Sugar Daddy...

[Disconosebleed]

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.

You're entitled to put forward your opinion. You're entitled to argue against the opinions of others. What I don't think you're really entitled to do is blithely dismiss those that disagree with you as somehow fake or disingenuous. Especially if the best you can come up with is claiming that not backing up a vote with a detailed answer makes their vote void - that isn't how voting works pal.

For me, a big clue is in the wording of the question: "Would you like a cash investment similar to City/Chelsea". In my opinion, City go about their business in entirely the right way - they play fantastic football, they don't seem to sign many arseholes, they seem to have a wide array of community schemes...but it's all tainted by the backdrop, which is that they were financially doped to reach the level that they are at. And that's City, who are about as likeable as you could realistically expect a team in that position to be. Chelsea are very much the opposite, and I'm sure I don't need to explain why I wouldn't want us to turn out like them.

We are so, so close to winning a major trophy at the moment, and it would be a disappointment if we don't win the Premier League in the next few years. It is absurd to expect everyone to agree that the soiled glory brought on by financial doping would be a good thing when we are potentially on the verge of doing it of our own volition. Back in the mid-90s when we were dog shit I could at least see your argument, but right now? No chance. This is the best Tottenham team in my lifetime, and I am proud that it has been built from the ground up thanks to a combination of a talented youth setup, a superb coach and excellent management at all levels. It is impossible to think that I would have the same connection to the club, titles or not, if all Tottenham Hotspur amounted to was a company title which talented players could be attracted to not because of the club itself, but the money it could offer them.

And on top of that, there isn't even any guarantee that it would work. Weren't Everton supposed to be competing with us this year?

 

[talkshowhost86]

And on top of that, there isn't even any guarantee that it would work. Weren't Everton supposed to be competing with us this year?

You're right that money doesn't guarantee success, but Everton is a poor example. Their net spend wasn't actually that great after Lukaku, and they had to sell their best player to even spend that money (something a 'financially doped' team wouldn't have to do).

Whilst it doesn't guarantee success though, the number of trophies from the clubs with more money speaks for itself.

 

[bomberH]

You're entitled to put forward your opinion. You're entitled to argue against the opinions of others. What I don't think you're really entitled to do is blithely dismiss those that disagree with you as somehow fake or disingenuous. Especially if the best you can come up with is claiming that not backing up a vote with a detailed answer makes their vote void - that isn't how voting works pal.

For me, a big clue is in the wording of the question: "Would you like a cash investment similar to City/Chelsea". In my opinion, City go about their business in entirely the right way - they play fantastic football, they don't seem to sign many arseholes, they seem to have a wide array of community schemes...but it's all tainted by the backdrop, which is that they were financially doped to reach the level that they are at. And that's City, who are about as likeable as you could realistically expect a team in that position to be. Chelsea are very much the opposite, and I'm sure I don't need to explain why I wouldn't want us to turn out like them.

We are so, so close to winning a major trophy at the moment, and it would be a disappointment if we don't win the Premier League in the next few years. It is absurd to expect everyone to agree that the soiled glory brought on by financial doping would be a good thing when we are potentially on the verge of doing it of our own volition. Back in the mid-90s when we were dog shit I could at least see your argument, but right now? No chance. This is the best Tottenham team in my lifetime, and I am proud that it has been built from the ground up thanks to a combination of a talented youth setup, a superb coach and excellent management at all levels. It is impossible to think that I would have the same connection to the club, titles or not, if all Tottenham Hotspur amounted to was a company title which talented players could be attracted to not because of the club itself, but the money it could offer them.

And on top of that, there isn't even any guarantee that it would work. Weren't Everton supposed to be competing with us this year?

The only comments I've dismissed in this thread are 'I'd rather play in the championship' and 'I'd rather go back to how we were in the 90's'. I'm sure they were slightly tongue in cheek in the first place, would anyone really want their team to be doing that badly as opposed to competing for trophies via means that arent actually illegal? They're the only comments I've not taken seriously and the replies were jesty too. Everything else has been just arguing points I believe are worth arguing. The tone has been slightly harsher at times with led zeppelin and dontcallme because their tone to me was (I believe) condescending in the first place just because I don't agree with their view, which is their argument about me too so it's 6 of one...

