Sugar Daddy...

[Led's Zeppelin]

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.

No, i'm not sure it would be hypocrisy at all.

I don't want Spurs to "cheat" their way to the top and I don't like it when other clubs do it. So I'm free to complain about it when they do, and it's not hypocritical to do so.

I'm not asking Spurs to cheat. That would be hypocritical of me. I'm just saying I'm unhappy with the clubs that do. Which seems perfectly consistent and reasonable to me. Of course you can disagree. We're just expressing different points of view, as are most people in the whole debate. Hypocrisy doesn't really come into it.

 

[muppetman]

The problem I have is that PSG, Barca, Man City, Chelsea etc aren't really football clubs anymore. They are either vanity projects or PR stunts for countries with dodgy human rights records.

I don't think Poch would stay in a system like those clubs (which is what would inevitably follow as the expectation becomes a demand for success) and watching Poch and his team grow and improve has been so much fun that I don't want to see it stop.

Ask again when Poch gets sacked and my answer may be different but for now it's a no.

 

[talkshowhost86]

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.

To be fair it’s very easy to tick a box saying you don’t want a sugar daddy but when it comes to the crunch I suspect a lot of people who are against it would still support the club if it happened.

After all I suspect a lot of people were against us becoming an asset of an investment management company. But most stuck with it and look at us now as the plucky underdog...the 10th richest dog in the world...but plucky nonetheless.

It would be more interesting to see this poll if the option was generally on the cards and certain exciting transfers were already being mooted.

Not saying people are lying as why would anyone do that? But I just think it would be different if and when the opportunitycame around.

 

[bomberH]

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.

It's quite simple. Because a very large amount of the people who are voting no aren't adding their opinion. I said earlier that adding Chelsea and City in the title of this thread may have caused people to just think 'I hate those 2 clubs and don't want to be associated with them' without really thinking through what the possibilities are and how we don't have to be like them and spend spend spend without giving youth a chance. A massive part of this is about paying the wages to keep our players which is something we would all like to happen, bar none.

With regards to the lying comment, my personal opinion is that while you fight the romantic corner, which is absolutely not a problem for me, I refuse to believe you wouldn't be excited at the thought of signing a Messi if the chance came along. That's also romantic you know, Roy of the Rovers type stuff.

It's not a question of right and wrong, it's a question of arguing the points that have been made to try and make people see your point of view and why they think it's beneficial for the team.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

To be fair it’s very easy to tick a box saying you don’t want a sugar daddy but when it comes to the crunch I suspect a lot of people who are against it would still support the club if it happened.

After all I suspect a lot of people were against us becoming an asset of an investment management company. But most stuck with it and look at us now as the plucky underdog...the 10th richest dog in the world...but plucky nonetheless.

It would be more interesting to see this poll if the option was generally on the cards and certain exciting transfers were already being mooted.

Not saying people are lying as why would anyone do that? But I just think it would be different if and when the opportunitycame around.

We're being sucked into a trap, where "exciting transfers" seems to mean more than exciting football, and where developing young players into world-beaters like Kane and hopefully Winks and Sanchez and even Dier and a few others is seen to be somehow less satisfying than banging down £160m for someone else's established player who can walk into any team, kiss the badge a few times, win a trophy and then move on.

Yes, I'd probably still support Spurs if Putin bought them, but in a different way, less enthusiastic, more critical, more cynical, and eventually I do think I'd lose interest. Not because winning trophy after trophy would become boring, but because deep down I'd always know the reason why it was happening.

 

[bomberH]

No, i'm not sure it would be hypocrisy at all.

I don't want Spurs to "cheat" their way to the top and I don't like it when other clubs do it. So I'm free to complain about it when they do, and it's not hypocritical to do so.

I'm not asking Spurs to cheat. That would be hypocritical of me. I'm just saying I'm unhappy with the clubs that do. Which seems perfectly consistent and reasonable to me. Of course you can disagree. We're just expressing different points of view, as are most people in the whole debate. Hypocrisy doesn't really come into it.

