Man Utd works because they are biggest club in the world with the second biggest turnover (and I'd take Madrid's figures with a massive pinch of salt) with huge commercial deals.
Any other club tries that and they're dust.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Any other club tries that and they're dust.
More or less what I'm saying.
What. Spend 200 million on the team ? Win 4 titles in 6 years ? mmm` I wouldn`t mind a bit of that, If I`m being honest like.
A clean sheet at home will even get a few smiles :kaboullol:
The point is without the debt the could have spent significantly more. But thanks for playing.
Sorry, that doesn't make much sense. Again, United have never been short of money to burn in the transfer market. Fergie just didn't want to, because he was a managerial freak of nature and he could drag a team packed with mid-table footballers to the title regardless. His successors have actually been human however.
Last five seasons their net spend stands at roughly 282m pounds, right in lockstep with Chelsea and nipping at the heels of City by 10m pounds. Your post is pure speculation. You make the point that if they hadn't leveraged up with debt then they would have had more money to spend in the market, but in fact they already have more money to spend in the market regardless, leveraged buyout or not!
Again, it doesn't mean that Tottenham should or could do it, just that Man U isn't a cautionary tale mired in debt. The deal worked out for them because it still made sense with their finances.
That's a tautology. My point is that paying off the debt is a limitation on the finances available for spending on footballing matters. Yes, they already have a lot to spend. Without servicing the debt though, they'd have more still. It is a limitation.
Spurs don't have Utd's cash flows, and the marginal difference between throttling back spending at United to Chelsea levels, and Spurs being pegged back to West Ham levels while paying off a debt is significant.
This would hurt the club severely, unless prospective owners were going to shovel money at the club in the meantime to protect competitiveness. But if they could give extra money to sustain competitiveness they wouldn't have needed to load up on debt in the first place. It's just a bad situation for Spurs all-around. In particular since it's a distractionat a time we can't afford them.
http://www.espnfc.com/blog/espn-fc-...-teams-run-risk-of-repeating-serie-a-mistakes
This is also good food for thought at the moment. Spending sensibly now my be the best protection against implosion later, letting us overtake weakened rivals.
This is also good food for thought at the moment. Spending sensibly now my be the best protection against implosion later, letting us overtake weakened rivals.
Again, I'm not arguing about the merits of Spurs leveraging up. You're wasting your breath talking about that, because I don't disagree in the slightest.
Ok, apologies for misinterpreting.
Who is
Herriniho
and why has he gone through this thread and disagreed with every single thing I've posted 
aulinholol:
aulinholol:Roll back to the early Sugar days....Spurs were the equal of United....20 years later they are so far ahead of us. That's an Awful feeling. And has ENIC reduced that gap ? No not really. Those 2 league cups don't add up to much. "Lads. It's only Spurs" as the Fergie team talk used to go. ENIC have done nothing to protect our "brand" against this fact / verbal bashing b
Am I right in thinking ENIC used the football club income to partly ( fully ? ) fund the land purchased for the development & then last summer split the assests from the football club & then "loan" the club £50m. I maybe recalling this wrong...if not that's a pretty terrible state of affairs and tells us all we need to know about these people.
Am I right in thinking ENIC used the football club income to partly ( fully ? ) fund the land purchased for the development & then last summer split the assests from the football club & then "loan" the club £50m. I maybe recalling this wrong...if not that's a pretty terrible state of affairs and tells us all we need to know about these people.
I dont even know where to begin with this...
Are you comparing us with the most successful team and manager ever seen in this country... and using that to judge wether Enic have done well?
I'd take a draw.
We weren't the equal in the 90s but should have been up there competing instead of fighting relegation battles.
Sugar did what he had to do to save us going from the wall. Difficult to challenge when you've not got any money
He had friends at Sky and knew the influx of money that was coming into the league.
Regardless of the public perception Spurs aren't underachieving, they are over achieving and it's largely thanks to Levy
https://tottenhamthinktank.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/the-state-of-spurs/
https://tottenhamthinktank.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/the-state-of-spurs/