Sugar Daddy...

[Archibald&Crooks]

Kidding aside though, personally, i'm with bom and I wonder if we got a sugar daddy and started to win things in that way, how would people react to that? Would you cheer like a mad fucker and celebrate like a whirling dervish who's been snorting things or would you be a bit meh and start to lose interest, possibly even stop supporting the club and start going to watch Orient or someone play.

See I think if sugar daddy came and we started to win things, pretty much everyone would be fist pumping like mad, its all well and good wanting it to be done right, but when push comes to shove, we win the league thanks to sugar daddy, you'd be lapping it up and stroking his gooch. It might not be the way people want to do it, but I reckon you'd take it.

tainted schmainted

 

[Lilbaz]

And as talkshowhost alluded to earlier, all those that voted no.... are you telling me that if we were taken over by a super rich fucker and signed Messi, they wouldn't be absolutely over the moon excited. It's just bollocks and hypocrisy.

It just makes me laugh. My opinion is people are trying to be morally right even though there's nothing morally wrong with what's being suggested.

I'd agree with you, but most of the people commenting in this thread are not the ones having a pop at levy in the transfer forums for not spending money. They understand the financial constraints and accept them.
You can't have it both ways. But i think once the stadium is paid for it will be easier for us. Although we will not match the spending of certain clubs.

 

[Trix]

Kidding aside though, personally, i'm with bom and I wonder if we got a sugar daddy and started to win things in that way, how would people react to that? Would you cheer like a mad fucker and celebrate like a whirling dervish who's been snorting things or would you be a bit meh and start to lose interest, possibly even stop supporting the club and start going to watch Orient or someone play.

See I think if sugar daddy came and we started to win things, pretty much everyone would be fist pumping like mad, its all well and good wanting it to be done right, but when push comes to shove, we win the league thanks to sugar daddy, you'd be lapping it up and stroking his gooch. It might not be the way people want to do it, but I reckon you'd take it.

tainted schmainted

There is a difference between still supporting the club no matter what happens behind the scenes, and actually wanting it to happen.

 

[hellava_tough]

I've really enjoyed the ups and downs of the progression of Spurs over the last 12 years, and of course especially the Poch era. It's the 'journey' that has been thrilling, seeing us get better and better, and iron out all those Spursy traits we used to have

It's something that Man City never experienced because they went from mid-table to champions very quickly, and I think their fans genuinely missed out on an adventure

So with that in mind, since we've already experienced that if wouldn't necessarily be all that terrible if a sugar-daddy came along and pushed us to the next level

I'd give it another 5 years though; I really want to see what we're like at the new stadium with a steady stream of increased revenue come into the club. I think we'll be like Liverpool and Arsenal, or Dortmund and A.Madrid in terms of revenue and stature. And let's face it, those clubs have challenged (and in some cases won) for the league and European trophies over the last 15 years. So perhaps we won't need massive revenue to see us become one of the best in Europe

 

[DEFchenkOE]

The thing is, a cash injection from a sugar daddy or whatever won't suddenly take us up a level above the other big English clubs. It will just help to put us on a level playing field with them.

It's not like we'd be the only ones with money. So absolutely no guarantee of success. But it would stop those clubs being able to cherry pick and unsettle our best players. And would mean we have a chance of signing better players and not get Willianed.

The fact that Kyle Walker, a right back is getting paid more than the deadliest striker most of us have ever seen at our club says it all. And a new stadium won't change things massively with wages, unless of course Levy sells the naming rights completely. Which most sentimentalists don't want either.

As good as Poch has done while he has been here we still haven't won anything, while the other big clubs that generally spend more than us continue to pick up trophies.

Modric and Bale had a great period with us, but when they look back on it they have no silverware to show for it. Because we wouldn't/couldn't invest in the players required to complete our squad. They have gone elsewhere and won trophies. And it's been a similar story with Berba, Carrick, Sheringham. We're always just that little bit short doing things the "right way". I don't want Kane, Dele, Toby etc to go the same way.

I want us to win, and if that means having some random Qatari billionaire pay our players £200k+ a week then so be it.

Anyone fancy seeing Kane lifting the Premier league trophy with Man City while getting paid £250k a week???

 

[Shadydan]

I find it difficult to accept because they are the same people who are upset when we can't sign someone due to wages. It's hypocrisy. Either accept where we are as a club and don't moan when we can't keep hold of our star players or accept that to compete with the likes of City etc who have chosen to go down the spending route, that the only way we can really compete on a regular basis at the highest level may be to invest ourselves.

What's wrong with what I just said? Please explain.

Your posts are getting silly now TBH

You're making a very broad generalisation there, I myself have never complied about wages...It's about preference, I'm not gonna say to you that I'd be unhappy if a rich investor started to pump money in the club but I prefer to do it the way we're doing it now especially as we've seemed to strike gold with the current management team in place who is more than happy to follow the same blueprint to success.

At the end of the day It's an opinion you just have to accept whether you like it or not.

