I've a couple of questions for the "ripping the heart out of our club" gang:
1. If this takeover means we spend millions on "mercenaries", meaning that no young players breakthrough, was it ok to spend slightly different multi millions on the players we have over the past decade? Or have we been spending multi millions on just the wrong mercenaries? We spent the same on Lamela and Soldado as Man City did on Aguero and Toure. Except for quality, can someone please tell me what's different?
Fair question, and to an extent yes, the only difference is the immediate quality of the players. At the same time, we have built on smart moves within a budget. We haven't engaged in active "financial doping", so it would be a difference if we went from building the smartest squad we could with the restrictions we have to spending as much as necessary to buy whoever was desired. And although the last few years have been poor in terms of academy graduates, we have turned that around, and are building up a core of youth with a real "Spurs" character, and it's making a visible difference (to the results, the team's spirit, and the fans). To me, that adds a bit of meaning and zest to the football, and it also would be something we'd lose if it was replaced with oligarch approach.
2. If we are owned by the Qatari Royal Family, will they ever turn up at a match? If not, will this be an issue, because it seems to be quite acceptable for Joe Lewis to never show face? At least Roman turns up at Chelsea every so often.
It would be an issue if they sought to impose their views on the club from afar. We have a particular character as a fan base, and if the owners sought to change that character to make it more palatable to them, even if they weren't present physically, it would be a problem as far as I am concerned.
The Qataris may well have a dodgy human rights record (as far as we are concerned, but not as far as they are concerned), so there's a reason for not wanting this to happen. All this gnashing of teeth about turning into City or Chelsea is just ignoring the fact that we are like them already, just not as good at playing the game.
I would say we are very much not like them, and there is a clear difference. We have a plan to organically build ourselves into something bigger, but do not go into massive debt to short-cut the hard work. We have not got 700 million to a billion in debt or "loans" hanging over our heads that would either need to be repaid, or which wouldn't be repaid, but which leave us with a squad we cannot afford if the owners exited rapidly.
I am not completely with ENIC, and am not a fan of the corporate model, but I do respect the effort they have put in to build the club in a financially viable way. We have done things the hard way, and I find that to be admirable, especially when the odds have been stacked against us and we're tilting at windmills anyway. We could have owners like West Ham, Newcastle or Aston Villa who have given up on competing, for the most part, and simply seek to avoid relegation. Instead we're actually trying to do the impossible and compete against the big boys when we haven't got a prayer. I like that attitude, and don't want to lose it.
