• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

Glenda's Legs said:
It died a death within days of being announced so there wasn’t much opportunity for fans of other clubs to protest.
I am glad it didn’t go ahead. But if it had, and THFC were not a part of it, that would, I think, have been to our detriment.
Click to expand...

Other clubs fans were upset at the idea, come the time they would have been more upset not being involved I am sure.
 
DubaiSpur said:
True, but nobody truly wealthy invests in football to make money off it. That approach is restricted to relative small timers like Levy and Lewis, who are the proverbial pound shop two-bit halibut swimming in a pool of much bigger sharks, billionaires-wise.

Mostly, investors in football use it as a signalling and influence-buying exercise. Qatar invests in PSG because it secures an audience with the French government, which then leads to favorable geopolitical alignment on issues of import (see: them buying Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft).

Saudis invest in Saudi Sportswashing Machine as a way to get the ear of the British government, and also to ensure widespread support in Saudi Sportswashing Machine itself for their wider plans for real estate investment in and around the city.

Football is basically a signaller for intent, for those with wealth to spare. This would be especially true for anyone buying Spurs, a relative blue-chip club for a blue-chip price in the capital of the UK. Buying Spurs gets you instant access to a lot of UK politicians due to the significance of the Premier League.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It's a new toy. They have too much money that they can't spend. A lot is about prestige. I've got the fastest race horse. I've got the most expensive painting. I've got the tallest tower. I've got the most successful football club.

Sports washing etc... is a part. But most of it is ego.
 
Lilbaz said:
Disagree. It's a new toy. They have too much money that they can't spend. A lot is about prestige. I've got the fastest race horse. I've got the most expensive painting. I've got the tallest tower. I've got the most successful football club.

Sports washing etc... is a part. But most of it is ego.
Click to expand...

Its a huge part of both IMO, neither fills me with much hope TBH because only one can be the best, seconds just an expensive failure (more so than normal).
 
DubaiSpur said:
Like I said, we were wanted by Abramovich in the early 2000s, QSI in the 2010s, Boehly in the early 2020s.
Click to expand...
Levy was common to all those approaches no?

Am I upset we weren't sold and the cheat code pressed? Personally I have some ethics and I don't measure enjoyment or fulfilment in the same way you do. I don't define my existence by trophies and I don't think it is worth selling out as a shortcut to them. Moreover, as things stand now, subsidising a club is a less sustainable way to create success, than building up a club.

What Levy is now trying to do is combine the foundation of increased revenue with more investment, which has to be the best model. But he's a mug, he should go yadda yadda.

DubaiSpur said:
We are valuable because we are a consistent Premier League club situated in London, capital of the UK, which means a lot of media visibility and access to British policymakers. Unless your argument is that Levy was around in 1882 and deliberately founded us in London, there is little evidence that his work has materially changed the likelihood of us being bought by men richer than him and Lewis.

At best you could credit him with keeping us in the Premier League all these years, I suppose. Hooray, he kept us from being relegated.
Click to expand...
Still having trouble admitting that Levy has put the club in a far stronger position than we were. Not admitting this one undermines your arguements somewhat.

DubaiSpur said:
Just that we don't know how much of it is true and how much of it is spin to get around the fact that he part-owns the club and is like a recalcitrant barnacle, refusing to let go and sod off with his billions.



Performance is ephemeral. I was here when we were brick, I was here when we were briefly good, I am still here when we are brick again. Reality is, we have a ceiling under this ownership model that will never change (we will never win things consistently), and likewise, a floor (we will probably never get relegated).
Click to expand...
Of your posts, I think over 90% are either directly or indirectly about Levy. Not that he needs it, but he's rent free up there mate.
DubaiSpur said:
Changing the owners is the single biggest thing we could do to change our circumstances. Until then, it's all just panto since the reality won't change.
Click to expand...
Why?

I think you can make an argument that stability is what is needed. Incremental stable improvement.
DubaiSpur said:
Same reason I'm still Ange In - sacking him fixes nothing, it's just window dressing.
Click to expand...

Most disagree it seems. Performance-wise, you can't argue that Ange hasn't delivered. Whereas Levy has delivered on the stadium and the clubs financial power. Suggesting you are not juding on the basis of performace.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
It died a death within days of being announced so there wasn’t much opportunity for fans of other clubs to protest.
I am glad it didn’t go ahead. But if it had, and THFC were not a part of it, that would, I think, have been to our detriment.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.... Yet there was enough time for there to be protests about it happening and also protests from fans of the clubs who were "selected" to be in it.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Without seeing the plans it's hard to say if this is bad. It does say Spurs are only using 33% of the park they are leasing.

I'd suggest, given the way we operate and care for our own facilities, that having us as leaseholders will be a step up from relying on the council.

And I'm sure Spurs will align with the re-wilding efforts as that will in practice mean less up keep and maintenance?

Obviously the location of new pitches might be right over the top of the rewilded areas...I haven't looked. But there is 66% of parkland left to remedy this.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that it was once a golf course so, other than the golfers, much of it couldn't be used anyway, and 4 golfers per 10,000 square metres of land isn't great usage. There is little, if any, difference from an ecological point of view over whether land is used for a fairway or a football pitch.

Of course the golf course hasn't been maintained and has been left to grow, this doesn't create the friendliest of environments for people to use anyway. THFC using some of that for football pitches and managing the rest for people's enjoyment is probably a better use of the land from the perspective of many local people.
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
I mean maybe you are more genuine, but I can see thousands of fans being upset at being cut off from an elite competition. I would much prefer to be in the CL than out of it myself, this languishing in 14th in hope of a moderate cup win is not all it was sold as (I jest)
Click to expand...
Entrance to the the Champions League is via merit. Entrance to the Super League was not.

Perhaps you and some others on here would've been happy for us to have sold our soul in that way. Perhaps you and/or others would also be happy for us to have moved to Stratford and perhaps you and/or others would be happy for us to change our name to Redbull Stratford (or whatever). Its just not for me.

IMO the sole reason for the Super League was to make the owners of the selected clubs richer than they already are (the same as the other two options I listed - one of which Levy wanted and the other?... who knows! - I'm sure if the money was right)
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
Entrance to the the Champions League is via merit. Entrance to the Super League was not.

Perhaps you and some others on here would've been happy for us to have sold our soul in that way. Perhaps you and/or others would also be happy for us to have moved to Stratford and perhaps you and/or others would be happy for us to change our name to Redbull Stratford (or whatever). Its just not for me.

IMO the sole reason for the Super League was to make the owners of the selected clubs richer than they already are (the same as the other two options I listed - one of which Levy wanted and the other?... who knows! - I'm sure if the money was right)
Click to expand...

I think you are stretching out what was a very tongue in cheek comment.

But to be clear I think our fan base being as confused and contrary as it can be would have 100% been up in arms HAD the Super League taken over the CL and we were not in there because as you say, places by merit had gone.

At the loss of the CL and a clear competition based on merit I don't think its selling your soul to suggest being in it even from a footballing landscape would be better than bumming about out of it either.

As for the rest I have been a firm backer of traditionalism at Spurs so no I would not have wanted to move to Stratford or a name change or whatever other guff you can make up. I am not one of those on here praying for a oil state takeover, so I sleep soundly on where I am with tradition fella
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back