Still trying to work out why changing from blue to red will attract more fans and investors. Fucking pathetic.
-
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
fatfish said:
Why didnt they just buy Wrexham then the twats!
In all honesty, why is it "unacceptable" for an owner to change his or her team according to his or her wishes? He or she is the owner. Yes, fans might not like it. Fans might go off and start FCUMs, etc. But fans don't own the teams. They enrich the owners and participate in a community building exercise that is ancillary to (but helpful in maintaining) the business motives of the team, which are usually "to make money".
I don't know a lot about English football from 40 years ago, etc., but when I watch a film like "Damn United" and see that, hey, even owners back then did basically what they wanted with their properties (which are what the clubs are), then I get a bit confused about the "good old days". Remember, it was the players who sat and had a pint after the game. Not the owners. Or am I wrong?
I understand the frustration of feeling like something to which you pledge unconditional love is changing before your eyes into something that you find difficult to still love, but that's how professional sports works.
Welcome to late capitalism, friendo.
Furthermore, I find exceptionally troubling the focus being given (not in this thread, but in articles) to the fact that Cardiff has foreign owners. So every British owner shits roses and wants nothing more than to earn a farthing's profit on the year while handing out ice cream and jelly to all the supporters every time they reach the quarter finals in a cup run? Maybe. That is, after all, exactly what Mike Ashley promised me would happen the one time I ran into him while he was on a mission to hand over a sack of sovereigns and a pension to the longest-serving NUFC season ticket holder.
British owners are as concerned with the financial viability (and avenues of future profit) for their clubs as foreign owners are (ENIC). For the time being, owners generally understand that a drastic change in the formula may alienate their current customers (see New Coke). But it's only a matter of time before the money coming in on international TV deals, etc., is so huge that they can afford to completely screw out the "loyal fan base". Who needs a bunch of middle-class ruffians grumbling about paying three digits per match when the team is bringing in a million times that from abroad?
(This is, of course, the gamble PSG has taken. And so far it seems to be paying off. Full stadium, CL qualification, highest finish in years, and none of the old thuggish fans who'd been coming to matches for three decades.)
To be clear, I hate these developments. But I'm not at all surprised by them (Again, friendo). And I don't know how to fight against them without also, at the same time, fighting for structural change in how the world organises itself economically. Cardiff's changing its colours is a function of my being able to buy a Chinese-made iPad for £300 (or whatever).
I don't know a lot about English football from 40 years ago, etc., but when I watch a film like "Damn United" and see that, hey, even owners back then did basically what they wanted with their properties (which are what the clubs are), then I get a bit confused about the "good old days". Remember, it was the players who sat and had a pint after the game. Not the owners. Or am I wrong?
I understand the frustration of feeling like something to which you pledge unconditional love is changing before your eyes into something that you find difficult to still love, but that's how professional sports works.
Welcome to late capitalism, friendo.
Furthermore, I find exceptionally troubling the focus being given (not in this thread, but in articles) to the fact that Cardiff has foreign owners. So every British owner shits roses and wants nothing more than to earn a farthing's profit on the year while handing out ice cream and jelly to all the supporters every time they reach the quarter finals in a cup run? Maybe. That is, after all, exactly what Mike Ashley promised me would happen the one time I ran into him while he was on a mission to hand over a sack of sovereigns and a pension to the longest-serving NUFC season ticket holder.
British owners are as concerned with the financial viability (and avenues of future profit) for their clubs as foreign owners are (ENIC). For the time being, owners generally understand that a drastic change in the formula may alienate their current customers (see New Coke). But it's only a matter of time before the money coming in on international TV deals, etc., is so huge that they can afford to completely screw out the "loyal fan base". Who needs a bunch of middle-class ruffians grumbling about paying three digits per match when the team is bringing in a million times that from abroad?
(This is, of course, the gamble PSG has taken. And so far it seems to be paying off. Full stadium, CL qualification, highest finish in years, and none of the old thuggish fans who'd been coming to matches for three decades.)
To be clear, I hate these developments. But I'm not at all surprised by them (Again, friendo). And I don't know how to fight against them without also, at the same time, fighting for structural change in how the world organises itself economically. Cardiff's changing its colours is a function of my being able to buy a Chinese-made iPad for £300 (or whatever).
In a way I agree with what Eperones said about an owner being able to do what he likes. I am however of the opinion that any new owner of a football club should respect the traditions. I know it might be stupid and sentimental and not work in this harsh world of ours, but football should be treated like a sport, which it is, rather than a business.
The money and global coverage of the Premier League that Sky brought into the game is the reason why foreign investors see it as an attractive way of boosting their profile. I don't think any of these owners are thinking of making any money, because I don't think it's possible to make money from owning a football club. I think these guys just want to come in flaunt their cash and fuck bitches.