 

[bomberH]

Your posts are getting silly now TBH

You're making a very broad generalisation there, I myself have never complied about wages...It's about preference, I'm not gonna say to you that I'd be unhappy if a rich investor started to pump money in the club but I prefer to do it the way we're doing it now especially as we've seemed to strike gold with the current management team in place who is more than happy to follow the same blueprint to success.

At the end of the day It's an opinion you just have to accept whether you like it or not.

You're saying my posts are silly yet your main paragraph is almost a replica of what I've been saying all through this thread.

And how many more of you are going to say 'it's opinion, accept it'. Ok then, I won't put my side of the argument across because your opinion differs. FFS. That's what a forum is all about, not that I have to explain that.

The particular post you said was 'silly' I stick by completely and no one has yet given any other arguments to make me think otherwise. I gebuinely believe it's a massively valid point. Maybe you should accept my opinion?

 

[bomberH]

And still, 7 pages into this thread, no-one has answered the question about Joe Lewis.

If he gave Levy £2 billion and said 'I'm bored now and want us to win stuff, spend it as you like' would people still complain? If a Spurs season ticket holder came into money and gave us £2 billion and said 'Buy Messi' etc, what then? Are the no voters saying that we'd rather Spurs didn't accept that money because it's, erm, a lot of money? Is it just the oil tycoons/arabs/Russian billionaires that people have issues with?

 

[Shadydan]

You're saying my posts are silly yet your main paragraph is almost a replica of what I've been saying all through this thread.

And how many more of you are going to say 'it's opinion, accept it'. Ok then, I won't put my side of the argument across because your opinion differs. FFS. That's what a forum is all about, not that I have to explain that.

The particular post you said was 'silly' I stick by completely and no one has yet given any other arguments to make me think otherwise. I gebuinely believe it's a massively valid point. Maybe you should accept my opinion?

You're attacking people for not wanting a sugar daddy putting them in the same bracket with those who moan about our wage structure which is why I said it was silly. I have never said your opinion should not be accepted, I'm merely asking you to accept other people's opinions rather than attacking them and calling them hypocrites, that's why I took offence, it's just unecessary.

If my post is a replica of what you've been saying then it means we've found some middle ground at least.

 

[bomberH]

You're attacking people for not wanting a sugar daddy putting them in the same bracket with those who moan about our wage structure which is why I said it was silly. I have never said your opinion should not be accepted, I'm merely asking you to accept other people's opinions rather than attacking them and calling them hypocrites, that's why I took offence, it's just unecessary.

If my post is a replica of what you've been saying then it means we've found some middle ground at least.

Yep I've said all throughout I'd like nothing more than to win it the way we're doing. I'd prefer to do it like this a million times more than via a sugar daddy. I just can't see it working without one long term.

Without picking on individuals, would you agree that it would be hypocrisy if someone voted no but then complained about a transfer falling through due to the wages issue? I'm sure there will be some but you're right, I shouldn't generalise, I'm just basing it on how this forum gets during transfer window.

 

[Shadydan]

Yep I've said all throughout I'd like nothing more than to win it the way we're doing. I'd prefer to do it like this a million times more than via a sugar daddy. I just can't see it working without one long term.

Without picking on individuals, would you agree that it would be hypocrisy if someone voted no but then complained about a transfer falling through due to the wages issue? I'm sure there will be some but you're right, I shouldn't generalise, I'm just basing it on how this forum gets during transfer window.

In the context of moaning about missing out on players due to our wage structure then yes because it's obvious that we'd be able to increase it with a huge cash investment.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

There is a difference between still supporting the club no matter what happens behind the scenes, and actually wanting it to happen.

This is one of those Sherlock Holmes moments isn't it?

 

[Mullers]

And still, 7 pages into this thread, no-one has answered the question about Joe Lewis.

If he gave Levy £2 billion and said 'I'm bored now and want us to win stuff, spend it as you like' would people still complain? If a Spurs season ticket holder came into money and gave us £2 billion and said 'Buy Messi' etc, what then? Are the no voters saying that we'd rather Spurs didn't accept that money because it's, erm, a lot of money? Is it just the oil tycoons/arabs/Russian billionaires that people have issues with?

I wouldn't mind an investment if it was used in the right way. I'd like to continue the model we have now where youth is given a chance but just buy a couple of experienced top class players rather than ripping apart the whole team and replacing them with expensive superstars.
We have had chances to win trophies but we haven't taken them. I'm confident we can win trophies with the model we've got. We just drew with the European champions away from home, if we can do that, I'm sure we can win trophies.

 

[hellava_tough]

And still, 7 pages into this thread, no-one has answered the question about Joe Lewis.

If he gave Levy £2 billion and said 'I'm bored now and want us to win stuff, spend it as you like' would people still complain? If a Spurs season ticket holder came into money and gave us £2 billion and said 'Buy Messi' etc, what then? Are the no voters saying that we'd rather Spurs didn't accept that money because it's, erm, a lot of money? Is it just the oil tycoons/arabs/Russian billionaires that people have issues with?

I wouldn't mind if Uncle Joe paid off the stadium in one payment and brought in a couple of super-stars.

