Can anyone clarify this?

[ShayLaB]

Agree with most of the above...but if somebody would pay for a new stadium that would be nice.

 

[talkshowhost86]

So basically -π

I'd welcome the investment. Our current owner is mega rich, only difference between us and City is our owner doesn't flash the cash like theirs.

New mega rich owners would mean the NDP stadium being built, us keeping our star players, and most importantly......




















A FUCKING NEW STRIKER!! :lol:

There's a pretty good reason for that though to be fair.

 

[sparx100]

A lot of my hatred for Chelscum and Citeh derives from the jealousy that they have the financial clout to get whomever they want. They have clear targets for success like every other club, but they can finance those ambitions.

I echo BC's thoughts on the matter. I think with our current model, we will alway be achieving but we will always be unable to reach that top group of clubs. Saying that, I am proud of the success we have achieved over the last few seasons.

 

[EastLondonYid]

What a load of crap, so many on SC would give their blessing to us becoming an East London club,selling our soul IMO, for the sole reason as to compete with the 'top 4', but they wouldn't accept a mega rich new investor...what total hypicritical Bollox !!

IMO, its far more immoral moving to where we don't belong or come from , than having some billionaire investing in us.

 

[Mr Pink]

I love the idea of achieving what we want to achieve using a good business model, great management and coaching and club spirit. But my head tells me that the best clubs in Europe are almost all without exception the richest and unless we join the party we will always be second tier.

I don't really see how Chelsea or ManC are ever going to be worse off for being owned by sugar daddies. Neither club would ever have got near what they have achieved without it, and worse case scenario in the near future their owners sell them to a buyer with smaller pockets, they are only going to be back where the were before. In Chelsea's case they were close to bankruptcy when Abramovich came along, how much do you think their consciences prick them about the moral issue of being owned by a generous billionaire oligarch ?

These rich clubs push us around in the same way we push smaller clubs than us around. If being sold to a billionaire, who is prepared to invest in the team means we can start to compete for players with ManU, Arse and Chelsea, then why not ?

My only caveat would be that we only sell to a guaranteed big hitter with serious intentions and the billions to match. Otherwise I'd rather stick with the superb fiscal management of Levy and ENIC, develop a stadium and do it the hard way.

Its the only way I want us to do it.

There is also a fundamental difference in the comparison of the likes of Chelsea/City bullying us compared to us bullying a smaller Club.

That difference is quite simply that we have earned the right, going about things the right way as a football Club, to have that power over the smaller Clubs. City etc have catapulted themselves into the position they are in without having had to earn the right of doing well on the football picth and achieveing success that way/the right way in my eyes.

Its nothing like the same thing infact. We have earned our position of power over the smaller Clubs, when did City/Chelsea ever earn their position of strength over us?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Its the only way I want us to do it.

There is also a fundamental difference in the comparison of the likes of Chelsea/City bullying us compared to us bullying a smaller Club.

That difference is quite simply that we have earned the right, going about things the right way as a football Club, to have that power over the smaller Clubs. City etc have catapulted themselves into the position they are in without having had to earn the right of doing well on the football picth and achieveing success that way/the right way in my eyes.

Its nothing like the same thing infact. We have earned our position of power over the smaller Clubs, when did City/Chelsea ever earn their position of strength over us?

I don't know that there is a right way ? What is different between what Abramovich has done and say Jack Walker did, or that Dave Whelan is doing at Wigan ? IF Dave Whelan was a multi billionaire Wigan would be doing what Chesea and ManC are doing now.

You don't earn the right to bully anyone. Bullying was perhaps an emotive term. All I meant was there is a food chain, and that food chain is largely dictated by wealth.

 

[guiltyparty]

We have earned our position of power over the smaller Clubs, when did City/Chelsea ever earn their position of strength over us?

Abramovich bought out Chelsea in June 2003. Chelsea finished above Spurs six seasons in a row before that season, usually by five or more places so not just slightly. We only finished better than 10th once between 1996 and 2004. They also won the FA Cup final twice and were runner-up once in the late-90s too, and were runners up two seasons before Abramovich took over

Yes they both have money to burn, but Man City and Chelsea are not the same. Chelsea have outperformed us for a while, even before their Russian billions. Man City are the luckiest team on earth

 

[sloth]

No skill on a computer game, but money doesn't win matches - players do.