Some dodgy Russian cunt can come over to the UK and flash his cash, but nobody would give a shit. If he comes over here buys a football club and suddenly gets the media exposure that the Premier League can offer him then people will notice him. Similarly, I doubt many people would be talking about Cardiff being taken over were it not for the change of colour. For these guys this is massive media exposure which they wouldn't have achieved otherwise.
Football is being used by people to proliferate themselves.
The money and global coverage of the Premier League that Sky brought into the game is the reason why foreign investors see it as an attractive way of boosting their profile. I don't think any of these owners are thinking of making any money, because I don't think it's possible to make money from owning a football club. I think these guys just want to come in flaunt their cash and fuck bitches.
Some dodgy Russian cunt can come over to the UK and flash his cash, but nobody would give a shit. If he comes over here buys a football club and suddenly gets the media exposure that the Premier League can offer him then people will notice him. Similarly, I doubt many people would be talking about Cardiff being taken over were it not for the change of colour. For these guys this is massive media exposure which they wouldn't have achieved otherwise.
Football is being used by people to proliferate themselves.
I disagree with you on two front here. Firstly I very much think that football is a business these days. Yes, it is still a sport as well, but I think we are are deluding ourselves if we think that football is still the same as when a few lads pitched up on their local marshes in the 1880s and kicked a ball around. It is now a multi-million pound industry.Cripps14 said:
As for there being no profit in football, this is simply not true. Be it to make a profit and enjoy the returns, or to make enough income to have a stable club, making money is very much in the interest of most owners. You cite Abramovich as an example of what you are talking about, but owners like him and Shiekh Mansoor are very much exceptions to the rule. Sure, they own clubs that have now become big powers in world football, but I think it's worth remembering that the vast majority of clubs in the world, hundreds and hundreds of them, are not owned by the super rich who can just throw money in the pursuit of success. So to pretend that most clubs don't have to run like proper businesses is disingenuous.
Finally, as for keeping traditions, I think this is actually irrelevant in the modern age. All thay is relevant is keeping the club functioning and being successful. For that you must make good business decisions. However, the classic business model gives us the classic maxim that the customer is always right. Well, I think this certainly applies to football. Sure, sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions in business. But the primary objective has to always be to keep good relations with the people who provide most of your income. Well, those are the fans of your club. So I don't think it's so much a case of dumping traditions, but rather not knowing your customer base and making a fundemental change to the football club that will piss off the fans. At the end of the day, what that is first and foremost is a bad business decision, and one that I think will come to haunt Cardiff's owners when they see their meerchandise and ticket sales plummet.
All a football club really has is its identity, its history and its fans.
Cardiff's owners seem in danger of losing all of them....
Cardiff's owners seem in danger of losing all of them....
Éperons said:
The thing about a football club, England or not, is that there is a prevailing sense of largeness that far outweighs any of the team, managers, or owners. Fans expect things to be done to further the club as an establishment, not to earn more money for the owner, despite that being the purpose of owning a club now.
The same way we say that we love the shirt, that no player really matters in the long run, and expect our club to be our club long after they have left. We expect the club to be what it is after an owner has left. If every owner changes the club, fans lose a way of identifying with the club.
Just because change is how sports works, doesn't make it more palatable. You pledge your loyalty to Tottenham, and one of the things that embodies Tottenham is the lily-white, if you change that, you're affecting the relationship fans have with a club, you're removing something that is clearly wholly important to fans.
The sense that a club will survive much longer than any owner means that, to a lot of people, the owner should be in service of the club and not the club in the service of the owner.
They can do what they want, because there isn't anything stopping them. But it's unacceptable because fans don't have to accept it, they don't have to show up to support the club anymore and they don't have to support the change in their club.
I think with football, ownership of a club is more than property. It's sentimental, it doesn't stand up in court and it is largely irrational, but fans feel the club is theirs as much as it is the owners.
As a fan you don't have to except anything whether it's 'capitalism' or not, maybe we ain't the main money providers anymore but your brand looks a bit shit with no fans after you've fucked them over a million times. If you were to lay down an die because that's just the the way it is everytime your shit on then fuck football, fuck the premier league, fuck any cunt home or abroad that sticks another nail in the football coffin and fuck my team if they try any of that here.
I've been reading "Game of Thrones" on the bus, so bear with me as I draw a few parallels. Reading the handful of posts from the past hour or so, I'm reminded of Tönnies's dichotomy between a Gemeinschaft and a Gesellschaft.Raitei said:
Oversimplyfing, the idea is that European models used to orient themselves on the Gemeinschaft (or community) model. A person was born in a place and had strong bonds to a load of identity categories that came with it. Born in N17? Congrats. You're English, a Londoner, and your team is Spurs. Obviously, this feudal model had severe problems (you could not escape these identity bonds), but it also had certain advantages: the theory was that the lord understood himself as a steward of his realm, and he would protect it against invaders and rule it fairly, with a view toward the long picture (Hi, Ned Stark). In exchange, his subjects would provide him with rent.