But wholesale changes to the squad would be disappointing because I feel we've been on a journey with Poch and his current squad. We've seen the ups and downs, with most of the players improving to the point where we can hold our own away to Real Madrid. That develops an emotional connection between the fans and players, which you simply can't buy with billions.

I think this is the crux of the argument; spending money isn't the issue, it's the lack of 'journey' and emotional investment paying off.

When Spurs finally win a major trophy it will be because of hard work, dedication, commitment and courage. All ingredients in a great narrative!

 

[bomberH]

Yeah I wouldn't want wholesale changes either and I'd still want youth to come through unlike at Chelsea, despite them having great youth players! Mostly I'd like the wage issue sorted out so no one felt they had to leave, but I definitely would love a star signing or 2. We haven't signed a worldie who's on top of his game at a top club since Klinsmann I think. VdV was a star but wasn't wanted at Madrid, Ginola, Berba and Modric etc came from 'lesser' clubs and weren't being touted by lots of bigger clubs at the time. Imagine if we wanted Hazard or De Bruyne at the top of their game and BT fucking Sport were talking after a Chelsea/City match saying 'well, can Chelsea keep Hazard away from Spurs...'

Yeah I'm dreaming but it'd be lovely. I think as long as we were wise with the money, people wouldn't mind anywhere near as much. Even now we only need 2 or 3 worldies to complete the ladder, no need for 10 x £40M + players to come in.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Yeah I wouldn't want wholesale changes either and I'd still want youth to come through unlike at Chelsea, despite them having great youth players! Mostly I'd like the wage issue sorted out so no one felt they had to leave, but I definitely would love a star signing or 2. We haven't signed a worldie who's on top of his game at a top club since Klinsmann I think. VdV was a star but wasn't wanted at Madrid, Ginola, Berba and Modric etc came from 'lesser' clubs and weren't being touted by lots of bigger clubs at the time. Imagine if we wanted Hazard or De Bruyne at the top of their game and BT fucking Sport were talking after a Chelsea/City match saying 'well, can Chelsea keep Hazard away from Spurs...'

Yeah I'm dreaming but it'd be lovely. I think as long as we were wise with the money, people wouldn't mind anywhere near as much. Even now we only need 2 or 3 worldies to complete the ladder, no need for 10 x £40M + players to come in.

Sadly that would be very unlikely to happen.

Clubs with those levels of money don't give youth a chance because the 'sugar daddy' always wants instant success.

This is one of the more tangible downsides of going down that route (rather than the nebulous talk around it not being 'the Spurs way'). We'd probably not see a Kane or a Winks come through again, and even a signing like Alli would be unlikely as we'd always be looking to splurge on a more ready-made option.

If it's the wages you're most concerned about I'd wait and see what the stadium does first. I don't think it guarantees we'll match the megabucks clubs, but I think it might get us a lot closer.

 

[hellava_tough]

Yeah I wouldn't want wholesale changes either and I'd still want youth to come through unlike at Chelsea, despite them having great youth players! Mostly I'd like the wage issue sorted out so no one felt they had to leave, but I definitely would love a star signing or 2. We haven't signed a worldie who's on top of his game at a top club since Klinsmann I think. VdV was a star but wasn't wanted at Madrid, Ginola, Berba and Modric etc came from 'lesser' clubs and weren't being touted by lots of bigger clubs at the time. Imagine if we wanted Hazard or De Bruyne at the top of their game and BT fucking Sport were talking after a Chelsea/City match saying 'well, can Chelsea keep Hazard away from Spurs...'

Yeah I'm dreaming but it'd be lovely. I think as long as we were wise with the money, people wouldn't mind anywhere near as much. Even now we only need 2 or 3 worldies to complete the ladder, no need for 10 x £40M + players to come in.

Would love to see Gareth Bale back at the club...

...or Alexis Sanchez on a free

 

[hellava_tough]

Sadly that would be very unlikely to happen.

Clubs with those levels of money don't give youth a chance because the 'sugar daddy' always wants instant success.

This is one of the more tangible downsides of going down that route (rather than the nebulous talk around it not being 'the Spurs way'). We'd probably not see a Kane or a Winks come through again, and even a signing like Alli would be unlikely as we'd always be looking to splurge on a more ready-made option.

If it's the wages you're most concerned about I'd wait and see what the stadium does first. I don't think it guarantees we'll match the megabucks clubs, but I think it might get us a lot closer.

I wish a billionaire owner would be a bit more interesting and just buy/develop England players

I personally think the club in question would still challenge for the league...they'd certainly challenge for International honours

 

[nicdic]

I love how the vote is overwhelmingly going one way, and yet those who are in the minority won't stop shouting that those voting no are lying or don't really mean it, and that they're actually right.

 

[Lilbaz]

I love how the vote is overwhelmingly going one way, and yet those who are in the minority won't stop shouting that those voting no are lying or don't really mean it, and that they're actually right.

I think the question might mean different things to different people. If you asked "would you like spurs to be able to spend more money on transfers and wages?" I think it would be 100% yes.

All pointless at the end of the day unless a sugar daddy wanted to buy us. At a price of £1bn+ i doubt it would ever happen.