***Official Mike Ashley Euro express thread***

[ewerk 31230]

He did go and spunk £10m on a striker though when we already had the second highest scorer in the PL.

 

I'm cynical about everything the club tells us but it could be that we are being very selective with our targets and only buying the ones we genuinely want rather that who's available at the time.

 

If we didn't genuinely want anyone better than Perch or Williamson, that's worrying.

 

It could be that we're aiming for a CB of Colo's level and our target wasn't available in January. Pardew identified CB as an area of concern so it's safe to say that the club will have looked at the possibility of signing someone but for whatever reason the deal didn't happen.

[Guest alex]

They had a sniff round that Watford lad too as a stop-gap / back-up but it didn't come off.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

To be fair Leazes...

 

(3+6+2+2+13+13+11+11+4+3+5+14+7+13)/14 = 7.6

 

its the 5th highest

 

Nobody is 1st every year, so nobody is 1st on average, but these positions are the 5th highest ? You see this, of course you do.

 

Gotcha, all these years with you banging on about 5th and I never realised that's what you meant. Sounds reasonable. Not done the sums like. Assume you have.

 

did them 5 years ago but even without that, the only 4 clubs obviously higher are ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Villa were 6th actually, but I think they and someone else has overtaken us since, more proof of our declining fortunes, if it should be needed. The fact that it has taken 5 years to even get within sniffing distance of 5th top, and been relegated, says everything.

 

I stand by what I say. The club is in decline, whatever people say about the old regime not having the money of Abramovic and a bunch of Arabs. The past owners didn't have the money of Jack Walker either, but backed their managers and ran the club with as much ambition as they could and we finished above Blackburn a few times. Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

[Baggio 0]

Selling club's a misnomer, we're operating within a set budget though, wages-wise in particular. That probably does represent a glass ceiling in terms of what we can achieve as a team over the coming years, notwithstanding some excellent finds abroad. The thing is though, the last board couldn't have hoped to compete with the teams outdoing us at the minute either because on one hand the money wouldn't be there (either from loans from financial institutions or via personal wealth) and on the other hand the scouting network was abysmal / nonexistent. This has been pointed out numerous times and the response is just a feckless "blah blah ambition blah blah".

 

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start.

[Baggio 0]

He did go and spunk £10m on a striker though when we already had the second highest scorer in the PL.

 

I'm cynical about everything the club tells us but it could be that we are being very selective with our targets and only buying the ones we genuinely want rather that who's available at the time.

 

If we didn't genuinely want anyone better than Perch or Williamson, that's worrying.

 

It could be that we're aiming for a CB of Colo's level and our target wasn't available in January. Pardew identified CB as an area of concern so it's safe to say that the club will have looked at the possibility of signing someone but for whatever reason the deal didn't happen.

 

I think that's how it was too, he even said about Mariappa that if he doesn't come now then that's it as we won't be in for him in the summer.

 

I'm happy for them to wait to get who they want even if it is a risk, a short term loan until the end of the season would have been ideal.

[Happy Face 29]

did them 5 years ago but even without that, the only 4 clubs obviously higher are ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Villa were 6th actually, but I think they and someone else has overtaken us since, more proof of our declining fortunes, if it should be needed. The fact that it has taken 5 years to even get within sniffing distance of 5th top, and been relegated, says everything.

 

Just taking into account top flight finishes, the clubs averaging top 10 over the 14 years following our promotion, before Ashley's arrival were...

 

 

1.6 Man U

3.2 Arsenal

4.1 Liverpool

5.4 Chelsea

7.6 Newcastle

8.1 Leeds (11 year average)

9.2 Blackburn (12 year average)

9.4 Villa

9.9 Spurs

 

Being 6th best never did Leeds any good either like.

[LeazesMag 0]

Selling club's a misnomer, we're operating within a set budget though, wages-wise in particular. That probably does represent a glass ceiling in terms of what we can achieve as a team over the coming years, notwithstanding some excellent finds abroad. The thing is though, the last board couldn't have hoped to compete with the teams outdoing us at the minute either because on one hand the money wouldn't be there (either from loans from financial institutions or via personal wealth) and on the other hand the scouting network was abysmal / nonexistent. This has been pointed out numerous times and the response is just a feckless "blah blah ambition blah blah".

 

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start.

 

Mike Ashley running the club on a different footing has fuck all to do with any "financial brain anticipating the future" either, its quite simply that he decided long ago to run the club as a vehicle to sit alongside his sports company and preserve premiership status with as small an outlay as possible. If he doesn't make an operational profit, he'll get it by selling a top player. This is what I've said for nearly 5 years now, and people are still bickering on about it and insisting differently.

