Wtf?

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Relayer69 said:
To be fair, the financial situation in football has changed beyond all recognition in the past 15 years and it is unfair to compare periods of relative success. I am guessing that there are a few clubs who would regard the last decade or two as a serious barren patch. Other than Utd, Chelsea and Citeh of course.....
Click to expand...

The financial situation has changed, and we've been left behind by two clubs, Chelsea and City, that used to be in our shadows. Rumours persist to this day that RA or another billionaire benefactor have wanted to take us over, ENIC have stayed, whether the rumours are true or not, and haven't competed with the big boys. Incidentally you need to add Arsenal to that 15 year list, I think they've finished above us every one of those 15 years and won more trophies too, including the title and reaching a CL final.

Under ENIC we have dropped to being the 3rd most successful London, it's not a nice feeling.
 
I can't understand this weak constant argument that we will be on the brink of financial meltdown if we paid the odd going rate for a player.
Maybe I am very silly but a well run clubs in my simple eyes keeps it's best players , not having them all wanting to jump ship after a few years.
 
Sidney Fiddler said:
I can't understand this weak constant argument that we will be on the brink of financial meltdown if we paid the odd going rate for a player.
Maybe I am very silly but a well run clubs in my simple eyes keeps it's best players , not having them all wanting to jump ship after a few years.
Click to expand...

But it's a vicious circle - if we are in the CL then we can sign who we like, for the 'going rate' but if we are not then most of the better players are out of our reach. This is why it was such a disaster to miss out last season and why Harry had to go. Even after the mid=season blip, all we needed to do was to beat Villa and we messed it up.
 
Strange isn't it Sidney, you and I both remember when we were one of the big spenders in England, not just paying the going rate but sometimes setting the 'going rate'.
 
PowerSpurs said:
But it's a vicious circle - if we are in the CL then we can sign who we like, for the 'going rate' but if we are not then most of the better players are out of our reach. This is why it was such a disaster to miss out last season and why Harry had to go. Even after the mid=season blip, all we needed to do was to beat Villa and we messed it up.
Click to expand...

HI PS, but when we were in the CL we hardly spent big did we? We got a great deal in VDV, but we needed another striker in then, and failed to get one.

We're still searching for someone as good as Berbs, it's been too long that wait.

Also was it Harry or Danny's fault that we got Nelsen in as CB cover, and yet played an unfit King. Did Harry want Nelsen or did Levy just buy cheap?

Chelsea got in Cahill, they created history. We just ended up as also rans, despite the great football we played for much of the season.
 
Sidney Fiddler said:
I can't understand this weak constant argument that we will be on the brink of financial meltdown if we paid the odd going rate for a player.
Maybe I am very silly but a well run clubs in my simple eyes keeps it's best players , not having them all wanting to jump ship after a few years.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone on here has suggested that buying the odd going rate player would have such dire consequences. But that level of purchasing will not enable our club to significantly disrupt the likes of Citeh and Chelsea who have spent 100's of millions of 'disposable cash' on achieving their aims.

It does have to be said that there are clubs who have overspent and paid or are paying the price. Personally, I wouldn't want to end up like either Leeds or Portsmouth. Finding that happy medium is the challenge......
 
PowerSpurs said:
But it's a vicious circle - if we are in the CL then we can sign who we like, for the 'going rate' but if we are not then most of the better players are out of our reach. This is why it was such a disaster to miss out last season and why Harry had to go. Even after the mid=season blip, all we needed to do was to beat Villa and we messed it up.
Click to expand...

As Ghoddle10 said, when in the champs league we spent peanuts. Amazing G10 our full from grace. It's seems that many men of age are more militant about
the present situation than our younger comrades.
Many players would come to us, champs league or not but we dont pay the going rate.
 
I make you right Sidney. If you started supporting Spurs in the mid to late 90s, you probably have a higher view of ENIC than those of us who remember when we were the glamour club of London.
 
There really was no excuse for the lack of spending when we qualified for the champions league as I keep hearing about this "next level" yet we qualified for the champions league and that was our chance to sign champion league quality players to help us stay there.
 
maybe when we all used to discuss that time when our club will not be able to spend due to us needing money for a new stadium..maybe that time is now...and we are not dealing with it very well as fans it seems.
 