I haven't insulted anyone directly in this thread but have been told I'm defeatist, righteous and to 'grow some' and that I'm petty etc. If I feel like coming back strongly I will. They don't like hearing what I have to say as much as the other way around.

Some would even say using the word 'pal' is condescending, especially when the sentence that preceded it wasn't correct. You're right in that it's not how voting works.... in an election. On a football forum where a thread has been created, it's completely natural to expect some comments explaining why they've voted, like you just have.

I started off this thread by saying I know I'm in the minority so I was well aware of what I was getting into. If you look at my first reply on the first page, I stated I appreciate everyone's opinions etc. For some reason because I'm sticking to my guns and not just accepting the points being made without a discussion, I'm being called out when in fact I haven't said a bad word about anyone.

Regarding your other points, I don't disagree with much of it. I keep on repeating myself but I feel the same as those who don't want the investment, for all the reasons mentioned including yours, but my belief is that we won't push on without it and will lose our stars even if we win the league this year. That's why I'd be open to it. And as has been said by others, if we were taken over and signed a worldie, even the doubters would naturally get excited and not worry too much about where the money came from. That's my belief.

 

[Disconosebleed]

You're right that money doesn't guarantee success, but Everton is a poor example. Their net spend wasn't actually that great after Lukaku, and they had to sell their best player to even spend that money (something a 'financially doped' team wouldn't have to do).

Whilst it doesn't guarantee success though, the number of trophies from the clubs with more money speaks for itself.

Oh yeah of course it will help on average (although in fact there is very little correlation between transfer fee and league position; total wage outlay and net spend, on the other hand, are very closely related), I'm just saying that on top of everything else I've said, it's not even as simple as saying "bung a billion at it and watch the trophies roll in".

 

[nicdic]

The only comments I've dismissed in this thread are 'I'd rather play in the championship' and 'I'd rather go back to how we were in the 90's'. I'm sure they were slightly tongue in cheek in the first place, would anyone really want their team to be doing that badly as opposed to competing for trophies via means that arent actually illegal? They're the only comments I've not taken seriously and the replies were jesty too. Everything else has been just arguing points I believe are worth arguing. The tone has been slightly harsher at times with led zeppelin and dontcallme because their tone to me was (I believe) condescending in the first place just because I don't agree with their view, which is their argument about me too so it's 6 of one...

I haven't insulted anyone directly in this thread but have been told I'm defeatist, righteous and to 'grow some' and that I'm petty etc. If I feel like coming back strongly I will. They don't like hearing what I have to say as much as the other way around.

Some would even say using the word 'pal' is condescending, especially when the sentence that preceded it wasn't correct. You're right in that it's not how voting works.... in an election. On a football forum where a thread has been created, it's completely natural to expect some comments explaining why they've voted, like you just have.

I started off this thread by saying I know I'm in the minority so I was well aware of what I was getting into. If you look at my first reply on the first page, I stated I appreciate everyone's opinions etc. For some reason because I'm sticking to my guns and not just accepting the points being made without a discussion, I'm being called out when in fact I haven't said a bad word about anyone.

Regarding your other points, I don't disagree with much of it. I keep on repeating myself but I feel the same as those who don't want the investment, for all the reasons mentioned including yours, but my belief is that we won't push on without it and will lose our stars even if we win the league this year. That's why I'd be open to it. And as has been said by others, if we were taken over and signed a worldie, even the doubters would naturally get excited and not worry too much about where the money came from. That's my belief.

My mid-90's comment was neither tongue in cheek or jesty. I genuinely mean it.

 

[bomberH]

My mid-90's comment was neither tongue in cheek or jesty. I genuinely mean it.

I knew you'd say that!

I'll never ever understand that kind of thinking but I accept your opinion of course. The only thing I miss from the mid 90's is the atmosphere.

Edit: for the record, the jest comment was about my reply.

 

[Marty]

I'll never ever understand that kind of thinking but I accept your opinion of course. The only thing I miss from the mid 90's is the atmosphere.

I'm totally with you on that. Growing up being overjoyed when we were in the top half, and ridiculed at school for being so happy over "nothing", was no fun.

But I'd genuinely rather stay where we are today, as a stable top six outfit who might ultimately struggle to win things regularly, than win the league thanks to a Sugar Daddy. And the way the PL is going now I can't see us dropping out of the top five/six any time soon.

 

[fatpiranha]

Prefer my club to have a soul.

Prefer my club not to have an arsehole.