What's new

The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 25th June 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
No, we didn't do what 'everybody else' was doing. 'Everybody else' didn't have our financial resources.

Are you claiming that we didn't buy our success because the money was self-generated? Therefore it didn't actually exist?
You understand perfectly well that that isn't what I'm saying. Of course our spending power was a large part of the reason for our success (although you imply that we spent more than anybody else could afford - which simply isn't the case). I'm saying that there is a marked difference between spending what you generate organically and spending many times more than the rest of the clubs can afford - and which would bankrupt the spending club under normal circumstances - just because you have an owner who chooses to do so.

Only a fool would deny that there has always been an inequality between the means of individual football clubs. My point is simply that the Chelski/Citeh model is distorting the game to its detriment and I want my beloved club to have no part in it.
 

Antilokhos

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2010
482
745
have united not bought titles in past 20 years. they have spent what 20miilion plus on a 17 yr old rooney. 30 mill on rio . 17 mill on nani. 32 mil on berba... just because they dont have a russian or arab owner doesnt mean they dont buy title either. are they excluded? they have been paying huge transfer fees right back to start of premier league and also pay mad wages. why? beacuse to be the best and keep above rivals they have to pay it imo.

i find it amazing on here when people talk shit about pursing it in the right way.. its comical.. its all about the money and who pays the most. the more money a club is willing to spend on players and agents the best players will join them , end of.

id be thrilled if kuwati crowd bought us . that real exciting times. man city are around for the long haul aand as im sure we would with them in charge and if it was all to fail whats the problem ? sell off the players and go back to the levy model of buying cheap and seen if they come good. simples lol

If we admit it's all about the money then what's the point? The magical thing about sport isn't that the favorites always win. It's that with hard work, some skill, and a bit of luck; anything can happen. It's hard for a fan to relate to money, it's not necessarily something that is hardwired into us. But it is easy for us to latch onto the tribal nature of sport in today's society, especially when you look at the weakened bonds that most people have now. And it's much easier for the typical fan to latch onto being an underdog instead of the expected winner.

So to chase the money is something that is going to be the anathema to the soul. It will take something that means something now, the common struggle against the injustices of the world (as represented by Russian criminals and Islamofascist tyrants) and reduce it to something we have no linkage to.

No, it's not an entirely rational view point. I get that, but it's one that needs to be considered. And I think there is something to be said for earning what you get. Not having it given to you. Plus a massive cash infusion would see the addition of the fake fans that seem to follow the money, and there is also something to be said for avoiding bandwagon fans.
 

King of Otters

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2012
10,751
36,093
Also, re the 'money morality debate' you can only claim that there is no distinction between 'invested and earned' if you believe there is no difference between sport and business. I happen to believe there are many differences even if sport does, by necessity, share some characteristics with business.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
You understand perfectly well that that isn't what I'm saying. Of course our spending power was a large part of the reason for our success (although you imply that we spent more than anybody else could afford - which simply isn't the case). I'm saying that there is a marked difference between spending what you generate organically and spending many times more than the rest of the clubs can afford - and which would bankrupt the spending club under normal circumstances - just because you have an owner who chooses to do so.

Only a fool would deny that there has always been an inequality between the means of individual football clubs. My point is simply that the Chelski/Citeh model is distorting the game to its detriment and I want my beloved club to have no part in it.

Well then. We bought success. That's what I said.

I don't know that we spent more than anyone else could afford,. We certainly spent more than most clubs could afford. I don't know how much was generated 'organically' either.

You really think we're a club in anything but name?
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
If we admit it's all about the money then what's the point? The magical thing about sport isn't that the favorites always win. It's that with hard work, some skill, and a bit of luck; anything can happen. It's hard for a fan to relate to money, it's not necessarily something that is hardwired into us. But it is easy for us to latch onto the tribal nature of sport in today's society, especially when you look at the weakened bonds that most people have now. And it's much easier for the typical fan to latch onto being an underdog instead of the expected winner.

So to chase the money is something that is going to be the anathema to the soul. It will take something that means something now, the common struggle against the injustices of the world (as represented by Russian criminals and Islamofascist tyrants) and reduce it to something we have no linkage to.

