- Jan 26, 2010
- 7,837
- 16,145
Bullshit.
And how can you be so sure? what cos Daniel said so..:roll:
me, i look at Enics previous record in football, they buy and sell.
But only when they can get the max they can get.......watch this space.
Bullshit.
I suspect from your second paragraph you actually mean mutually inclusive.
Historically they aren't, football clubs aren't held in portfolios to earn money, they are bought and sold with amazing frequency when compared to other businesses. The object is generally to build up a club's assets and try to sell it on for a profit on the purchase price and any investment made. Why do you think ENIC are different and are interested in the club's long term future rather than achieving the most profitable exit strategy?
Not sure what this has to do with the stadium, but I think all buggies should be folded up before they are allowed on the bus, on numerous occasions I have seen selfish parents refuse to fold buggies up when somebody tries to get on in a wheelchair and can't because a buggy is taking the wheelchair space. The wheelchair user has to wait for the next bus because the bus driver doesn't want some inconsiderate parent shouting abuse at them on a crowded bus.
Great post mate. We are definitely punching above our weight at the mo, we cannot afford not to qualify for CL, or it is bye bye Bale, Modric etc.Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.
Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.
All I keep asking for proof on is the figure of £200m being the difference for the two projects, the quote from the architect clearly doesn't show that, it says the whole NDP project will cost £450m and that the stadium construction at the OS will be £250m, but that's not the cost of the whole project, so why do people keep making out that the stadium is the only cost in the OS project?
1) Well, startingprice, I thought you might be able to do better than that. Well, SOTM, I thought you might be able to do better than that.
2) If Levy is telling the truth then you have a problem. If he's telling lies, then you still have a problem, Why, because I said he is a shrewd business man:shrug: I would have thought this just tends to illustrate my point. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. So, he won't directly say something he has allowed one of his lieutenants to say, because it is tactically inappropriate ATM, and...?
3) since he's spinning - the very thing you are trying to deny. WTF:grin: I have said several times "He spins, of course he does, they are professionals you are an amateur" - the bit you are getting confused about is that I say you spin, too. That in no way states that Mr Levy & co. don't spin (a point that I have on the contrary been very happy to state explicitly).
4) You can't have it both ways. Who says? He spins, but ultimately there are advantages to the OS which, I have no doubt, include financial ones. Who says I can't have it both ways?
5) Here are sloth's words: Am I my brother's keeper? Why are you quoting Sloths words to me, I never parroted them and he is a big boy shifty, he can speak up for himself.
"We know the difference in budgeted expenditure between the two is £200m, that's because the architect in charge of both projects has told us it is."
Are these the 'figures' you're talking about?
They're wrong.
6) You're asking me why Levy wants Stratford? I don't know,Ain't that the truth. But you are willing to put a negative SPIN on things and suggest all kinds of shenanigans, rather than just accept that there are almost certainly major advantages to moving to the OS that will almost certainly be of immense benefit to the club off and (hence) on the field that's my answer. If there are any advantages they appear to me to be so marginal that they are not wortth giving up our home, our tradition, our heritage and our culture for.
7) Levy could be mistaken. Given a choice between whether he is mistaken and you are mistaken, sorry, Good Pard'ner, but I am choosing you to be the mistaken one:wink: That's the problem. He could be taking bad advice. You'll recall that he woke up one morning and decided to sack Jol and appoint Ramos, universally regarded as a big mistake. He's not infallible.
8) Furthermore you have accused me of 'spin'. No. Sorry to confuse you about this. I have stated as absolute fact that you ARE spinning. I thought I had demonstrated this. You ask questions, but they are all negative. I ask questions which are negative and positive, and have given you examples to show how this is possible. I have even illustrated to you what my angle (or spin) is. Your SPIN is negative. My only argument is that the club has been spinning like crazy. It's not your only argument. You are also claiming that this SPIN has been to cover the fact that the benefits of moving to the OS, if any, are marginal. That is negative (and, thereforre, negative spin), and just does not bear scrutiny with the aid of common-sensse (as I demonstrated in a lengthy post that you either haven't read or felt totally incapable of refuting).I've shown that's the case by exposing the discrepancy between Keirle's statement (to which sloth has allied himself on this thread) and Levy's position. No, you have SPUN that into being the case. I have explained to you that it is a perfectly acceptable tactic that an experienced performer, like Dan Levy, would use. What I find so amusing is that 'suddenly', while being obsessed with SPIN, want to believe that Dan Levy is telling the truth as it tends to support your position:grin: Who's spinning? All sides - including me and you:hump:
9) I'm glad you don't want to move, and I'm glad that you would put your name to an appropriate petition. OK, we are agreed. So gald to have your approval. But I don't think we are agreed. I don't want to move, you point blank refuse to - to the point of illogically accepting that there are apparent advantages to moving to the OS. I don't want to move, if we have to move I would want it to be as close to WHL as possible. My first choice would be the NDP. But, and this is the important point, here, I am not a professional in this field, Mr Levy & co are.
