-
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
- Status
I agree to a point.
It's idealistic, but saying that throwing more money into the mix is the only way to break the existing monopoly doesn't actually solve the problem does it? it just creates a slightly larger Monopoly.
Its all part of the same fundamental issue - elitist financial rulings stopping smaller clubs from speculating to accumulate and bankrolled clubs using bloated self-sponsorship deals to award themselves blank cheques.
BUT people need to remember that for most supporters the ridiculous "money" that is quoted in figures so large that it almost loses any meaning. That comes directly from their pockets. Whether its through merchandise, buying sponsored products, attending games (shock horror) or paying Murdoch silly money to beam Paul Merson's stupid fat head into your front room on a Saturday afternoon.
There IS a price to pay for the every increasing financial extravagance; consequently the game becomes more and more inaccessible to the supporter demographic whose loyalty established it as the greatest sport in the world in the first place.
Last edited:
Or would a semi colon have been more correct?Ahem. Correct punctuation saves lives.
The issue that you are talking about towards the end is not primarily brought into the game or worsened by the wealthy owners pouring money into the game from their own pockets. If anything, they are countering it.
My post, that you replied to, was a reply to Jo-Inge(?) who says he has no problem with the teams spending "their own money". But those, the commercialy succesful clubs, are the clubs most focused on milking their customers for as much money as they can. When they have owners who are in it not to contribute but to make money the extortion of fans are worsened.
In actual fact, of the rich clubs, Man Utd are far worse than City or Chelski when it comes to pulling money from their fans. Or more successful, in some people's eyes.
He is the only owner of any football club not to take a penny out of the club they own. In the 16yrs he has owned the club he has not drawn a salary, hasn't earned a single dividend payment, despite the fact that the club has grown in value from £81m to over a £1b!!! (only caveat to this, is that their isn't some dodgy company that has has received payment for "services" that haven't been accounted for in the books).
You seem to think the owners of a couple of football clubs you clearly envy are making charitable donations to their clubs, sorry to shatter your illusions but they are not. They all go down as debt, debt owed to the individual/organisation. You are aware that Chelsea football club owe Abramovich £1.053b right? And the Glazers haven't put a penny of their money into Utd., the money they used to buy Utd was leveraged by Utd!!!! The Arab sheiks of Cieth and PSG use the clubs to clean their money, clean their image of human rights atrocities. But they all take and draw down money out of the club. Name me one football club with a billionaire owner that has gifted or donated their money to the club and written the debt off? The money being "ploughed" into their teams is against revenue they earn, the revenue they earn at it's smallest is 50% more than Spurs and at it's largest is nearly 3 times as much, but don't let that get in the way of your grasp on the situation.
Last edited:
Nah, as the "I thank you" would lose context as a standalone sentence, so (this side of the pond, at least) it wouldn't be proper.
#SlowTransferWindow
No, but they are responsible for raising the stakes and exaggerating the level of expense required to compete.
Are you telling me that Pickford would have been sold for £30m if Roman hadn't rocked up all those years ago and started hurling his cash about?
And looking at the bigger picture; money is like energy it cant be created without exertion. The money has to be generated from somewhere. Just because its not football fans that are being exploited doesn't mean that someone isn't? We are justifying wealth bourne of corruption, exploitation, and shocking human rights records.
It may be argued that some owners in this country are no better, but I feel that your view is extremely short sighted, the issue of the repugnant amount of money in football has much wider social and environmental impact.
Last edited:
I believe you're correct on this matter, I thank you.
Doea anyone here have any idea why Monaco so easily sells their players after such a wonderful season?
Bernardo, Germain, Bakayoko. And the possible departure of Fabinho, Lemar, Mendy, Sidibe, Mbappe.
Other than Mbappe there is no stance being drawn on.
I dont sense they are anything like Udinese. Is it just because they believe on their scouting team so much?
Bernardo, Germain, Bakayoko. And the possible departure of Fabinho, Lemar, Mendy, Sidibe, Mbappe.
Other than Mbappe there is no stance being drawn on.
I dont sense they are anything like Udinese. Is it just because they believe on their scouting team so much?
I hear he's good in the air
I don't know. I've been watching that kid for years on youtube and he's always up and down. He is the kind of guy who can help you build though.
When we were shit we were linked to Rivaldo.
Now we are good we are linked to chris smalling.
whats the fucking point.
Most are players who have suddenly turned into £100m transfer after just one season.
It's a balance of risk that they will be as good next season I think - selling them for moolah is the lesser risk (much like Kane after one season - we gambled it was long term quality)
He's part of the deal that takes Harry to United.
Think Berbatov - Fraizer Fucking Campbell
Because Man U have been trying to sell him for two years now. Utd PR team are having us linked with Dier, Kane, Rose etc. the narrative to be spun would be an impending swap deal, just as they did a few months ago when they wanted Rose and then said we were interested in Shaw. Nothing came of that because we weren't interested in Shaw (Rose is injured, expected that story to have also been rattling along nicely had he not got injured. All points to Man U PR not ours).
From RedCafe.
"I seriously believe that Harry Kane would flop at UTD in a manner similar to Gary Birtles or indeed Berbobtov to a lesser extend did , both arguably more talented than he is .To compare him to Ronaldo even at 32 is laughable in the extreme."
Just as well you're not getting him you bitter twats. Gary fucking Birtles indeed.
"I seriously believe that Harry Kane would flop at UTD in a manner similar to Gary Birtles or indeed Berbobtov to a lesser extend did , both arguably more talented than he is .To compare him to Ronaldo even at 32 is laughable in the extreme."
Just as well you're not getting him you bitter twats. Gary fucking Birtles indeed.
Ahh the classic 'we've no chance in signing him so we didn't want him anyway' postFrom RedCafe.
"I seriously believe that Harry Kane would flop at UTD in a manner similar to Gary Birtles or indeed Berbobtov to a lesser extend did , both arguably more talented than he is .To compare him to Ronaldo even at 32 is laughable in the extreme."
Just as well you're not getting him you bitter twats. Gary fucking Birtles indeed.
Tossers
Only this time, we get to write him a nice letter saying why he's not coming?
- Status