We spend more than most teams in the PL. Is that unfair on the smaller, poorer teams who don't have the same resources available for whatever reason that we can spend £16mill on players and £60 grand a week on wages?

I love the idea of achieving what we want to achieve using a good business model, great management and coaching and club spirit. But my head tells me that the best clubs in Europe are almost all without exception the richest and unless we join the party we will always be second tier.

I don't really see how Chelsea or ManC are ever going to be worse off for being owned by sugar daddies. Neither club would ever have got near what they have achieved without it, and worse case scenario in the near future their owners sell them to a buyer with smaller pockets, they are only going to be back where the were before. In Chelsea's case they were close to bankruptcy when Abramovich came along, how much do you think their consciences prick them about the moral issue of being owned by a generous billionaire oligarch ?

These rich clubs push us around in the same way we push smaller clubs than us around. If being sold to a billionaire, who is prepared to invest in the team means we can start to compete for players with ManU, Arse and Chelsea, then why not ?

My only caveat would be that we only sell to a guaranteed big hitter with serious intentions and the billions to match. Otherwise I'd rather stick with the superb fiscal management of Levy and ENIC, develop a stadium and do it the hard way.

What a load of crap, so many on SC would give their blessing to us becoming an East London club,selling our soul IMO, for the sole reason as to compete with the 'top 4', but they wouldn't accept a mega rich new investor...what total hypicritical Bollox !!

IMO, its far more immoral moving to where we don't belong or come from , than having some billionaire investing in us.

The first thing for me is I don't think we live in a bubble, I don't want my club to be owned by a Billionaire criminal who got his money from torturing, murdering and blackmailing everyone else. That's how a lot of these billionaire's got their dosh. I wouldn't want anything to do with it.

If we were bought by a Bill Gates type billionaire then the dilemma becomes a different one and it gets back to football.

I could in those circumstances stomach it a bit more, but talking to some old school Chelsea fans it's true that some of them have lost their passion for the game.

It basically boils down to whether as a fan you're part of the success, the cause of it, if you like as is the case with the Utd's, Liverpool's and Arsenal's of this world. Or whether you're interested onlookers, glorified cheer-leaders if you like, who in fact are irrelevant to your club's success.

In the latter case whatever had happened before would be irrelevant to what's happening now in a way which will never be the case for an Arsenal, Liverpool or Utd fan.

Is it win at all costs and any price which matters, or is glory something different to that? Is the quality of satisfaction in victory untainted by the way in which it is achieved or can we say some victories are ultimately hollow ones?

Abramovich bought out Chelsea in June 2003. Chelsea finished above Spurs six seasons in a row before that season, usually by five or more places so not just slightly. We only finished better than 10th once between 1996 and 2004. They also won the FA Cup final twice and were runner-up once in the late-90s too, and were runners up two seasons before Abramovich took over

Yes they both have money to burn, but Man City and Chelsea are not the same. Chelsea have outperformed us for a while, even before their Russian billions. Man City are the luckiest team on earth

Except they built that pre-Abramovich success on debt and were it not for his dirty money they would have gone bust.

 

[Mr Pink]

Abramovich bought out Chelsea in June 2003. Chelsea finished above Spurs six seasons in a row before that season, usually by five or more places so not just slightly. We only finished better than 10th once between 1996 and 2004. They also won the FA Cup final twice and were runner-up once in the late-90s too, and were runners up two seasons before Abramovich took over

Yes they both have money to burn, but Man City and Chelsea are not the same. Chelsea have outperformed us for a while, even before their Russian billions. Man City are the luckiest team on earth

Totally agree, the more pertinent example is most definitely City.

 

[Mr Pink]

I don't know that there is a right way ? What is different between what Abramovich has done and say Jack Walker did, or that Dave Whelan is doing at Wigan ? IF Dave Whelan was a multi billionaire Wigan would be doing what Chesea and ManC are doing now.

You don't earn the right to bully anyone. Bullying was perhaps an emotive term. All I meant was there is a food chain, and that food chain is largely dictated by wealth.

