The Game Is About Glory

[Sevens]

From what I gather, the plan has been along the lines of:

Build new training facilities
Build a new stadium

The stadium will be used both as an increased revenue stream in and of itself, but also to build the Spurs brand more widely around the world, which in turn generates revenue. This increased revenue is used to bring in the resources needed to challenge on four fronts on a regular basis. Buying the elite players with big names will also feed into the development of the brand, to sustain that increased revenue. It is basically trying to do what clubs like Real and Barca currently have - enormous presence around the world, which allows them to buy the big players and win trophies and maintain their fame, thus generating the money to buy the big names, win trophies and maintain their fame, and on and on and on.

Now, there is an argument that all of this tarnishes the purity of the game. There's certainly much grist for the mill when it comes to that debate. But whatever one's view of it is, we can't deny what the state of football actually is. That, at present, it is a business. That may change in the future or it may not, but today it is what it is. And so we have to play the game as it is, which is to treat it as a business.

But even with the new stadium and training facilities, we're still behind our rivals resource wise. I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things (quite the opposite, standing still is going backwards) but the Emirates didn't catapult Arsenal to a greater level of success than when they were at Highbury.

The cynic in me says that ENIC are happy to invest in capital projects because there is a lower risk of not realising the return. I've said this before many times but if it was between Spurs generating £50m profit in a trophyless season vs taking a risk and spending £50m to have a 75% chance of winning the league or a 25% chance of breaking even, then ENIC would bank the £50m and consider it a good season.

 

[rez9000]

But even with the new stadium and training facilities, we're still behind our rivals resource wise. I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things (quite the opposite, standing still is going backwards) but the Emirates didn't catapult Arsenal to a greater level of success than when they were at Highbury.

The cynic in me says that ENIC are happy to invest in capital projects because there is a lower risk of not realising the return. I've said this before many times but if it was between Spurs generating £50m profit in a trophyless season vs taking a risk and spending £50m to have a 75% chance of winning the league or a 25% chance of breaking even, then ENIC would bank the £50m and consider it a good season.

OK, and that's perfectly in and of what it is - a preference.

I'm not stating a preference per se: I'm arguing that if we want sustained, long-term success, the manner in which we're going about it is the wisest way of doing it but that winning a trophy doesn't play any part in it.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that you want us to win a trophy. So do I. So does every Spurs fan. But the manner of winning a trophy that you outline above could potentially damage the ability to build long-term sustained success.

Have you ever heard of the Stanford marshmallow experiment? It was a studies done at, funnily enough, Stanford University by psychologist Walter Mischel. The testing was done on children and it was test of delayed gratification. A child was placed alone in a room with a some form of sweet (a marshmallow, a cookie, a pretzel). Before being left, the child was told that they had a choice between the sweet they had in front of them now or two sweets some time later (I can't remember if they were told how long). And there were some children who couldn't resist and those who delayed their gratification.

The original hypothesis of the experiment wasn't proved, however, in follow-up studies done many years later, it was found that those children who managed to delay gratification ended up with better life outcomes.

This isn't to ascribe a behaviour or psychological constitution on anyone, but the idea of winning a trophy now is similar to eating the marshmallow now at the expense of two (or more) marshmallows further down the line. That marshmallow is sweet, it's lovely, we enjoy eating it. But then we have no more marshmallows. Waiting, sacrificing the gratification of eating the one marshmallow now, will lead us to more marshmallows later.

I really fancy a marshmallow now...

 

[carmeldevil]

OK, and that's perfectly in and of what it is - a preference.

I'm not stating a preference per se: I'm arguing that if we want sustained, long-term success, the manner in which we're going about it is the wisest way of doing it but that winning a trophy doesn't play any part in it.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that you want us to win a trophy. So do I. So does every Spurs fan. But the manner of winning a trophy that you outline above could potentially damage the ability to build long-term sustained success.

Have you ever heard of the Stanford marshmallow experiment? It was a studies done at, funnily enough, Stanford University by psychologist Walter Mischel. The testing was done on children and it was test of delayed gratification. A child was placed alone in a room with a some form of sweet (a marshmallow, a cookie, a pretzel). Before being left, the child was told that they had a choice between the sweet they had in front of them now or two sweets some time later (I can't remember if they were told how long). And there were some children who couldn't resist and those who delayed their gratification.

