Anyone else, bar the ridiculous Gary Glitter suggestion
-
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
Looks like a Patpong knock-off Polo to me.I think that whoever it is, they should be well-dressed.
A discrete Ralph or Lacoste polo is fine. Fred Perry too if you're going British, but this?
No. No! NO!!!
Er, so I've been told.
Liverpool are comparable. They may have bigger revenue, but the fact of the matter is that they used it wisely, which led to trophies.
It's not about matching their spend, it's about matching their smarts.
The Conservatives , a steady ship
An owner that prioritises the football team and wants success. One that has a plan to achieve those goals. One that can go more than a couple of weeks before another self inflicted humiliation. One that doesnt show complete contempt for the fans.
I think it's American Polo Association or something like that.
Oversize badges seem to be a 'thing' now. I've got some Lyle & Scott clobber with those size badges.
I think that whoever it is, they should be well-dressed.
A discrete Ralph or Lacoste polo is fine. Fred Perry too if you're going British, but this?
No. No! NO!!!
That's an old pic tbf.... I don't think he's even taken his suit off since around 2007....... And long gone is the playful exterior of the sunglasses accessorising.
.......But we already have that.
Oh yeah. I should have added tech to the requirements.
Yes. They’ve used it wisely but the revenue difference is huge.
In 21/22, it was over 150 million pounds That buys an extra Virgil Van Dyke and a Luis Diaz every year with money to spare.
I smell a multi.
Somebody who hasn't posted in 5 years, and has never commented in the Enic/Levy thread, suddenly casts a vote.
Does he occasionally post on the cricket thread!
Especially recently?
Mate, I don't disagree with you there on the revenue, but as we've shown ourselves, the real difference isn't in how much you spend, it's how well you spend it. I had a quick check on the expenditure over the last 10 years and we've spent £1.12Bn to their £1.2Bn. Our nett spend over that time is £30M higher though, so the numbers show that they most definitely are comparable when it comes to ability to spend.
Interestingly enough, the gooners nett spend is almost double ours, yet you have them as comparable.
I still stand by my point that, for clubs like us, it's not about how much you spend, it's how smart you are with you spending. When we were working our way up the league, starting from Jol's tenure, we were very smart in not just our spending, but also in offloading players that were deemed as surplus to requirements. Obviously, the landscape has changed a great deal since that time, but the principle remains the same.
IMO, that is our single biggest fail, we seemed to have abandoned what was a successful formula. I had hopes that we'd addressed that and were boxing clever with our initial purchases this window, but the CB shenanigans have eroded that hope, though not yet entirely.
Elon Musk would be a laugh.
We'd end up called the Tottenham X Spurs and he'd sell the stadium naming rights to porn hub.
We'd end up called the Tottenham X Spurs and he'd sell the stadium naming rights to porn hub.
I agree to some degree.
You’re looking at net spend. I’m looking at revenue.
In order to decrease your net spend, you’ve got to be able to offset your incoming transfer with sales. Higher revenue teams don’t need to do that. They can afford higher net because of their additional revenue.
We were very good at selling off players to decrease the net but it led to a reputation as a ‘selling club’ and caused fan unrest and since then we’ve held onto players for far too long. . We had opportunities to sell Dier for 50m — the same fans clamoring to get rid of him now were against then — and Dele for a massive amount. Either we wouldn’t do it or they wouldn’t go. There are posters here desperate to keep Harry for another year. Knowing when to sell is as important as knowing when to buy but I don’t think many of our fans trust the club to invest sales money wisely if at all.
My original point isn’t really about how the club is run today. We’ll all agree that it’s run sub-optimally. We might disagree over to what extent.
I’m just trying to make the case that our basic problem of finding ways to compete with higher revenue clubs won’t go away with a change of ownership. It didn’t when ENIC bought out Sugar and probably won’t when ownership changes hands again. It’s not a magic bullet. I think most people would agree that Dortmund are a very well run club but it hasn’t stopped Bayern from winning 11 straight Bundesligas and 5 DFB-Pokal Cups in that time.
I’m perfectly okay with (some of) the posters here wanting oligarchs and salivating over the thought of getting Qatari money to run the club. It’s an honest position of putting the chance to win trophies first and foremost. Personally, I’ll probably end up at Leyton Orient.
Edited to add: Net spend doesn’t take into account the most important financial factor in success: wages. Revenue drives the potential wags a club can afford. .
Last edited:
Chin up mate, as soon as Saudi trigger the super league, we'll be left with actual FFP and a level playing field. Sure, we'll be a feeder club, but we can always just take oily blood money to pull the ladder up behind us.
2 is what created the opening and led us to the doping clubs buying and destroying football. It's what put dozens of clubs up against the wall over the years. 2 should be illegal.
5 is the only ethical choice to protect the integrity of the sport. Earn your keep and keep what you earn.
Serious question
stevee
, I'm struggling to see the difference between option 2 and a magic money tree.
Responsible investing is what ENIC does. They aren't speculators, they get ROI. They're good at it.
So, I assume it means 'gives us free money, but at the right time in the right place'. Since we don't have the need to bribe Northern Ireland, I can't see the magic money tree existing again any time soon. Is there a real life example of this kind of thing? Otherwise, aren't we just talking about option 3?
FWIW, Boehly et all are going to ruin the Chavs when they need their money back. I don't see anything sustainable there. Happy to watch, though!
stevee
, I'm struggling to see the difference between option 2 and a magic money tree.Responsible investing is what ENIC does. They aren't speculators, they get ROI. They're good at it.
So, I assume it means 'gives us free money, but at the right time in the right place'. Since we don't have the need to bribe Northern Ireland, I can't see the magic money tree existing again any time soon. Is there a real life example of this kind of thing? Otherwise, aren't we just talking about option 3?
FWIW, Boehly et all are going to ruin the Chavs when they need their money back. I don't see anything sustainable there. Happy to watch, though!
Poll is pretty shit, honestly, because it's trying to take the piss out of ENIC with several options but displaying a complete misunderstanding of the financial running of the club.
Better poll would have been wages + transfers as a percentage of turnover that people expect.
Better poll would have been wages + transfers as a percentage of turnover that people expect.