But Dave Whelan isn't a multi billionaire :wink:

Its the grotesque fashion that the success is bought, that wouldn't leave a legitimate taste of success in the mouth.

 

[guiltyparty]

Except they built that pre-Abramovich success on debt and were it not for his dirty money they would have gone bust.

Lots of clubs do that, us included at one point in time, pre-Sugar. We are a fantastically run club now but this most definitely wasn't always the way, and I think we can come across as holier than thou sometimes as we are in the minority.

Also it wasn't the argument that was being made. It was "what have Chelsea done to earn their strength over us?" And it was outperform us for nigh-on a decade, well before their windfall came.

 

[sloth]

Lots of clubs do that, us included at one point in time, pre-Sugar. We are a fantastically run club now but this most definitely wasn't always the way, and I think we can come across as holier than thou sometimes as we are in the minority.

Also it wasn't the argument that was being made. It was "what have Chelsea done to earn their strength over us?" And it was outperform us for nigh-on a decade, well before their windfall came.

Your point was that Chelsea were successful in the seasons immediately before Abramovich arrived and so, for you, that means the Abramovich era was a continuation of a rise rather than the cause of it in the way the Mansour's was for City.

My response was to show that in actual fact, but for Abramovich far from on the rise Chelsea were accelerating over the edge of a chasm. In fact if I'm not mistaken they'd already begun the plunge when he swooped down to pluck them from their fate.

Imo Chelsea are every bit as bad as City, their fans and their success is built entirely on their owner's wealth with what went before meaningless to their current incarnation.

Imo, to all intent and purposes the old Chelsea FC and Man City FC ceased to exist the day they were taken over. The fans may be the same, but they've become a back-drop to a privately owned theme club where previous they were integral to each success of failure.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Last time I looked we had a fairly healthy book debt. What if we had a terrible season next year and were relegated. Our financial position would be quite precarious wouldn't it ?

I know what you mean about Chelsea's situation - I can still remember where I was the day I found out that Chelsea had not only been saved from glorious ruin but had flipped it and become the richest club in the world effectively - such was my grief.

We have been run better, but one terrible season could start a chain of events that could easily see us in the financial shit, with loans and creditors right up our arses, our best players gone and the road back to the promised land looking rocky ( a la Leeds).

I hear what you are saying about who buys our club, and would share your concern. I think it would bother me too if some morally bankrupt tosser was bankrolling us. But honestly, hand on heart, he would have to be right fucking wrong-un, because the thought of being at the sharp end of EPL & European football, signing and watching tsome of the best players in the world and watching them a mega stadium does appeal to me on an almost visceral level.

 

[sloth]

Last time I looked we had a fairly healthy book debt. What if we had a terrible season next year and were relegated. Our financial position would be quite precarious wouldn't it ?

I know what you mean about Chelsea's situation - I can still remember where I was the day I found out that Chelsea had not only been saved from glorious ruin but had flipped it and become the richest club in the world effectively - such was my grief.

We have been run better, but one terrible season could start a chain of events that could easily see us in the financial shit, with loans and creditors right up our arses, our best players gone and the road back to the promised land looking rocky ( a la Leeds).

I hear what you are saying about who buys our club, and would share your concern. I think it would bother me too if some morally bankrupt tosser was bankrolling us. But honestly, hand on heart, he would have to be right fucking wrong-un, because the thought of being at the sharp end of EPL & European football, signing and watching tsome of the best players in the world and watching them a mega stadium does appeal to me on an almost visceral level.

:lol: I can get that, but I think you're thinking that from the position of not being there, my hunch is that after a couple of years of having it you might not feel quite so visceral about it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

No skill on a computer game, but money doesn't win matches - players do.

We spend more than most teams in the PL. Is that unfair on the smaller, poorer teams who don't have the same resources available for whatever reason that we can spend £16mill on players and £60 grand a week on wages?

You've missed the point here, completely in fact

We play on a level playing field with others, in that we have to balance our books

We've earnt the right to generate high (relative to most, but obviously not the big guns) gate receipts through strong performances over decades of football, and our recent spending has been generated by:

- buying and selling well
- focusing on a low wage bill
- solid management and getting the most out of merchandising

There are only a couple of teams that don't abide by the same rules as everyone else - Chelsea and City

We've earnt the right to spend through astute management, and we've grown organically over our history. Furthermore, there has been a risk associated with how we've grown - if you spend big, you have to make a return or you get stung.