 

It's as obvious as the nose on your face, a decent season and maybe even 1 qualification for the Europa Cup isn't going to change that, because it is selling your best players and replacing with cheaper is not sustainable, the luck will run out and the policy will be obvious to everybody - although they won't admit it. As if they should need to be told any more, fooled by a decent run of results.

 

This is as sad and stupid as it gets.

[McFaul 35]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

[LeazesMag 0]

did them 5 years ago but even without that, the only 4 clubs obviously higher are ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Villa were 6th actually, but I think they and someone else has overtaken us since, more proof of our declining fortunes, if it should be needed. The fact that it has taken 5 years to even get within sniffing distance of 5th top, and been relegated, says everything.

 

Just taking into account top flight finishes, the clubs averaging top 10 over the 14 years following our promotion, before Ashley's arrival were...

 

 

1.6 Man U

3.2 Arsenal

4.1 Liverpool

5.4 Chelsea

7.6 Newcastle

8.1 Leeds (11 year average)

9.2 Blackburn (12 year average)

9.4 Villa

9.9 Spurs

 

Being 6th best never did Leeds any good either like.

 

I'm sure they enjoyed their days in the Champions League though, rather than clinging on to premiership survival and having absolutely nothing to show or look back on as football supporters. You've got to go for the success, and enjoy it while it is there. I believe Toonspac said that once

[Baggio 0]

 

did them 5 years ago but even without that, the only 4 clubs obviously higher are ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Villa were 6th actually, but I think they and someone else has overtaken us since, more proof of our declining fortunes, if it should be needed. The fact that it has taken 5 years to even get within sniffing distance of 5th top, and been relegated, says everything.

 

I stand by what I say. The club is in decline, whatever people say about the old regime not having the money of Abramovic and a bunch of Arabs. The past owners didn't have the money of Jack Walker either, but backed their managers and ran the club with as much ambition as they could and we finished above Blackburn a few times. Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

 

Spurs run the club as a business too tbf, it's just the current lot are much better at it than Sugar was.

 

They've generated healthy profits which they've used to improve the team, even if they have made a healthy profit in the transfer window this season.

[ewerk 31230]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

 

The difference between Spurs now and us ten years ago is that Spurs have managed to do it while making a profit.

 

However, how sustainable that is remains to be seen. While we were making operating profits but making overall losses because of player trading, Spurs have been making operating losses but more than covering them with profit on player sales. If they want to compete with the big boys then they can't do that forever.

[Baggio 0]

Selling club's a misnomer, we're operating within a set budget though, wages-wise in particular. That probably does represent a glass ceiling in terms of what we can achieve as a team over the coming years, notwithstanding some excellent finds abroad. The thing is though, the last board couldn't have hoped to compete with the teams outdoing us at the minute either because on one hand the money wouldn't be there (either from loans from financial institutions or via personal wealth) and on the other hand the scouting network was abysmal / nonexistent. This has been pointed out numerous times and the response is just a feckless "blah blah ambition blah blah".

 

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start.

 

Mike Ashley running the club on a different footing has fuck all to do with any "financial brain anticipating the future" either, its quite simply that he decided long ago to run the club as a vehicle to sit alongside his sports company and preserve premiership status with as small an outlay as possible. If he doesn't make an operational profit, he'll get it by selling a top player. This is what I've said for nearly 5 years now, and people are still bickering on about it and insisting differently.

 

It's as obvious as the nose on your face, a decent season and maybe even 1 qualification for the Europa Cup isn't going to change that, because it is selling your best players and replacing with cheaper is not sustainable, the luck will run out and the policy will be obvious to everybody - although they won't admit it. As if they should need to be told any more, fooled by a decent run of results.

 

This is as sad and stupid as it gets.

 

Pretty sure he done it as what he bought was a club that couldn't sustain itself with how it was currently operating.

 

Now we're on a much more solid financial footing as well as having a better squad than what he was left with, yet that means we've gone backwards.

[BestBaNone 0]

He wants to remain in the prem as cheap as possible, so bought cisse cos we look like we're going down this season?

[Happy Face 29]

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership....

 

 

1.4 Manchester United

2.6 Chelsea

3.6 Arsenal

5.2 Liverpool

5.6 Manchester City

6.2 Tottenham Hotspur

7.0 Everton

8.4 Aston Villa

11.2 Fulham

12.0 Newcastle United

Edited February 20, 2012 by Happy Face

[McFaul 35]

He wants to remain in the prem as cheap as possible, so bought cisse cos we look like we're going down this season?

