This is just complete rubbish. Yes you may (and it's a big may) have £100m but Spurs are never going to spend that on one player. You wouldn't offer enough wages for a £100m player for starters. That's if they would even be interested in joining the club.
Your biggest transfer is currently £30m. You don't have a history of spending big, your players wages are not at current market rate of the other Top 5.
Please don't try and make out Spurs are not spending money due to the manager's philosophy and wanting to use youth players. You need as much as possible to fund the stadium. They can't just pluck £500-700m from nowhere.
Spurs are 2 world class players away from winning the title. If you don't invest now you will only be going backwards. Any manager would know this and would buy if they could.
Sure enjoying reading about Spurs in a thread about City.
Most posters gave that up lonnnnnnnnnnng ago.
If the Bundesliga was completely open to investors and teams were funded to be able to compete with Bayern, I'd see it as a clear positive for the league.
Increase of tv-money, an end to the mostly one horse race, exciting match days, uncertain outcome, etc.
I have to say from an outside perspective I'd be all for it.
But being a Utd supporter it feels like having been cheated. It's a bit like the games where you earn your weapons/furniture/tools/gadgets through playing the game for ages and then some outsider can just come along and use the in-game-purchase to catch up or overtake without having participated at all. It doesn't feel like they deserve to be where you are, because they didn't put in the hard work and effort you did.
But Utd as a football club and business has worked hard, made good decisions and climbed to the top by carrying our own weight. We've earned our spot up there.There are plenty of people up and down the country who work ridiculous hours just to be able to feed their family and keep a roof over their head. And there are plenty of people who don't do a great deal and get paid an awful lot for it. Just because you are at the top, does not mean that you have put in more effort than someone struggling at the bottom.
As someone who's followed City since 1999 and has known both sides of the club, I can tell you that it's much, much easier to follow a team who don't spend every waking day worried about relegation.It doesn't feel like they deserve to be where you are, because they didn't put in the hard work and effort you did.
I'm sure of that. I'm not trying to take away any credit for struggling, fighting, worrying, trying, etc.As someone who's followed City since 1999 and has known both sides of the club, I can tell you that it's much, much easier to follow a team who don't spend every waking day worried about relegation.
Absolutely no way they'd be up there.But Utd as a football club and business has worked hard, made good decisions and climbed to the top by carrying our own weight. We've earned our spot up there.
If City hadn't received a piggy back ride, I don't think they'd be up there, too.
Just because you work hard and struggle doesn't mean you deserve anything apart from praise for trying and not giving up.
But there's no way in the modern game for a team to "work their way to the top" without a sugar daddy and stay there, so wishing for it will ultimately leave you disappointed. Once the Premier League was invented and Sky Sports flooded the Premier League with money in 1992/93 there was basically no way back for teams who weren't United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea because they received the most of they money at the time. Nobody ever gets as big or as rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods - the money's always divided unequally somewhere along the line so that those at the top get the largest portion. But the rivalries have always stayed fierce: Arsenal and United still hate one another, Liverpool and United still hate one another, and City and United still produced some seriously tense clashes.I'm sure of that. I'm not trying to take away any credit for struggling, fighting, worrying, trying, etc.
Based upon the effort and worries Aldershot should be playing Champions League this season too, but that's not the way it works.
The only realistic chance of City competing with and challenging United was an external force that decided to give you a piggy back ride to competitiveness.
It shouldn't be surprising that it doesn't feel as good as a rivalry would, if it was based upon organic growth.
... Nobody ever gets as ... rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods - the money's always divided unequally somewhere along the line so that those at the top get the largest portion. ...
That's wonderful, but I don't think you'll be able to win the title or finish in the Champions' League places several seasons running until you start investing in your team how we have. Much like Liverpool actually, you've had a good run at winning the title once or twice off the back of a superb home record and very entertaining football, but when you've come up short at the end you haven't been able to build a squad capable of going that one step further. You haven't had sugar daddy investors like City or Chelsea to back up your claim once you arrived on the scene because in the modern game that is, ultimately, what's required.I wouldn't count on that if I were you. Spurs income as of 2015-16 was 92m less than Liverpool's. The gap will have closed since then and will close further once our new stadium is up and running.
It's all about relations building with the west so we don't go investigating their human rights' abuses. All very shady but sadly part of the modern game - a part we can do nothing about when you consider Qatar were just handed the World Cup out of nowhere.I'm constantly amazed at the sheer shamelessness of these Emirati/Qatari scumbags.