It's not cheating. We wouldn't be cheating. If it was cheating then they wouldn't be allowed to do it. Again, I reiterate, I hate that Chelsea and City have done it, it's shit for the game, but it's happening and it's allowed. And it will happen to other clubs unless the rules change. Until then, it's not cheating.

I do get your point about the hypocrisy but I still believe with the game as it is now, whether we like it or not, it is what it is and people know this, so complaining about transfers falling through due to wages is hypocritical if they wouldn't want a cash injection into the club to solve that issue. We are all unhappy with the way it's been done with other clubs but my fear is we'll be left behind if we don't act.

I'm praying the new stadium will solve our wages issue but I'm not so sure it will.

 

[bomberH]

We're being sucked into a trap, where "exciting transfers" seems to mean more than exciting football, and where developing young players into world-beaters like Kane and hopefully Winks and Sanchez and even Dier and a few others is seen to be somehow less satisfying than banging down £160m for someone else's established player who can walk into any team, kiss the badge a few times, win a trophy and then move on.

Yes, I'd probably still support Spurs if Putin bought them, but in a different way, less enthusiastic, more critical, more cynical, and eventually I do think I'd lose interest. Not because winning trophy after trophy would become boring, but because deep down I'd always know the reason why it was happening.

There's no trap! Football has always been about exciting transfers as well as exciting football. Spurs have been known for it throughout the years. Ardiles, Villa, Klinsmann, Gazza, Greaves, Mackay. Transfers that made the footballing world take notice and that made Spurs fans everywhere jizz in their boxers.

As mentioned earlier, we haven't bought a worldie at the top of his game for so many years. I'd love that to happen again. It's happening with 8 or 9 other massive clubs around England and the world, why not us? I'm not asking for a worldie a week, but it would be amazing to watch it unfold.

 

[dontcallme]

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.

Sorry but you have just made that up. You have no idea if they are the same people.

I voted no because I have loved seeing Kane and Winks develop. If we'd spent £100m in the summer we'd probably bought a top quality centre mid and squeezed the likes of Winks out.

I've enjoyed immensely seeing our young players develop, improve and perform to a high level. Large investment demands quick results which has seen Chelsea hit stumbling blocks as they buy a team, it gets old then they need to rebuild.

Utd have also stopped bringing through young players since Ferguson left and they have demanded immediate results.

This stops sustainable success. It is not romanticism, it is about how I like seeing my club run.

Your thread is about 5 years out of date. When there was the Sky Four and City's billions it looked impossible for us to compete with the 5 clubs above us.

Our league performances the last 2 seasons and last night's performance surely shows this is no longer the case.

You have started a thread and got pissed off because people answered your question in a way you didn't so started throwing petty names out like romanticist, delusional, hypocrite.

If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

 

[bomberH]

The problem I have is that PSG, Barca, Man City, Chelsea etc aren't really football clubs anymore. They are either vanity projects or PR stunts for countries with dodgy human rights records.

I don't think Poch would stay in a system like those clubs (which is what would inevitably follow as the expectation becomes a demand for success) and watching Poch and his team grow and improve has been so much fun that I don't want to see it stop.

Ask again when Poch gets sacked and my answer may be different but for now it's a no.

That's why I'd like Levy to stay if it happened. He wouldn't let things get carried away and would be the go between for everyone. And it would mean continuity and not just a random tycoon who knows nothing about us coming into the club with only his people around him.

 

[nicdic]

It's quite simple. Because a very large amount of the people who are voting no aren't adding their opinion. I said earlier that adding Chelsea and City in the title of this thread may have caused people to just think 'I hate those 2 clubs and don't want to be associated with them' without really thinking through what the possibilities are and how we don't have to be like them and spend spend spend without giving youth a chance. A massive part of this is about paying the wages to keep our players which is something we would all like to happen, bar none.

With regards to the lying comment, my personal opinion is that while you fight the romantic corner, which is absolutely not a problem for me, I refuse to believe you wouldn't be excited at the thought of signing a Messi if the chance came along. That's also romantic you know, Roy of the Rovers type stuff.

It's not a question of right and wrong, it's a question of arguing the points that have been made to try and make people see your point of view and why they think it's beneficial for the team.