He bought Cisse because he'll have a resale value, and the purchase will pay for itself if we reach the Europa League. It's a

 

situation for Ashley. It's a calculated risk for the fat man.

[ewerk 31230]

He wants to remain in the prem as cheap as possible, so bought cisse cos we look like we're going down this season?

He bought Cisse because he'll have a resale value, and the purchase will pay for itself if we reach the Europa League.

 

 

Surely that's how a club should be run? As long as the gamble remains reasonable and we're not relying on European football to pay the bills.

[Happy Face 29]

the purchase will pay for itself if we reach the Europa League.

 

 

Based on gross income of €200m, the share for distribution to the clubs will amount to €150m, with €90m in fixed payments and €60m in variable amounts (market pool) which will be distributed according to the proportional value of each television market represented by the clubs taking part in the UEFA Europa League (group stage onwards).

Each of the 48 clubs involved in the group stage can expect to receive a participation bonus of €640,000. In addition, they will be entitled to a match bonus of €60,000 per match played in the group stage. Performance bonuses will also be paid – €140,000 for every win and €70,000 for every draw in the group stage.

Turning to the knockout stages, clubs competing in the round of 32 will receive €200,000 each, clubs in the round of 16 €300,000, the quarter-finalists €400,000 and the semi-finalists €700,000. The UEFA Europa League winners can expect to collect €3m and the runners-up €2m.

It is anticipated that a minimum amount of €1m per club will be paid out for the group stage.

A club could receive, at best, €6.44m from featuring in this season's competition

Edited February 20, 2012 by Happy Face

[CleeToonFan 1]

So if we go through to the groups, then we will earn around 1.5mill euros for coming like 1st/2nd in the groups? Depending on attendances (doubt they'd sell out for Europa but would still be good) Could easy get a fair few million for playing in the Europa League, especially if we get to the later stages. Can easily see the differences in qualifying and not.

[Toonpack 10002]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

 

Utter crap MugFool, as usual.

 

Spurs are operating within their means and have done for years. They have been doing EXACTLY what we now appear to be doing, they however, have a multi-year headstart on us.

 

To think or say different is pure ignorance.

[Toonpack 10002]

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership....

 

 

1.4 Manchester United

2.6 Chelsea

3.6 Arsenal

5.2 Liverpool

5.6 Manchester City

6.2 Tottenham Hotspur

7.0 Everton

8.4 Aston Villa

11.2 Fulham

12.0 Newcastle United

 

Take out the first Keegan tenure (which was our real zenith, steadily downhill since then) our average "finish" was 9.4th, that still good enough for 5th best ???

[McFaul 35]

the purchase will pay for itself if we reach the Europa League.

 

 

Based on gross income of €200m, the share for distribution to the clubs will amount to €150m, with €90m in fixed payments and €60m in variable amounts (market pool) which will be distributed according to the proportional value of each television market represented by the clubs taking part in the UEFA Europa League (group stage onwards).

Each of the 48 clubs involved in the group stage can expect to receive a participation bonus of €640,000. In addition, they will be entitled to a match bonus of €60,000 per match played in the group stage. Performance bonuses will also be paid – €140,000 for every win and €70,000 for every draw in the group stage.

Turning to the knockout stages, clubs competing in the round of 32 will receive €200,000 each, clubs in the round of 16 €300,000, the quarter-finalists €400,000 and the semi-finalists €700,000. The UEFA Europa League winners can expect to collect €3m and the runners-up €2m.

It is anticipated that a minimum amount of €1m per club will be paid out for the group stage.

A club could receive, at best, €6.44m from featuring in this season's competition

The telly money is worth that so aye you're looking at £10m

[Happy Face 29]

Spurs are operating within their means and have done for years.

 

 

Taxpayers are part funding the redevelopment in N17

 

So it looks like Tottenham Hotspur have been granted their wish. Their application for public funding to make the Northumberland Park Development Project a reality has been accepted by the powers that be. Spurs have agreed a £27 million funding agreement, which will include £18 million directly from Mayor Boris Johnson’s £50 million fund, put together in the wake of the riots in order to regenerate affected areas. Of Boris’s overall budget, £20 million has come directly from central government to be invested specifically in the Tottenham and Croydon areas as a result of their being the worst affected by the riots of last August. What this figure will include will be £6 million invested via Haringey Council in highways and parking improvements, and a district-wide heating and power scheme, with the remainder focusing on public transport and infrastructure improvements. A further £9 million will also come from the coffers of Haringey Council ‘towards new and improved public spaces, heritage work and environmental improvements in North Tottenham’.

