Who is fooling who here?
If someone can explain to me the difference between Chelsea and Spurs other than winning, I'd be delighted to hear it.
-
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
Who is fooling who here?
If someone can explain to me the difference between Chelsea and Spurs other than winning, I'd be delighted to hear it.
If you consider it a badge of honor to be part of the same sized fan base paying the same ticket prices watching your team lose so your billionaire owner can profit rather than go into his own pocket, you're a more charitable sort than I am.
If you can't see the difference, perhaps you'd be better off taking your support to West London. The plastics will welcome you with open arms.
Chelsea were a bit of a nothing club, more known for their hooligan fans than the football. Until one day, a dodgy russian man, who's fortune was built in an unethical manner, who's very fortune resulted in the poverty, suffering and deaths of the general russian population, came along to buy chelsea and invest in London, in what many would have to say, is a strategic move, to gain popularity and influence over in London. Its almost certain Abramovich's decision to buy Chelsea was part of a greater agenda, to protect himself.
On the footballing side. Is it ethical to buy a football club and give them a billion pound, so that they win trophies? If that becomes the norm... which it essentially is now united have fallen from dominance, its not about which club is run better, who's players fight harder.. its about who has the biggest wallet. And thats not a sport.
At the minute, Tottenham haven't quite fallen down these rabbit holes. But we're not far off.
No one is under any obligation to lose money on a business they own. Roman's eagerness to do so is actually akin to dumping or subsidies that are outlawed in trade agreements. It's essentially a fundamental distortion of the system which leads to unsustainable practices which can kill teams (see Portsmouth, Leeds, Monaco, most of Italy and Spain...).
There is a massive difference.
Aye, it is. Almost every single piece of evidence points to most money = most success. Highest wages = highest position. It's rare to find exceptions to this and with FFP protecting the established big clubs from anyone new breaking in, we are fucked without that helicopter.
In terms of ethics or how we view the club, is there a real difference between ENIC and Qatar? Both are multi-billionaire entities hoping to make a buck - the latter just has more resources. I'd rather us go full into "pump money into the club and win" mode than the sort of half-assed situation we have now.
My personal aspirations for the club are for it to become of the same ilk as Dortmund or saints in terms of producing ridiculous quality from at the academy. I'd rather us build a team for the long run rather than ship in players for 3 years before the money dries up and we enter a massive financial crisis.
Dortmund
For me the big, big difference, is that ENIC doesn't actually have slaves. This particular ownership "choice" is not all about money.
Do you really need this answering?
Plastics are a symptom of winning, not spending. If Spurs thread a camel through the eye of a needle and manage to fill the trophy case while keeping Daniel Levy in champagne and caviar, we will be inundated with glory hounds all the same.
Fair point.
No, it isn't. Although there is a correlation between money and position, there are opportunities for more efficiently run teams to win titles. The choice is not exclusively between being a dependent on a sugar daddy and not competing. Man Utd actually did grow organically, no sugar daddy involved. Woolwich have done so as well, but suffer from their choice of manager.
We are chosing that path, and it has history of working in England and elsewhere. It won't work every year, but wouldn't even with the sugar daddy.
We don't need the helicopter.
It is a sport, and it's the sport that's been played for decades. Just because the players Spurs spend ungodly sums on aren't any good doesn't make the situation any different.
Tottenham are a massive wealthy super club with billionaire ownership who tower over virtually every entity in the global game. That ship sailed YEARS ago.
Perhaps we will, but your claim that the club is pocketing vast quantities of cash rather than spending it on the team is demonstrably false going by the financial statements which are publically available.
We have a resource limit, and don't exceed that. The path ENIC chose to success was to expand the resource limit. That's a lot harder than financial doping, but carries with it less long-term risk.
But they exist. And in doing so, make your claim that there is no other route than the helicopter demonstrably false.
If Spurs are left the only team standing when the reaper comes for all the irresponsibly over-leveraged teams, then there's not going to be a Premier League left to win, and what fun is that?