No, it's not an entirely rational view point. I get that, but it's one that needs to be considered. And I think there is something to be said for earning what you get. Not having it given to you. Plus a massive cash infusion would see the addition of the fake fans that seem to follow the money, and there is also something to be said for avoiding bandwagon fans.

I like your post, but I don't particularly agree with all of it. What I'd like to see is a level playing field. That's clearly not the case with the way things are right now. There is a small number of clubs that can offer the high wages that attract good players. Within this group there are a couple of clubs that can pay ridiculous transfer fees at the drop of a hat.

Seeing as FFP is unlikely to achieve anything, and seeing as those clubs are unlikely to suddenly become poor, the only way of making things more competitive is to have the money to compete on level terms (or as close as we can get).

I guess I'm saying that in a slightly paradoxical manner we (and by 'we' I mean other clubs as well) need money to somehow return to the excitement of unpredictability that you are talking about. Only when things aren't so balanced heavily in the favour of a small number of teams will there be a return to the days where hard work,skill and a little bit of luck can make all the difference.

Football is never going to be what it used to be. The only way it will become anything resembling anything other than a series of meaningless titles bought by a handful of clubs will be if there are 10, 15, maybe even 20 rich clubs that make the presence of money virtually irrelevant.

That's never going to happen either, but you can see why people would want our club to dine at the table of success enjoyed so frequently by clubs like United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and soon City.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
Also, re the 'money morality debate' you can only claim that there is no distinction between 'invested and earned' if you believe there is no difference between sport and business. I happen to believe there are many differences even if sport does, by necessity, share some characteristics with business.
While I think that is a facile and inaccurate statement, it isn't even applicable. There is no way that anybody could describe the amounts of money thrown at Chelski and Citeh as 'investments'.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
Well then. We bought success. That's what I said.

I don't know that we spent more than anyone else could afford,. We certainly spent more than most clubs could afford. I don't know how much was generated 'organically' either.

You really think we're a club in anything but name?
We're going to have to agree to differ on a point which you describe as 'casuistry' but which I believe is fundamental to the entire edifice of sport in general and football in particular.

As for your last sentence: I thought that I was cynical, but I can see that I'm way out of my depth with you.
 

King of Otters

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2012
10,751
36,093
Of course you could. An investment doesn't necessarily have to yield a monetary return. When you 'invest' in a new car you know you won't be getting your money back.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2007
38,502
11,933
lol at morons doubting pep Guardiolas abilities as a manager.

2 champions leagues, 2 world club champions, 3 la ligas, 2 copa del rey, 2 european super cups 3 spanish super cups 14 trophies in 4 seasons. enough said

Not really enough said. He had an amazing group of players and got them playing wonderful possession football. But as we saw this season, when he had to try something different, he couldn't implement any plan B, then he left. Add to that the issue that a lot of the players he brought in from the outside flopped.

The jury is still out for me. It's not as if he has managed multiple teams with great success, just managed a golden generation well IMO.
 

Antilokhos

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2010
482
745
I like your post, but I don't particularly agree with all of it. What I'd like to see is a level playing field. That's clearly not the case with the way things are right now. There is a small number of clubs that can offer the high wages that attract good players. Within this group there are a couple of clubs that can pay ridiculous transfer fees at the drop of a hat.

Seeing as FFP is unlikely to achieve anything, and seeing as those clubs are unlikely to suddenly become poor, the only way of making things more competitive is to have the money to compete on level terms (or as close as we can get).

I guess I'm saying that in a slightly paradoxical manner we (and by 'we' I mean other clubs as well) need money to somehow return to the excitement of unpredictability that you are talking about. Only when things aren't so balanced heavily in the favour of a small number of teams will there be a return to the days where hard work,skill and a little bit of luck can make all the difference.

Football is never going to be what it used to be. The only way it will become anything resembling anything other than a series of meaningless titles bought by a handful of clubs will be if there are 10, 15, maybe even 20 rich clubs that make the presence of money virtually irrelevant.

That's never going to happen either, but you can see why people would want our club to dine at the table of success enjoyed so frequently by clubs like United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and soon City.