 

Should tax dodger Joe Lewis should pay for this instead of us?

 

Doesn’t that sound fair on the face of it? After all, won’t the local population – among the poorest of the great metropolis – benefit from improved infrastructure, transport and public spaces? Well, the fact of the matter is that those amenities would have needed to have been provided anyway if a new stadium had been built by Tottenham Hotspur in the area, under what is known as a ‘Section 106 Agreement’. In essence, local planning authorities come to an agreement over monies paid by developers to offset the costs of the external effects of their development. If we take as a hypothetical example a developer that wanted to build 200 new houses in any given area, there would be obvious effects on local schools, roads etc. which the Local Authority would have to deal with. Often, in that situation, there will be a s106 agreement as part of the granting of planning permission – for example, the developer might agree to make a contribution towards the provision of new schools to deal with the increased number of pupils brought in by the development. Tottenham Hotspur, therefore, would have had to foot the bill for developments such as infrastructure and transport improvements if they had wanted to build their significantly-larger new stadium in the Haringey area.

 

However, as stated

here by a local newspaper, the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal - ‘It is thought the money (provided by the public purse) would effectively subsidise Spurs’ compulsory payments to the council to carry out infrastructure and other improvements in the area; Haringey paying Spurs a lump sum, only for Spurs to pay it straight back to them.’ The BBC News website, in an article back in September, also reiterates this point, stating that Haringey Council had ‘agreed to scale down a list of community projects it wanted Tottenham to contribute to, saving the club a further £8.5m’. The amount that Tottenham Hotspur has been asked to contribute by Haringey Council as a s106 agreement amounts to £17 million, which is roughly around 3% of the overall development costs of the Northumberland Park Development plan. This is a comparatively low figure in comparison with other s106 agreements made in relation to similar developments – particularly the Ashburton Grove development, where Arsenal paid £60 million alone for a new state-of-the-art waste-recycling centre at Lough Road, and also included £7.6 million to upgrade local transport links, as well as a sum to provide affordable housing and the relocation of 83 businesses from the former Ashburton Grove Industrial Estate. As stated at the time by Islington Council leader Steve Hitchins, Arsenal was required to pay ‘the highest proportion of s106 improvements compared to the size of development, in any scheme in the country’.

 

In contrast, despite the relatively low figure asked of Spurs, it seems it had done little to please them during their negotiations with the GLA. A close source quoted by the London Evening Standard stated that - ‘There is an extremely generous deal on the table. This is a sizeable chunk of public money. We cannot understand why the club is dragging its feet if it claims to be committed to the area’. When I initially wrote an

article on this subject back in July, in response to Spurs’ initial application for public funds, there was a deluge of responses from Spurs fans avidly asserting that Arsenal had received public funds for building Ashburton Grove. However, as can be seen here in a statement from Tottenham MP David Lammy - ‘No public money was given to Arsenal at any point over the building and development process. This is quite clear in a letter sent from the Chief Executive of Islington Council to my colleague Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington North.’ The source of misinformation to the contrary is clearly identifiable – various quotes made by Spurs CEO, Daniel Levy, on the subject. In referring to Spurs’ application for planning permission, Levy states that ‘the application also includes S106 costs in the region of £17m, relating to requests for contributions from Council departments and Transport for London as part of the planning consent. Meanwhile this development has not attracted a penny of public money… this is in contrast to the stadia developments of Arsenal and Wembley which were both awarded public sector assistance. These developments required substantial public sector intervention and assistance and would not have progressed without the injection of public sector money.’

 

However, regardless of who received public funding and who didn’t, surely Tottenham Hotspur are very much needed in the borough of Haringey at such a time of economic woe? Well yes, they very much are. Tottenham has the highest unemployment rate in London and the eighth-highest in the UK as a whole. The Haringey Independent also stated in June 2011 - ‘Figures show that in Tottenham, there are just 121 registered vacancies, with more than 6,000 people looking for work – meaning there are 54 people looking for every job’. 80% of the entire borough’s unemployed reside in the Northumberland Park Ward where White Hart Lane is situated; in fact it has the highest unemployment rate of all of London’s 634 council wards. The largest employer in the borough is Haringey Council, who have had 23% in annual cuts imposed upon them by central government, meaning that one in five council workers faces redundancy. Tottenham Hotspur are the largest Private Sector employer in the Borough, and probably the highest contributor of business rates too. As with most football clubs, there are also numerous smaller businesses that are reliant on the income that match day brings and that will subsequently go to the wall should Tottenham up sticks and leave the area.