The original hypothesis of the experiment wasn't proved, however, in follow-up studies done many years later, it was found that those children who managed to delay gratification ended up with better life outcomes.

This isn't to ascribe a behaviour or psychological constitution on anyone, but the idea of winning a trophy now is similar to eating the marshmallow now at the expense of two (or more) marshmallows further down the line. That marshmallow is sweet, it's lovely, we enjoy eating it. But then we have no more marshmallows. Waiting, sacrificing the gratification of eating the one marshmallow now, will lead us to more marshmallows later.

I really fancy a marshmallow now...

Wait two more months and you’ll have a nice fat marshmallow from Levy. Or something like that.

 

[Sevens]

OK, and that's perfectly in and of what it is - a preference.

I'm not stating a preference per se: I'm arguing that if we want sustained, long-term success, the manner in which we're going about it is the wisest way of doing it but that winning a trophy doesn't play any part in it.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that you want us to win a trophy. So do I. So does every Spurs fan. But the manner of winning a trophy that you outline above could potentially damage the ability to build long-term sustained success.

Have you ever heard of the Stanford marshmallow experiment? It was a studies done at, funnily enough, Stanford University by psychologist Walter Mischel. The testing was done on children and it was test of delayed gratification. A child was placed alone in a room with a some form of sweet (a marshmallow, a cookie, a pretzel). Before being left, the child was told that they had a choice between the sweet they had in front of them now or two sweets some time later (I can't remember if they were told how long). And there were some children who couldn't resist and those who delayed their gratification.

The original hypothesis of the experiment wasn't proved, however, in follow-up studies done many years later, it was found that those children who managed to delay gratification ended up with better life outcomes.

This isn't to ascribe a behaviour or psychological constitution on anyone, but the idea of winning a trophy now is similar to eating the marshmallow now at the expense of two (or more) marshmallows further down the line. That marshmallow is sweet, it's lovely, we enjoy eating it. But then we have no more marshmallows. Waiting, sacrificing the gratification of eating the one marshmallow now, will lead us to more marshmallows later.

I really fancy a marshmallow now...

I've heard of that experiment. But it's not the correct comparison here. The correct comparison would be that the child is starving!

If someone had told me in 1991 that we wouldn't win the FA Cup again in the next 20 years, I'd have laughed in their face. Now it's almost 30 years. Indeed, in the last 30 years we have won just three trophies. What that tells me is that we shouldn't sneer at any trophy and we should absolutely give it 100% to win every trophy. It's not an ego thing. Audere Est Facere.

 

[fortworthspur]

there's a reason the champions league pays so much - its extremely popular. Id say winning it is about as much glory as you can get.

 

[Sevens]

there's a reason the champions league pays so much - its extremely popular. Id say winning it is about as much glory as you can get.

Not sure I understand your point? Are you saying that any other trophy is irrelevant because the Champion's League is the only one that matters?

 

[fortworthspur]

Not sure I understand your point? Are you saying that any other trophy is irrelevant because the Champion's League is the only one that matters?

no Im saying the champions league is about glory - the most glory you can get playing club football in Europe. Fans obviously love it because it generates so much money. So I disagree that owners and coaches arent giving the fans what they want.

 

[Sevens]

no Im saying the champions league is about glory - the most glory you can get playing club football in Europe. Fans obviously love it because it generates so much money. So I disagree that owners and coaches arent giving the fans what they want.

I'd say winning the Champion's League is about glory. Merely being in it to make up the numbers, is not.

 

[fortworthspur]

I'd say winning the Champion's League is about glory. Merely being in it to make up the numbers, is not.

well you cant win it if you dont qualify. to dare is to do ad all that

 

[Sevens]

well you cant win it if you dont qualify. to dare is to do ad all that

So do you think we can't win a domestic trophy and qualify for the Champion's League? It has to be one or the other?

 

[fortworthspur]

So do you think we can't win a domestic trophy and qualify for the Champion's League? It has to be one or the other?

no, I thought that was your point. I dont think its a zero sum equation, we just havent done it yet but we've only qualified for the CL 4 times.