I think there is only so much of a level playing field that one can construct. A team like Spurs is going to have more resources than a team based in a smaller city (let's say Stoke). I think the approach that is needed is something similar to what the FFP shoots for. There are too many clubs to ensure that everybody can (naturally) pay a similar wage. And even if there were 15-20 rich clubs like you talked about (assuming you mean domestic, not the CL) the bigger clubs would still be able to massively outspend the smaller ones, so you'd see the same problems.

I think the best solution would be some sort of wage cap. Limit the amount clubs can spend on players, and you'll give a smaller, well run club a chance to make an impact. Obviously the rich clubs can offer more marketing money and exposure. But as long as they are allowed to spend stupid amounts of money I believe we'll see the game continue to be warped towards the money. At some point our society will have to realize that the hellbent pursuit of the dollar/pound/euro is not the be all, end all of happiness and civilization. Unfortunately we aren't their yet.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2007
38,502
11,933
That's all success is now though. City won the league. Chelsea won the Champions League. Both bought their success and will will still have their names on those trophies many years from now.

Personally I'd like to see us maintain our team whilst gradually building. The only way I can see that happening is if we are able to pay wages that compete with the biggest hitters. We might not sign players for £50m, but if we could keep players like Modric by paying them £150k plus I'd be happy with that.

Without money we won't get a new stadium, or be able to build a team constantly having to start again due to being able to hold on to key players. Any hope of doing otherwise is a pipe dream at worst, or an ephemeral and moderate success at best.

I think I'd like to see how the fair play rules affect things going forward. It'd be just our luck to lose Levy, get big spending, but clueless Yank owners and then not be able to spend the dosh.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
If we admit it's all about the money then what's the point? The magical thing about sport isn't that the favorites always win. It's that with hard work, some skill, and a bit of luck; anything can happen. It's hard for a fan to relate to money, it's not necessarily something that is hardwired into us. But it is easy for us to latch onto the tribal nature of sport in today's society, especially when you look at the weakened bonds that most people have now. And it's much easier for the typical fan to latch onto being an underdog instead of the expected winner.

So to chase the money is something that is going to be the anathema to the soul. It will take something that means something now, the common struggle against the injustices of the world (as represented by Russian criminals and Islamofascist tyrants) and reduce it to something we have no linkage to.

No, it's not an entirely rational view point. I get that, but it's one that needs to be considered. And I think there is something to be said for earning what you get. Not having it given to you. Plus a massive cash infusion would see the addition of the fake fans that seem to follow the money, and there is also something to be said for avoiding bandwagon fans.

I like, but the fact is that Spurs stopped being a club not on the day that KB stuck two fingers up at the boardroom in 1984, but in 1895, when we turned professional. We fans may preserve the quaint romantic fiction that we're still a 'club', but membership buys us nothing more than first dibs on tickets; in reality we're a subsidiary of the Tavistock Group, a huge investment conglomerate run by two exceptionally hard-nosed businessmen that invests in who-knows-what? Joe Lewis is at base a currency trader; that makes him morally superior to Abramovich and Sheikh Yerbooti? I think we're on potentially shaky ground here.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
I think there is only so much of a level playing field that one can construct. A team like Spurs is going to have more resources than a team based in a smaller city (let's say Stoke). I think the approach that is needed is something similar to what the FFP shoots for. There are too many clubs to ensure that everybody can (naturally) pay a similar wage. And even if there were 15-20 rich clubs like you talked about (assuming you mean domestic, not the CL) the bigger clubs would still be able to massively outspend the smaller ones, so you'd see the same problems.

I think the best solution would be some sort of wage cap. Limit the amount clubs can spend on players, and you'll give a smaller, well run club a chance to make an impact. Obviously the rich clubs can offer more marketing money and exposure. But as long as they are allowed to spend stupid amounts of money I believe we'll see the game continue to be warped towards the money. At some point our society will have to realize that the hellbent pursuit of the dollar/pound/euro is not the be all, end all of happiness and civilization. Unfortunately we aren't their yet.

A wage cap would be good. A transfer cap would be even better. Set it at, say, £50m per season. Obviously there would be very few teams that would have that sort of money, but it would mean that those that do would have to be a lot smarter with their cash. It would force the rich teams into deciding whether to spend their money on 3 or 4 players at around £10m to £15m, or splurge the whole lot on Torres. Eventually a consensus of player value would be established, and if rich clubs want to make full use of their millions they can pay massively for one player, yet would pay the consequence of being unable to strengthen other areas.