10) But you do not do yourself any favours by accusing me of spin, But you are spinning, so how am I not doing myself any favourswhen all I am doing is asking questions, It is not all you arre doing, you also suggesting that there are no obvious advantages in moving to the OS, which defies logic, and, therefore, hinting at darker motives. questions which have been entirely appropriate. I never said your questions weren't appropriate, I said it was appropriate to ask questions from all angles - even those which don't agree with the position you ahve adopted. That is something you spectacularly fail to do.
Sotm
Because Levy's main concern is to act in the interest of ENIC and their shareholder's, not in the long term interests of Tottenham Hotspur, I think you'll find this response numerous times throughout this thread. You accuse us of just hearing what we want to, yet you seem happy to ignore this very rational explanation and disregard it as a conspiracy theory.
I would say these two things are mutually exclusive.
The best for THFC = financial rewards for ENIC. Levy has never been afraid to back managers and spend big money on all aspects of the club to enable us to be competing with the best in every aspect of football, not just on the pitch. He knows that doing this will enhance THFC as a team, a club and a brand, which ultimately makes it a money-spinning investment and a good earner for the ENIC portfolio.
I suspect from your second paragraph you actually mean mutually inclusive.
Historically they aren't, football clubs aren't held in portfolios to earn money, they are bought and sold with amazing frequency when compared to other businesses. The object is generally to build up a club's assets and try to sell it on for a profit on the purchase price and any investment made. Why do you think ENIC are different and are interested in the club's long term future rather than achieving the most profitable exit strategy?
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.
Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.
Because Levy's main concern is to act in the interest of ENIC and their shareholder's, not in the long term interests of Tottenham Hotspur, I think you'll find this response numerous times throughout this thread. You accuse us of just hearing what we want to, yet you seem happy to ignore this very rational explanation and disregard it as a conspiracy theory.
Great post mate. We are definitely punching above our weight at the mo, we cannot afford not to qualify for CL, or it is bye bye Bale, Modric etc.
I know there are posters to whom the NLD and staying at WHL is the most important thing for the club. Get real, Arsenal are at the moment are on a different level to us, great stadium, financially stable etc they are going to benefit big time from the fair play rules.
I do no not want to go back to the time when are only meaningful game to us during the season was a one sided NLD.
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.
Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.
Don't worry, when we move there will be no more one sided NLD's to suffer, you will have the east london derbies to look forward too.
I don't know if you watch our games in Valencia, because we have done ok against the scum recently, so your one sided theory sucks!!
Maybe you missed our game with INTER, we do have other little highlights in this grotty little ground of ours, not just getting rolled over by the scum.
1) See above.
2) Do you really think our rivalry with Arsenal will diminish if we move? They will only see us as rivals if we do just that, rival them for the chance to win things. If we're just another team to roll over that's when the rivallry starts to diminish and they become much more concerned with other winners like United and Chelsea.
Read what i wrote, i said there will be no more north london derbies if we move to east london! Fact!...where do i say our rivalry will end?
You can't have a NLD if your not in NL:shrug:
Semantics, it will still be a derby match and the rest of most post, which you declined to comment on, still holds true.
Thats the problem with your vision of supporting Spurs, its to fixated on being anti Arsenal than pro Spurs. Forget the tribalistic nonsense, and come out into the light. It's nice.Don't worry, when we move there will be no more one sided NLD's to suffer, you will have the east london derbies to look forward too.
I don't know if you watch our games in Valencia, because we have done ok against the scum recently, so your one sided theory sucks!!
Maybe you missed our game with INTER, we do have other little highlights in this grotty little ground of ours, not just getting rolled over by the scum.
Thats the problem with your vision of supporting Spurs, its to fixated on being anti Arsenal than pro Spurs. Forget the tribalistic nonsense, and come out into the light. It's nice.
FYI I attend home matches now half a dozen times a season and watch the rest on TV.
Do you wish Spurs to competitive at the highest level, attracting high calibre players.WTF ARE YOU ON? i merely picked you up on your NLD comment, where do i give you the impression that i am fixated on being anti arsenal you fool.
And sorry to offend you by calling them the 'scum', that just about sums you up.
Just a link to remind us of ENIC's past football investments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/1161408.stm
:grin:Managing director Daniel Levy, a lifelong Spurs fan