6 out of the last 7. But don't forget they drew at home to West Brom. Money can't buy moments like that.
-
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
6 out of the last 7. But don't forget they drew at home to West Brom. Money can't buy moments like that.
We spent more than any club in the 60's. Let's not reinvent history.
That's the point Joe, we could do that because of our foundations laid at the time. What happened in the 50's was the result of McWilliam, what happened under McWilliam happened because of Cameron. What happened in the 60's was a club that was successfull , with that success cam our wealth. We could get anyone we wanted drop a world record fee on Greaves etc
So what happened? Alex Ferguson, that's what.
we stopped investing. Stop that and you drop like a stone, as there are always other clubs that are investing too. Invest wisely and constantly it will always pay dividends. Weather that results in sustained glory depends on many other factors.
Hopefully so. And considering an (essentially zero) transfer spend budget with an enormous amount of TV revenue, if that money is going back into the club then we'll have the new stadium paid for in a much much quicker amount of time than it took for the scum to pay off the Emirates.
In fact, our new stadium timing is fantastic - loads of TV money and (if rumours are to be believed) rather a lot more for the naming rights than that lot down the road agreed to.
And the faster the stadium is paid off, the faster we have a business model for higher wages (to keep our players indefinitely) and being able to attract the odd superstar signing if they become available.
The future's bright, the future's...
We were still spending record amounts when signing Gazza, £2.3m wasn't it? Albeit Scholar was borrowing heavily to invest in the squad. Those days broke us as a club and Sugar ran us more as a business not a football club. Whilst others overtook us during the early Premier League era. I feel our current philosophy of developing and buying players below the elite bracket is far more positive for our club. Any achievement we make feels so much more earned.
I think the superstar bit comes once it is clear that you can't just afford Simone but more importantly they want to be here. I remember the players bought by Hughes at Citieh when the the Arabs arrived.
My hopes too to the stadium finances. But I will not get the bunting out until I see it in practice. There is still a tightrope to be negotiated after it's built. Today things are Rosie but TV football audiences are at an all time low at the same time they are at thier most expensive to buy the rights. The bubble could burst on TV money, who knows.
Yep, when you look at the NS table, it's clear that some of the bottom 10 clubs leak money by buying older players with no sell on value.
Don't know about you, but I'm happy with Poch right now...
In all seriousness I see what you're saying. It's funny, a lot of those players Man City brought in seemed to be kind of like 'transition mercenaries' - took them a while to attract the best talent to their project.
And whilst they chucked money at it in the early days, boy have they invested. Not only in team but the training complex, academy players (yep kinda cheating but they can afford it), stadium, manager etc. Citeh will dominate English football for a couple of decades. All the things we have!Don't know about you, but I'm happy with Poch right now...
In all seriousness I see what you're saying. It's funny, a lot of those players Man City brought in seemed to be kind of like 'transition mercenaries' - took them a while to attract the best talent to their project.
It's why I can't bring myself to hate them as much as Chelsea - they've spent the money on important things other than their playing stuff, and tend to be good with their fans (also because of the disposition of their respective fanbases).
However, I still think they're now guilty of letting a lot of young homegrown players stagnate. The club's ethos doesn't seem to be very 'give the youth a chance' - and while Guardiola might be better in that regard, he'll be off before too long anyway.
Pretty risky to put the kids on when you've spent squillions on superstars.
So I reckon Spurs will be the one fostering young English players more.
The Citeh business model is yet to show its full hand but I suspect their academy will provide players of the xx number of other teams The the sheikh owns. Who knows time will tell, probably sooner rather than latter looking a many of their current squad.
Not hard to see why Swansea will likely be in the championship next season.
City maybe developing their training facilities and their academy. They are still buying a lot of youth players in. Could they be in a similar situation to the Chavs whereby their academy players dominate the junior leagues, yet the pathway to the first team is blocked by superstars who are bought in. You just get the feeling that we are giving youth players a chance to earn a place in the senior squad. At City it's only Iheanacho who so far come through the ranks.
Iheanacho Isnt an academy product of theirs, they bought him. The unique thing with City is they are part of a growing network of football clubs around the World (Melbourne, New York and Yokohama) others will follow. By doing this they can/will/are invoicing these clubs intellectual property protection and knowledge to generate income that wouldn't normal be there, a cleaver way to get around FFP. They are also starting to use thier assets (players staff) to develop, like Viera and then send the past thier sell by date ones to New York, Lampard. I can see this happening to many of thier young players, especially youth players. With this network they can make money or loose money (both scenarios work when moving cash & assets arround). Teams arround the world will struggle to keep up with this.
A young kid can be singed in Japan and he sold the prospect of making in PL one day playing for Manchester, the reverse can also be painted as a "plan B" if it doesn't work out you can still play in Japan, Sydney or New York. It's freighting.
that will improve. thats part of the reason that their management structure is so barcelona influenced, IMO. They want to get the acadamey producing, cos long term its a better business model. i think we may find that city, more than anyone else, push for the B team ideal as well. (i think ownership rules in the UK are probably the reason they aint already bought a lower league team to play that role.)
They don't need to, they own three other clubs with at least 3 more in the pipeline.
There really should be some rules governed by FIFA stopping ownership of multiple clubs across different countries as it does create unfair advantage. Am I right in thinking the clubs cannot be in the same continent? Abu Dhabi cannot own a Spanish or Italian side as well as City?
I don't think so, Watford's owners own Udinese and (previously?) Granada I believe