I'd be excited by it if it's removed from being taken over by a billionaire who's just going to pour money into us as a toy.

If we work our way up to being able to do that, great. But really, I'm always more excited by a youth product coming through.

 

[bomberH]

Sorry but you have just made that up. You have no idea if they are the same people.

I voted no because I have loved seeing Kane and Winks develop. If we'd spent £100m in the summer we'd probably bought a top quality centre mid and squeezed the likes of Winks out.

I've enjoyed immensely seeing our young players develop, improve and perform to a high level. Large investment demands quick results which has seen Chelsea hit stumbling blocks as they buy a team, it gets old then they need to rebuild.

Utd have also stopped bringing through young players since Ferguson left and they have demanded immediate results.

This stops sustainable success. It is not romanticism, it is about how I like seeing my club run.

Your thread is about 5 years out of date. When there was the Sky Four and City's billions it looked impossible for us to compete with the 5 clubs above us.

Our league performances the last 2 seasons and last night's performance surely shows this is no longer the case.

You have started a thread and got pissed off because people answered your question in a way you didn't so started throwing petty names out like romanticist, delusional, hypocrite.

If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

Haha

I didn't bring up romanticism, I responded to it so if you're gonna dig at least get your facts right. I can't actually remember calling anyone delusional either but willing to be shown where if you will, please.

I don't get your logic. You're not alone in doing this but I'm arguing my points against the responses given. Why can't you understand that?? It's something I feel quite strongly about. If I think something is hypocritical then I'll say so. I genuinely believe some of the no voters would be over the moon if we signed a worldie who we'd never normally be able to afford without investment. Are you doubting that?

5 years out of date? Really? So the 200 or so who voted, including you, are all stupid for doing so because this thread is out of date? Am I allowed to argue why this thread isn't out of date or is that not allowed in your one way world?

Everything I say is a response to another point. I've said a few times I admire some of the romantics. I even agree with some of your points but it will never stop me believing that we're always two or three sales away from falling right behind. That's the major point I'm trying to make and you need to get over yourself if you don't agree, much like you're telling me to do.

 

[bomberH]

I'd be excited by it if it's removed from being taken over by a billionaire who's just going to pour money into us as a toy.

If we work our way up to being able to do that, great. But really, I'm always more excited by a youth product coming through.

And that's fine. I have no issues with people getting more excited by youth coming through, until this patch we hadn't had hardly anyone of note since King, so I get that.

But what if our new owners still let youth come through. And added a sprinkling of worldies too? And kept our current worldies after doubling their wages. It's not the worst thing in the world is it?

 

[nicdic]

And that's fine. I have no issues with people getting more excited by youth coming through, until this patch we hadn't had hardly anyone of note since King, so I get that.

But what if our new owners still let youth come through. And added a sprinkling of worldies too? And kept our current worldies after doubling their wages. It's not the worst thing in the world is it?

I just don't really want that. I want us to do it the way we are, I want us to earn it.

 

[bomberH]

I just don't really want that. I want us to do it the way we are, I want us to earn it.

And i think this is where the confusion is with some posters - I want exactly the same as you.

I just don't think it'll be possible to sustain long term success without the extra money/wage issues. I would like nothing more than to be proved wrong, believe me.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

There's no trap! Football has always been about exciting transfers as well as exciting football. Spurs have been known for it throughout the years. Ardiles, Villa, Klinsmann, Gazza, Greaves, Mackay. Transfers that made the footballing world take notice and that made Spurs fans everywhere jizz in their boxers.

As mentioned earlier, we haven't bought a worldie at the top of his game for so many years. I'd love that to happen again. It's happening with 8 or 9 other massive clubs around England and the world, why not us? I'm not asking for a worldie a week, but it would be amazing to watch it unfold.

It is a trap and it looks to me as though you're stepping straight into it, because you're at the point of trying to justify the whole thing because you realise just what the cost to decent clubs is.

When we bought all those players you mentioned, we could afford record-breaking fees and wages because we were one of the most attractive and well-supported clubs in the country.

