Roman took over but at a cost, as they were days away from making Leeds look like they just dropped a 50p coin on the pavement with the sort of drastic cutbacks (telling players not to swap kits, plastic cutlery in the canteen) that is usually seen at League Two clubs when the money runs out, and that does go a long way to make their subsequent trophy purchases feel galling because they had somebody step in and not only let them carry on as before but also removed any need to worry about being in the same situation again, yet clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth not only plummeted out of the Premier League but kept going
On the other hand, The Sheikh Mansour Team absolutely do deserve to hear their bubble popping with the volume of the Fat Man being dropped on Nagasaki given the amount of scams that Football Leaks has revealed about them in the last few years and how they're daring UEFA to sanction them as they've outright threatened to pay for a team of the highest-paid lawyers there are to sue UEFA for the next twenty years if they dare look into them, so they can get ****ed
FFP is a fairly transparent effort to protect the current larger clubs by stopping very rich owners from bankrolling a challenger. It was bought in too late to stop Man City and Chelsea from doing exactly that.
Whether it's a sensible distinction is an interesting debate but there is some logic in wanting football success to come firstly from on the field performance which then leads to more revenue and sponsorship rather than just being driven by the owner who is most willing to spend.
Certainly ENIC's whole plan seems to be to turn us into one of the clubs with the highest revenue without breaching FFP.
If sport is to have any credibility it needs to be based on winning in as fair a manner as possible. Man United have a massive world wide following which comes from their performances over the years. Following the awful Munich air disaster in 1958 the following of United increased throughout the world but this following was ultimately based on their performances on the field of play. In other words United's success and power has been won on the field of play which surely is where it should be.
The difference between that and Chelsea and City is stark. Both of these clubs enjoyed a measure of success before their benefactors arrived, but check it out, nothing like the levels which their wealth has raised them to now. This has nothing to do with their performances on the field of play or their support from fans it is purely based on the enormous wealth of their owners. Their success now cheapens the success achieved by other clubs on the field of play. In effect they have just bought their trophies and in the process they damage the fabric of football.
This is the point I have often made.
Utd’s popularity came out of adversity. Utd were other supporters’ second club after Munich. And it was easy to like a club that was rebuilt so quickly, winning titles and becoming the first English club to succeed in Europe. The great story was how Busby achieved in 1968 what he might have achieved in 1958 had it not been for Munich - and did it with stars like Best, Law and Charlton, which put the club on a par with The Beatles in terms of popular culture. Never looked back even when not successful on the pitch for so long; then SAF made the club glamorous again just in time playing attacking football and winning in style, often with those late goals!
Once a brand is created, it’s a ticket for success. Utd have managed to achieve a brand status. It doesn’t matter what the product is when you have a desirable name. After all, Coke is a sticky, fizzy drink that doesn’t taste of much; McDonalds serve poor quality burgers on a squashy bun. Sometimes it’s who you are, not what you do. However, failure on the pitch will eventually diminish the appeal of that brand, the more distant past glories become.
Terrible effort by LDL (he didn't Holte-ify it) .
The 1963 European Cup Winners' Cup Final was the final football match of the 1962–63 European Cup Winners' Cup and was the third European Cup Winners' Cup final. It was contested between Tottenham Hotspur of England and the defending champions, Atlético Madrid of Spain, and was held at Feijenoord Stadion in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Tottenham won the match 5–1 thanks to goals by Jimmy Greaves (2), John White and Terry Dyson (2). Tottenham's victory made them the first British team to win a major European trophy.