Sitting in ivory towers, built on modern-day slavery, in a world rife with problems, they choose to spend their wealth on buying footballers so they can acquire 'soft power'.
That's wonderful, but I don't think you'll be able to win the title or finish in the Champions' League places several seasons running until you start investing in your team how we have. Much like Liverpool actually, you've had a good run at winning the title once or twice off the back of a superb home record and very entertaining football, but when you've come up short at the end you haven't been able to build a squad capable of going that one step further. You haven't had sugar daddy investors like City or Chelsea to back up your claim once you arrived on the scene because in the modern game that is, ultimately, what's required.
It's all about relations building with the west so we don't go investigating their human rights' abuses. All very shady but sadly part of the modern game - a part we can do nothing about when you consider Qatar were just handed the World Cup out of nowhere.
I'm constantly amazed at the sheer shamelessness of these Emirati/Qatari scumbags.
Sitting in ivory towers, built on modern-day slavery, in a world rife with problems, they choose to spend their wealth on buying footballers so they can acquire 'soft power'.
Yes they are but there's quite a bit of difference in the level of it at the same time.Let's not place the West on any kind of pedestal. Britain, America, UAE etc. They're all involved in despicable stuff.
Which was?So are you conceding your earlier point?
Which was?
That's not really the point I was making at all, so I won't retract it. But I see you have a reputation for this kind of thing, so never mind.You said that no Premiership club will ever get as rich as the old 'big four' (including Liverpool) "by clean, fair methods".
But there's no way in the modern game for a team to "work their way to the top" without a sugar daddy and stay there, so wishing for it will ultimately leave you disappointed. Once the Premier League was invented and Sky Sports flooded the Premier League with money in 1992/93 there was basically no way back for teams who weren't United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea because they received the most of they money at the time. Nobody ever gets as big or as rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods - the money's always divided unequally somewhere along the line so that those at the top get the largest portion. But the rivalries have always stayed fierce: Arsenal and United still hate one another, Liverpool and United still hate one another, and City and United still produced some seriously tense clashes.
Yes they are but there's quite a bit of difference in the level of it at the same time.
That's not really the point I was making at all, so I won't retract it. But I see you have a reputation for this kind of thing, so never mind.
That's not really the point I was making at all, so I won't retract it. But I see you have a reputation for this kind of thing, so never mind.
You said that no Premiership club will ever get as rich as the old 'big four' (including Liverpool) "by clean, fair methods".
Let's not place the West on any kind of pedestal. Britain, America, UAE etc. They're all involved in despicable stuff.
It's correct.
Why will Spurs not be able to close the £92m income gap with Liverpool that existed as of 12 months ago?
They probably will, but Liverpool's revenue suffered from being knocked out the top four because of Chelsea and City. That's the only reason Spurs might catch Liverpool.
It's clearly not the only reason. The new stadium will boost Spurs income by a large amount, and that's not to mention the significantly improved sponsorship deals we signed in the last few months with a kit manufacturer (Nike) and shirt sponsorship (AIA).
It's clearly not the only reason. The new stadium will boost Spurs income by a large amount, and that's not to mention the significantly improved sponsorship deals we signed in the last few months with a kit manufacturer (Nike) and shirt sponsorship (AIA).
Like Arsenal did with the Emirates
Liverpool would be way, way ahead of you if they hadn't been knocked out the top four for nearly a decade now.
It wasn't. My point was that teams can't hope to rise up the table and regularly compete with the elite these days unless they have serious financial backing, and that the way these funds are acquired are rarely clean and totally above board.You made several points - that was one of them. If you don't care to acknowledge this then that's up to you.
It wasn't. My point was that teams can't hope to rise up the table and regularly compete with the elite these days unless they have serious financial backing, and that the way these funds are acquired are rarely clean and totally above board.
Right, except you've not quoted me directly. You've selected quotes out of context to manipulate the argument and ignore my overall point, and all so that you can carry on with this odd agenda you have to shoehorn Spurs' financial stability into every debate you have.It was one of your points. I quoted it directly, so I don't see why you deny it. But here it is again in case you missed it:
"Nobody ever gets as ... rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods".
Liverpool were one of the clubs you cited as being one of old 'big four'.
It was one of your points. I quoted it directly, so I don't see why you deny it. But here it is again in case you missed it:
"Nobody ever gets as ... rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods".
Liverpool were one of the clubs you cited as being one of old 'big four'.
Let's not place the West on any kind of pedestal. Britain, America, UAE etc. They're all involved in despicable stuff.