As for society realising that the pursuit of money is not the be all and end all of happiness - I think you're possibly making the same mistake Marx did by underestimating capitalism's ability to expand and multiply it's morality vacuum of a system in a more or less infinite manner. The current economic crisis is all part of that expansion. I think of it as forests needing to be burnt down routinely in order to regrow.

I think a lot of things. Mostly bullshit. I blame Jenas.
 

McFlash

In the corner, eating crayons.
Oct 19, 2005
12,740
45,361
I like, but the fact is that Spurs stopped being a club not on the day that KB stuck two fingers up at the boardroom in 1984, but in 1895, when we turned professional. We fans may preserve the quaint romantic fiction that we're still a 'club', but membership buys us nothing more than first dibs on tickets; in reality we're a subsidiary of the Tavistock Group, a huge investment conglomerate run by two exceptionally hard-nosed businessmen that invests in who-knows-what? Joe Lewis is at base a currency trader; that makes him morally superior to Abramovich and Sheikh Yerbooti? I think we're on potentially shaky ground here.

Jeez SS, you must be fun at parties! :)
 

Dundalk_Spur

The only Spur in the village
Jul 17, 2008
4,956
7,688
i dare say there will be a few members without ITK access for a while.

I am sure we are all familiar with the history of THFC and if not there are plenty of books and dvds to choose from.

A number of you should be wise and old enough not to continue this conversation on in this thread.

Now fuck off to bed and please lets not have a repeat tomorrow.
 

Antilokhos

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2010
482
745
I like, but the fact is that Spurs stopped being a club not on the day that KB stuck two fingers up at the boardroom in 1984, but in 1895, when we turned professional. We fans may preserve the quaint romantic fiction that we're still a 'club', but membership buys us nothing more than first dibs on tickets; in reality we're a subsidiary of the Tavistock Group, a huge investment conglomerate run by two exceptionally hard-nosed businessmen that invests in who-knows-what? Joe Lewis is at base a currency trader; that makes him morally superior to Abramovich and Sheikh Yerbooti? I think we're on potentially shaky ground here.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought Lewis is a saint while Abramovich is a devil (well, maybe I do with him, he's dirtier than most). For the club to matter to me I need someway to feel connected to it. So even though the club is a privately held business, they need to at least pretend to care what I, as a fan, thinks. And for me, feeling that connection is important. If some mega rich owner came in, changed everything up, and just spent his way to success, that connection would die for me. So while intellectually I realize that I am meaningless to the club, under the current set up, with carefully considered growth, and no rapid overall, I can feel like I am along for the ride. If we were to do a Man City or a Chelsea, I would feel like I had been left behind.

I also realize that you have a different perspective, but I think we can all agree that we want Spurs to do things the right way. I'd rather be Barca than Real, even though the difference is meaningless to every other team in La Liga.
 

Antilokhos

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2010
482
745
A wage cap would be good. A transfer cap would be even better. Set it at, say, £50m per season. Obviously there would be very few teams that would have that sort of money, but it would mean that those that do would have to be a lot smarter with their cash. It would force the rich teams into deciding whether to spend their money on 3 or 4 players at around £10m to £15m, or splurge the whole lot on Torres. Eventually a consensus of player value would be established, and if rich clubs want to make full use of their millions they can pay massively for one player, yet would pay the consequence of being unable to strengthen other areas.

As for society realising that the pursuit of money is not the be all and end all of happiness - I think you're possibly making the same mistake Marx did by underestimating capitalism's ability to expand and multiply it's morality vacuum of a system in a more or less infinite manner. The current economic crisis is all part of that expansion. I think of it as forests needing to be burnt down routinely in order to regrow.

I think a lot of things. Mostly bullshit. I blame Jenas.

A transfer cap could be interesting as well, though maybe allow it to be a 3 year rolling average. Would allow for big summers on occasion. But I think the wage cap would be more of fix since that would impact players more. With limited transfer money but unlimited wages, I think you'd see more people running down their contracts and then the rich teams stepping in. A club wage cap would avoid such a thing.

As for Karl Marx, alas, I am not terribly familiar with all his writings so I shall have to cede that argument to you. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top