This is what happened to Leeds - they took a gamble, it went wrong and now look at them. Compare that to Chelsea, they were massively in debt, and they weren't far away from having to sell a shed load of players. Instead Roman came along and just got rid of their debts.

They played a high risk game, lost, but had no downside - thats not fair in my book.

And this is what's happened with City - they might as well spend £30m on a player because it doesn't matter for sh*t whether or not they're any good, they can just sell them and buy a new one if doesn't work out. That's obviously now changing with the new rules coming in, but ADIC have already injected absolutely f*ck loads of cash into the team, so they can - with good management - now just sustain themselves as long as they stay in the CL

Those two have been playing by different rules to everyone else, which is what I don't like

 

[spursandbarca]

man city and chelsea are a joke and still cant beat barcelona when it counts.........

 

[Bus-Conductor]

:lol: I can get that, but I think you're thinking that from the position of not being there, my hunch is that after a couple of years of having it you might not feel quite so visceral about it.

I think you're probably right, it might not take me that long, if truth be told. It would pose one hell of a moral dilemma for me.

Would you boycott spurs completely if someone you didn't approve of bought the club and started pumping billions into us ?

If catholics keep going to church despite knowing half the priests are nonces shouldn't we be equally as stoic ?

Honestly, its a toughie, isn't it ? What would you do ?

 

[kkemal]

i dont want to be run like man city.
Its cheating . would anyone here honestly want to play monopoly with a mate that turned up with a suitcase of his own monopoly money buying every square on the board? pointless utterly pointless.
Personally ive fallen out of love with football since abramovich went to chelsea and even more so since the whole man city circus started.
football is now a joke

I agree with you but the minute the premier league allowed every Russian, Arab and Indian Chicken making business man to purchase our clubs it was always going to happen!! Football has been corrupted by the fat cats wanting to grow their belly’s.....I live in hope that Chelsea and Man City's owners get fed up and stop funding the purchase of players and paying silly wages. But until that day comes we have to sit here quietly and accept that we are merely a guest at their bbq and winning the title is a 1000/1

If a rich Arab was to come in for Spurs would that be a bad thing? I honestly dont know.......What i do know is that watching Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City & Liverpool snapping up players is hard to swallow!

 

[There's always next year]

And this is what's happened with City - they might as well spend £30m on a player because it doesn't matter for sh*t whether or not they're any good, they can just sell them and buy a new one if doesn't work out.

The problem City now have is that they have too many players earning too much money, which is preventing them from moving them on due to 99% of other clubs not being able to fund the massive wages /contracts they are on.
To be honest City need to move on Bridge, SWP, Santa Cruz, Bellemy, Jo, Given and Adebayor, but no one can afford wages and transfer fee, so they end up either clogging up the 25 man squad rule or never playing again. Even if they are loaned out, City have to pay most of the weekly wage as it is unsustainable for 99% of other clubs.

 

[luptic]

For me being owned by a foreign billionaire from Russia/ Qatar/ UAE etc, is not what I want for our club, but I believe this is what will happen if ENIC gets their way. They are in here until someone offers a stupid amount of money for the club, and they (ENIC) can move onto their next project. Don’t get me wrong I love what Levy and Lewis have done for this club taking us from where we were, where we are now. Winning matches against Chelsea, Arsenal and City (away in 2010) are sweeter given the way the club is ran, and its winnings matches in general would probably feel better than they would if we were pumped full of money. It’s also great seeing a club being ran well competing against teams that are pumped full of cash, and looking at them all the hangers ons that are pumped full of cash. I’ve got a few uncles that are Chelsea fans from the 1950’s and for them football has changed they say, winnings league and cups etc is great, but you need the depression in football brings when your club is in performing badly to appreciate wins more. They would accept that if it wasn’t for Roman they might not have a club now, and they are very lucky, but winning against teams they you aren’t expected to beat is no more, but not performing against teams that you are expected to beat has taking over. And for them isn’t what football is, with the exception of a few matches a season.