Selling our souls?

yiddo59

Last week there was a lot of bleating on football forums about how City had "bought" the league and how much more satisfying it would be to win the league without having to spend millons. It's as if some feel, not the vast majority of City fans obviously , that the win is somehow tainted by the huge money. That City have sold their soul somehow.

How do you feel about this view? You happy with Spurs being there or thereabouts? Or would you welcome a mega money takeover that would almost inevitably lead to success. Would the money taint the success for you?

Personally I'd welcome anyone who'd spend the money so that we'd win the premier league CL etc.

KingdomYid

yiddo59 wrote: »

Last week there was a lot of bleating on football forums about how City had "bought" the league and how much more satisfying it would be to win the league without having to spend millons. It's as if some feel, not the vast majority of City fans obviously , that the win is somehow tainted by the huge money. That City have sold their soul somehow.

How do you feel about this view? You happy with Spurs being there or thereabouts? Or would you welcome a mega money takeover that would almost inevitably lead to success. Would the money taint the success for you?

Personally I'd welcome anyone who'd spend the money so that we'd win the premier league CL etc.

This is a real tricky one. Personally I was hoping that City would never win it and was hoping Chelski would never buy the CL, but both have happened. The refreshing thing is that Montpellier have just won the french league holding off mega rich PGS so that is nice to see. At the moment I am totally against "buying" success but don't know how i would feel if it actually happened and Spurs were taken over.

bradolf pittler

Tough call,Yes Man City and Chelsea before them have "bought" success and i'll admit to being a bit jealous but both those clubs and a few more besides like blackburn for instance are dependant on the moods of fickle billionaire's who hire and fire players and managers like it was going out of fashion,it's a rollercoaster ride for fans but as a spurs fan i feel im on a continuous rollercoaster anyway so its not really the way i want us to go.
Ours is a well run club,we have a fraction of the debt of other clubs,we always seemed to have money to spend on players if we needed them,huge fan base,every home game is a sell out,thousands on a season ticket waiting list......basically all we need to compete with the mega rich is the new stadium and the revenue that brings from ticket sales,naming rights,hospitaity,merchandise sales,etc.the 36000 at WHL is way to small a ground to house a club the size of tottenham,so the sooner the gates of the new stadium open the better.

Hatch99

yiddo59 wrote: »

Last week there was a lot of bleating on football forums about how City had "bought" the league and how much more satisfying it would be to win the league without having to spend millons. It's as if some feel, not the vast majority of City fans obviously , that the win is somehow tainted by the huge money. That City have sold their soul somehow.

How do you feel about this view? You happy with Spurs being there or thereabouts? Or would you welcome a mega money takeover that would almost inevitably lead to success. Would the money taint the success for you?

Personally I'd welcome anyone who'd spend the money so that we'd win the premier league CL etc.

I'd rather we didn't go that route, but if it did happen, I don't think many of us would argue in fairness.

mickman

massive money alone is not enough to buy the league

you also need a manager to gel it all together and a bunch of players with the right attitude.

just because you get bought out, doesnt guarantee anything - it just makes it easier

MrKingsley

'Buying' success has been around for decades at this stage. The richest clubs will always want the top players and be willing to pay the top prices to get them. Of course theres different ways of doing it.

- United have time and time again out spent everyone in the transfer market but because its been over 15/20 years it seems people give them a pass on it.

- City and chelsea have spend roughly the same amount of money as them but done it in a 4/5 year blitz so it appears that theyve bought theyre success

- Real and Barca and historically always looked to get the best players in the world and spent massive amounts of money doing so

However I hold absolutely no grugde towards city or Chelsea. The fact is that the traditionally bigger clubs have over the past 15 years inflated the prices in the transfer market so in order to get competitive quickly they had to equal their opponents spending power but over a shorter period of time.

To be honest if spurs had spent their money more wisely over the 07-10 period (Bentley, Bent, Crouch, Pav, Giovani, hutton, Woodgate for example) we could have been accused of doing the same thing.

Ormus

If some Arab took over and bought us a new stadium and training ground and spent millions developing our youth development, I would be thrilled.

I would hate if someone took over and started giving the likes of Tevez and Balotelli ridiculous wages. I think the club would lose it's identity.

I started supporting Spurs because I like them, not because I thought they were the best or the richest.

2nd Row Donkey

Ormus wrote: »

If some Arab took over and bought us a new stadium and training ground and spent millions developing our youth development, I would be thrilled.

I would hate if someone took over and started giving the likes of Tevez and Balotelli ridiculous wages. I think the club would lose it's identity.

I started supporting Spurs because I like them, not because I thought they were the best or the richest.

Me too, I'd like to see us to be in a better position to offer competitive wages (not crazy citeh wages but chelsea/liverpool/utd type wages)

Having said that, I wouldnt want to see us buy a whole new squad and win the title in year 1 or 2. I'd love to see us win it with Dawson, Kaboul, BAE etc and of course 2-3 additions, like 2 x 25+ goals a season strikers!

Hatch99

Ormus wrote: »

If some Arab took over and bought us a new stadium and training ground and spent millions developing our youth development, I would be thrilled.

I would hate if someone took over and started giving the likes of Tevez and Balotelli ridiculous wages. I think the club would lose it's identity.