Let's not forget that since the "money no object" clubs arrived, everyone else's position (i.e. everyone playing by the previous rules) is false. It is difficult to argue that pre £££ Citeh and Chelski would be above us, so our relative performance in recent seasons has actually been better than it appears.

RCL - good article.

Yet there are still many who argue that we should in effect be committing financial suicide for the chance to compete with the two previously mentioned money pots. Sadly it is virtually impossible for a club to generate the sort of spending they have put in from football related sources. Remember that they spend more even than CL revenue could add! Where do you suggest the difference comes from? Clearly the FFP rules are pointless given their continued spending (note Chelski's spending this summer again) and until these clubs can be brought back to anything like financial reality nobody without an additional "revenue source" can compete. I hate this situation too, but the answer is not to kill the future of our club for what would be a relatively short term gain.
 
deedub93 said:
Too true, Jimmy Greaves the first £1,000/pw footballer.
Click to expand...

Hi Deedub, I'm not sure about that.

What I am sure about is that Greaves was one of the hottest properties in world football and WE, THE THEN MIGHTY SPURS, bought him. It's like us signing someone like Rooney now, although Greaves was better BTW, the idea is now preposterous, that's how far we've fallen.
 
HI Vimhawk, why is that two clubs of lesser stature historically than us have been able to get in owners who will spend big money, but we haven't.

The situation is as it is, we're not competing at the highest level, and ENIC need to either do so or stand aside so we get owners who can.

There is no 'false position', we've been outgunned and outmanoeuvred.
 
We're not being outgunned or outmanoeuvred, we're being massively outspent.
Unless every team in the country has a right to moan if they're not vastly overspending, then I don't see how we have a right to.

I'm frustrated at the current lack of balance in our side, but unless we risk doing a Leeds or Pompey, then we can't compete financially with some of the clubs around us.
The club are clearly attempting to address this, by improving our youth system, training facilities and stadium, but there's no quick fix, bar a massive cash injection and unsustainable wages.
 
I think we have to accept there is no antidote to huge amounts of money other than even huger amounts of money. Unfortunately this is not practical. That is what Chelski and Citeh have done to football, and has got us fighting among ourselves over just how much financial risk we should indulge in, in order to catch up. We should instead be venting our anger at the football authorities who continue to permit this situation. Just look at the Chelski spending this summer, anyone going to argue that this has any relationship to increased revenue generated? You're talking the difference between finding the funds to buy an absolutely vital player for the first team, and collecting players as if they were trading cards, because that's more or less the game these super rich owners are playing. As was said earlier, it's about finding a happy medium, but we must also be honest and say that's the happy medium that will allow us to compete for a couple of CL places, *not* for the league. Investing in training facilities and youth is good, but sadly no amount of long term investment will be able to overcome a massive injection of cash from an unlimited pool.
 
youth and development are the only way to compete as PNP says.
Doesn't help right now though, again as PNP says.

Just read what PNP said
 
Hi PNP, for me being outspent is being outgunned, and the fact that we can't get in the players we need means we are being outmanoeuvred. Money talks, we don't have enough of it to hay a say against the big boys.

I stand by what I said.

The situation is as it is. We can vent against City and Chelsea all we like, it means **** all. They're the ones who were grinning in May, and at least one of them will be grinning come trophy time this season as well. (IMHO)

Yes it would be lovely if they didn't have the cash, but they do. And never forget lots of Spurs fans said/say they didn't want Chelsea's money, so they can't have it both ways. I've said for nearly ten years now I'd love us to have had RA in, and I think I've been proved right.

Let's also remember if we had a truly level playing field, Norwich, Swansea, WBA, whoever, would have as much money as we do, and I wouldn't put it past some of them to do better with the equal cash than us.
 
Santini was hardly a shambles. We stopped free scoring, bookies paying up in Sept league winning Chelsea and he was our manager for like, what, 3 games? <laugh>

As for the dead wood, this is why we are not just buying people for the sake of it. It's not because they cost x amount per week it's because they are a reminder of less is more ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back