But then things moved to a Gesellschaft (or society) model. Deep bonds regarding birth, community, etc., didn't matter so much. Now the fundamental bond between two people became contract: two parties agree to each provide some kind of service to the other. This model has provided us with lots of amazing advances, including the entire discourse on human rights. But it has a ephemerality fundamental to it that's missing in the other model.
Simply put, supporters imagine the club in one sense ("members", not "consumers"). Owners another (I own this property; I am not its steward.) But it's simply a fact that with every post-Thatcher tick of the neoliberal clock, we abandon community in favour of society.
Now we'd all (I imagine) find it offensive to consider Levy our lord to whom we pledge fealty and an annual rent. In those terms, it's preposterous. But I don't think it's completely far-fetched. Owners, on the other hand, don't see us as their fiefdom, but, rather, as subscribers. We're consumers who enter into a contract once a year (or 19 times a year or 38 or whatever), where we pay a certain sum of money, and, in exchange, get a few hours of entertainment.
And lots and lots and lots and lots of assets, which, depending on how you count, outweighs the above.Blanchflower said:
Again, fans can be replaced (see PSG). Identity is worth not a whole lot on the open market—but is not worth nothing (or else the Qataris wouldn't have bought PSG and would've settled for a club with less marketing potential). And history? Literally the same thing as identity.
So just because a supporter thinks "ownership" is more than simply, you know, "owning" something doesn't mean (or require) the owner of the same property respect the supporter's wishes. All the supporter can do is turn his or her back and refuse to buy the ticket, boycotting being another privilege earned by living in a society. But fuck me sideways if that person won't instantly be replaced by someone else, who might be even willing to pay more for the ticket.
I find it crazy then (well, at least incoherent) that people rely on the benefits of society (being able to quit a job and find another, for example), but somehow think football should be exempt. The first day a gentleman paid a labourer to play in his place the system was broken.
Smoked Salmon said:
I'm not saying that football isn't a business now, what I'm saying is that the fact it is being treated like one is ruining the experience for the fans. And I for one have a big problem with that.
We as fans are treated as consumers of the club as a brand, not as part of the club.
I think this is the crucial point, and none of us has the crystal ball to show if the idea works out of not.Smoked Salmon said:
Just because a club's ownership listens to its fans does not mean that it is not still profit-motivated. After all, the fans are a reliable source of income. But every owner is probably interested in expanding his or her share and attracting new customers. If they can win 1,000,000 customers willing to pay £40 a year at the cost of losing 10,000 who pay £3,000, then it's not a terrible decision, right?
But what is it really losing?Blanchflower said:
Fans are both fickle and easily replaceable.
Identity and history can equally be bought, given sufficient expendable income.
The chavs have proven this now beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only thing they are really losing is 'Integrity', and owners prefer the much more bankable, and audit-able ' Goodwill' these days anyway.
As per comments above, it's just another example of the slow death march of any sort of self respect that 'football' has ever collectively had. It started 20 year ago (IMO) and hasn't finished yet.
And to be honest, is anyone really particularly surprised by these things any more?
I would suggest probably not, and that in itself is telling.
And one day it will be us, until then I will grasp at what few straws there are left.
If you think Cardiff has it bad, for the sheer entirety of the project I'd point you to Red Bull Salzburg.
Red Bull are basically a marketing firm that makes energy drinks and when they deal with sponsorship they entirely own that team be it F1 or football, this Salzburg side started 1933, did have a few name changes up to 1978 but had a settled 30 years or so till Red Bull came in and bought the club in 1997 at which point they issued the edict 'this is a new club with no history', they now play at the Red Bull Stadium, the kit sponsor is Red Bull, the club crest is now two red bulls with a football between them.
If you want to pay some props to EUFA - they can only play as FC Salzburg in European competitions...
Point is if someone came in and did this to Spurs I would not be best pleased!
Red Bull are basically a marketing firm that makes energy drinks and when they deal with sponsorship they entirely own that team be it F1 or football, this Salzburg side started 1933, did have a few name changes up to 1978 but had a settled 30 years or so till Red Bull came in and bought the club in 1997 at which point they issued the edict 'this is a new club with no history', they now play at the Red Bull Stadium, the kit sponsor is Red Bull, the club crest is now two red bulls with a football between them.
If you want to pay some props to EUFA - they can only play as FC Salzburg in European competitions...
Point is if someone came in and did this to Spurs I would not be best pleased!
78Spur said:
So in european competitions, do they just play at 'Stadium' then?