I started supporting Spurs because I like them, not because I thought they were the best or the richest.

In fairness, if one of them took over, thay aint just gonna invest in the stadium and training ground etc.. they are going to want top top players on the pitch, so it's a case of all or nothing I would think.

Ormus

Hatch99 wrote: »

In fairness, if one of them took over, thay aint just gonna invest in the stadium and training ground etc.. they are going to want top top players on the pitch, so it's a case of all or nothing I would think.

I guess I would take nothing then. It just wouldn't be Spurs anymore.

ziedth

The way I see it. These highly invested clubs won't last forever, it might take a decade or Even twoa0 but the money train will leave Chelsea and City someday then you will see a shiit storm.

I would not want short term success in exchange for a long term fiasco.

I didn't want City or Chelsea winning it but I wouldn't begrudge them their day in the sun either. We'll hopefully have our day down the line but I wouldn't want to risk achieving it that way

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

golfball37

Spurs coming in for flak today for advertising an intern job for 12 months without pay.

No danger of selling our souls just yet..


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4336973/Job-of-a-lifetime-at-Tottenham-Hotspur-on-zero-pay.html

Equium

MrKingsley wrote: »

'Buying' success has been around for decades at this stage. The richest clubs will always want the top players and be willing to pay the top prices to get them. Of course theres different ways of doing it.

- United have time and time again out spent everyone in the transfer market but because its been over 15/20 years it seems people give them a pass on it.

- City and chelsea have spend roughly the same amount of money as them but done it in a 4/5 year blitz so it appears that theyve bought theyre success

- Real and Barca and historically always looked to get the best players in the world and spent massive amounts of money doing so

However I hold absolutely no grugde towards city or Chelsea. The fact is that the traditionally bigger clubs have over the past 15 years inflated the prices in the transfer market so in order to get competitive quickly they had to equal their opponents spending power but over a shorter period of time.

To be honest if spurs had spent their money more wisely over the 07-10 period (Bentley, Bent, Crouch, Pav, Giovani, hutton, Woodgate for example) we could have been accused of doing the same thing.

Actually, there is a huge difference between what United do and how City and Chelsea have behaved. The former have a sustainable business model and fund their massive outlays on players through the profit that they make every year (Ok, the Glazer situation has complicated things, but they are still a well-run club). I have absolutley no problem with a club doing that, as you reap the rewards from running a healthy business.

City and Chelsea, however, are completely different: They haven't earned the money that they spend, and indeed lose every year. It's tantamount to financial doping as neither club have a realistic chance of ever breaking even. Hell, City spent 106% of their turnover in 2010 on wages alone! Personally I wouldn't like if Spurs went down this route. My firm belief is that a club's success should be because of what they themselves have earned through careful management or implementing a long-term plan, etc. Otherwise the club loses a lot of its soul, for lack of a better word. I couldn't really value Spurs' trophy wins if they were taken over by an oligarch since, if the owner had of taken a liking to another team's kit, it could have been Everton or Wigan or whoever else's name on the cup instead.

Besides, with FFP coming in, Levy's financial prudency will hopefully be vindicated. I'd much rather that we live within our means than potentially end up as another Leeds United in our quest for glory.

MrKingsley

Equium wrote: »

Actually, there is a huge difference between what United do and how City and Chelsea have behaved. The former have a sustainable business model and fund their massive outlays on players through the profit that they make every year (Ok, the Glazer situation has complicated things, but they are still a well-run club). I have absolutley no problem with a club doing that, as you reap the rewards from running a healthy business.

City and Chelsea, however, are completely different: They haven't earned the money that they spend, and indeed lose every year. It's tantamount to financial doping as neither club have a realistic chance of ever breaking even. Hell, City spent 106% of their turnover in 2010 on wages alone! Personally I wouldn't like if Spurs went down this route. My firm belief is that a club's success should be because of what they themselves have earned through careful management or implementing a long-term plan, etc. Otherwise the club loses a lot of its soul, for lack of a better word. I couldn't really value Spurs' trophy wins if they were taken over by an oligarch since, if the owner had of taken a liking to another team's kit, it could have been Everton or Wigan or whoever else's name on the cup instead.

Besides, with FFP coming in, Levy's financial prudency will hopefully be vindicated. I'd much rather that we live within our means than potentially end up as another Leeds United in our quest for glory.

I completely agree with this.

Not sure if this is going slightly off topic now but heres whats running through my mind.

I gave United as a comparison because they were (by luck, or good timing, or excellent mgmt) in the right place to take advantage of the first 'mega' money pumped into english football with the premiership. How can anyone then compete with that?

Blackburn and arsenal(a little later) were the first 2 to do so and they did it by spending massive amounts of money. Then chelsea had a go and citeh now. Im not for one second saying city and arsenal have taken the same approach but when theres 1 club so far out ahead, as united were, then money has to be spent to compete.

And again spurs did try to do so under jol, ramos and redknapp but maybe didnt spend as wisely as other clubs.

I understand that living within your means is crucial to the long term sustainability of a club. And as a spurs fan I would love to thik that a well run club like urselves or everton would be able to challenge consistently for silverware but there seems only one way of doing it these days and thats by spending big

Sorry for the long post