 

[Sevens]

no, I thought that was your point. I dont think its a zero sum equation, we just havent done it yet but we've only qualified for the CL 4 times.

Do you agree with Poch that winning a trophy means nothing and is only ego?

 

[fortworthspur]

Do you agree with Poch that winning a trophy means nothing and is only ego?

no, of course not. I mean no to the first part - he wants a trophy. as far as ego, what are trophies for if not one's ego?

 

[rez9000]

I've heard of that experiment. But it's not the correct comparison here. The correct comparison would be that the child is starving!

If someone had told me in 1991 that we wouldn't win the FA Cup again in the next 20 years, I'd have laughed in their face. Now it's almost 30 years. Indeed, in the last 30 years we have won just three trophies. What that tells me is that we shouldn't sneer at any trophy and we should absolutely give it 100% to win every trophy. It's not an ego thing. Audere Est Facere.

Irrelevant. Whether the 'child' is starving or well-fed makes absolutely no difference.

You give the 'starving' child some seeds. It eats the seeds. There are no more. It starves again.

You give the child the ability to plant the seeds, teach it how to grow those seeds, it gets real food. AND, by the way, gives it more seeds. The child never starves again.

All you're doing is appealing to instant gratification, which is self-defeating. I'm not averse to us winning a trophy, as no Spurs fan will be. But if it's the choice between trying for one trophy now, or trying for many trophies later, a wise person knows which is preferable...

 

[rez9000]

Wait two more months and you’ll have a nice fat marshmallow from Levy. Or something like that.

I'm sorry, I'm failing to understand your point...

 

[scat1620]

All you're doing is appealing to instant gratification, which is self-defeating. I'm not averse to us winning a trophy, as no Spurs fan will be. But if it's the choice between trying for one trophy now, or trying for many trophies later, a wise person knows which is preferable...

Depends how late 'later' is though, doesn't it? I'm not saying that my view of "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" is absolutely right and can't be argued, but equally your view that patience will bring an acceptably likely possibility of greater rewards in a timescale that we'll all be alive to enjoy when it happens can be challenged too.

This is just one of those debates where there is and can be no right answer, it's all a question of opinion.

 

[Sevens]

Irrelevant. Whether the 'child' is starving or well-fed makes absolutely no difference.

You give the 'starving' child some seeds. It eats the seeds. There are no more. It starves again.

You give the child the ability to plant the seeds, teach it how to grow those seeds, it gets real food. AND, by the way, gives it more seeds. The child never starves again.

All you're doing is appealing to instant gratification, which is self-defeating. I'm not averse to us winning a trophy, as no Spurs fan will be. But if it's the choice between trying for one trophy now, or trying for many trophies later, a wise person knows which is preferable...

How long would you give the "project" before you would say that it wasn't instant gratification? The "project" has been going on for 18 years already and yielded one League Cup that was 11 years ago. How much longer do you give it?

 

[fortworthspur]

of the 8 teams not named United, City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea that have won a cup final in the last 2 decades, six arent even in the prem today.

1. The very top clubs have a stranglehold on the domestic cups as well these days and

2. If you arent a top club but manage to win a cup its probably going to be a while before you find joy again.

 

[Sevens]

of the 8 teams not named United, City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea that have won a cup final in the last 2 decades, six arent even in the prem today.

1. The very top clubs have a stranglehold on the domestic cups as well these days and

2. If you arent a top club but manage to win a cup its probably going to be a while before you find joy again.

Hasn't that always been the case? What should those clubs have done instead? Are we seriously stating that non-top clubs shouldn't waste their time trying to win trophies?

 

[slartibartfast]

of the 8 teams not named United, City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea that have won a cup final in the last 2 decades, six arent even in the prem today.

1. The very top clubs have a stranglehold on the domestic cups as well these days and

2. If you arent a top club but manage to win a cup its probably going to be a while before you find joy again.

I wish more people would realise this, especially the media.
Those pricks were even on about Everton having to win some silverware on TS today!!!
Thats not gonna happen unless SERIOUS investment magically appears from somewhere.
Its all about the money.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.