Now that's not enough. Now you need money from outside the game, and which FFP now seeks to freeze so only those who have already cheated their way to the top are allowed to cement their position there, where everyone else is pegged back to the pre-FFP status-quo. It's a thoroughly rotten system and honestly, hand-on-heart, I'd rather see Spurs try to fight it out the right way than try to become another Chelsea.

 

[Gassin's finest]

If JL dropped £2bn on us right now, I'd say "ta, but why couldn't you do that 10 years ago??"

 

[bomberH]

It is a trap and it looks to me as though you're stepping straight into it, because you're at the point of trying to justify the whole thing because you realise just what the cost to decent clubs is.

When we bought all those players you mentioned, we could afford record-breaking fees and wages because we were one of the most attractive and well-supported clubs in the country.

Now that's not enough. Now you need money from outside the game, and which FFP now seeks to freeze so only those who have already cheated their way to the top are allowed to cement their position there, where everyone else is pegged back to the pre-FFP status-quo. It's a thoroughly rotten system and honestly, hand-on-heart, I'd rather see Spurs try to fight it out the right way than try to become another Chelsea.

While I completely disagree with your first paragraph, I agree with the last one. I would rather see us do that too but I just don't think we'll be able to, hence the want for investment.

 

[nicdic]

And i think this is where the confusion is with some posters - I want exactly the same as you.

I just don't think it'll be possible to sustain long term success without the extra money/wage issues. I would like nothing more than to be proved wrong, believe me.

We've bridged the gap thus far when it should have been impossible, if we find success now we could build a real platform to establish ourselves. I don't want the rich owner coming and pouring money in.

 

[talkshowhost86]

We're being sucked into a trap, where "exciting transfers" seems to mean more than exciting football, and where developing young players into world-beaters like Kane and hopefully Winks and Sanchez and even Dier and a few others is seen to be somehow less satisfying than banging down £160m for someone else's established player who can walk into any team, kiss the badge a few times, win a trophy and then move on.

Yes, I'd probably still support Spurs if Putin bought them, but in a different way, less enthusiastic, more critical, more cynical, and eventually I do think I'd lose interest. Not because winning trophy after trophy would become boring, but because deep down I'd always know the reason why it was happening.

And I'm not saying you're either a liar or are wrong about that.

I've already said I'd much rather see us win it by not spending bucket loads of cash and going about it the way we are. If we do it that way it will be much more satisfying.

But City and Chelsea have proved that, whereas our model hasn't brought about league success yet, their 'model' can (and does). That's why people would be excited by having that money available.

As for the waning enthusiasm, my personal view is that the game is becoming a farce anyway with the amount of money floating around, so if Spurs cannot win a title doing things our way in the next few years, I'd potentially be happy to see us play the game for a few years in terms of splurging money to win a title, rather than just sitting around watching the rich boys win it again and again.

Either way football continues to become that little less interesting every year. At least in the second scenario we'd me more likely to see Spurs win a title before football eats itself.

As I've said numerous times in this thread already, Spurs are in a good place and Leicester have shown quite recently that it can be done without the money so it's worth sticking with it for now.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's quite simple. Because a very large amount of the people who are voting no aren't adding their opinion. I said earlier that adding Chelsea and City in the title of this thread may have caused people to just think 'I hate those 2 clubs and don't want to be associated with them' without really thinking through what the possibilities are and how we don't have to be like them and spend spend spend without giving youth a chance. A massive part of this is about paying the wages to keep our players which is something we would all like to happen, bar none.

With regards to the lying comment, my personal opinion is that while you fight the romantic corner, which is absolutely not a problem for me, I refuse to believe you wouldn't be excited at the thought of signing a Messi if the chance came along. That's also romantic you know, Roy of the Rovers type stuff.

It's not a question of right and wrong, it's a question of arguing the points that have been made to try and make people see your point of view and why they think it's beneficial for the team.

If we pay for our stadium (at least the high interest costs) we will have the extra revenue from the stadium without the burden of payments. Chuck in cl then we have enough money to increase our wage budget. It wont match psg etc... but will be competitive. Hopefully add a trophy or three.
Arsenal, utd and liverpool don't have sugar daddies yet win trophies. No reason we can't.