 

The essence behind Tottenham Hotspur’s bid for public funding, however, is the use of Machiavellian tactics to achieve their ends, such as their disingenuous concern for the plight of the natives who are, in reality, merely a human shield against criticism aimed at Spurs for laying claim to money from the diminished public purse to achieve their financial ends. As the link between the Northumberland Park Development Project and the creation of long-term employment for the locals is a tenuous one at best (in reality, it can justifiably be compared with enticing a starving dog with a rubber bone), it can be said that Spurs are deliberately playing on the fear of the dire consequences that would be inflicted upon the local populus should Tottenham Hotspur not get their own way and leave the borough. After all, Tottenham Hotspur were merely asked for £17 million to contribute to the extra strain they will put upon resources in Haringey should their project be given the green light. Seeing that, in the transfer window before last, Chelsea had bid £40 million for Luka Modric, £17 million is a figure they could easily have stumped up.

 

Also, in an era of diminished public funds, what needs to be taken into account is the degree to which the needs of the population of North Tottenham are any more pressing than that of other parts of the metropolis also greatly affected by both the double-dip recession and the riots of last August. London Mayor Boris Johnson has taken a sudden interest in investing in the transport infrastructure of North Tottenham; however, on his arrival at City Hall nearly four years ago, he made a bonfire of many transport projects, claiming them to be commercially-unviable in the wake of the credit crunch. Two such projects in areas hit by the riots included an extension of the Croydon Tramlink and a cross-river tram from Peckham to Camden. Others in areas of long term decline with chronic under-employment include the extension of the DLR to Dagenham Dock and the Thames Gateway Bridge from Beckton to Thamesmead. In mitigation, Boris (who ironically resides in Highbury Fields, and can often be seen jogging through the area) stated that - ‘What we want to do is stop pretending the tooth fairy will come. Some of the plans we just don't have the money for and the others were never very good ideas anyway’. Why so hard-nosed on ideas such as these to regenerate run down areas of the metropolis, but so accommodating of others?

 

Well, Tottenham Hotspur is 4% owned by Lord Ashcroft who is open that his involvement is for investment purposes only – though allegedly not quite so open in other areas regarding his finances. In the same week that Spurs came to an agreement with City Hall on public funding, Panorama highlighted the alleged

undeclared links between Lord Ashcroft and a bankrupt construction company in the Caribbean tax-haven of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ashcroft is not only a Conservative Party donor, but also the largest donor in British political history. Ultimately then, no great surprise that a Tory mayor was so forthcoming with providing public funds for a project that includes upgrading transport links and that would ultimately enrich the party’s very own ‘tooth fairy’, serial tax-dodger Lord Ashcroft.

 

In my last article on this subject, I had also raised the issue of who effectively owned Tottenham Hotspur and the degree of their contribution to the public purse – i.e. ENIC, Joe Lewis and his non-domicile tax-exile status. I had this point in response, among others, from a Spurs fan within the comments section - ‘I am afraid you are not properly informed regarding Joe Lewis. He effectively has nothing to do with the club. One arm of his business (ENIC) has majority shares in the club, headed by Mr Levy. It's a PLC, or hadn't you noticed that?’ However, Joe Lewis’s involvement in the day-to-day running of Tottenham Hotspur is neither here nor there. The main beneficiary from ENIC selling their 85% share of the club will be tax-dodging banker, Joe Lewis. And believe me - once the ground is completed, Tottenham Hotspur will be sold on for great profit - at a value inflated by taxpayers’ funds that will ultimately enrich those with very broad financial shoulders, hiding away in a Caribbean tax-haven, who carry nothing of the financial burden that we are supposedly ‘all in together’. And, ultimately, it is they and not the beleaguered underclass of Haringey who will benefit from allowing Tottenham Hotspur public funds to build their new stadium.

Register your displeasure now, before it’s too late.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Happy Face

[McFaul 35]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

 

Utter crap MugFool, as usual.

 

Spurs are operating within their means and have done for years. They have been doing EXACTLY what we now appear to be doing, they however, have a multi-year headstart on us.

 

To think or say different is pure ignorance.

No you complete erectile disfunction old doilum. Sugar never speculated to accumulate, whereas Levy has to an extent while retaining their wage ceiling. Sugar devalued the club he ran it as a functional business within its' means, they were getting pennies off HOLSTEN and PONY, they now have one of the largest sponsorship deals in football with Mansion House, because of how Levy has enhanced the clubs stature. They pay big fees, they largely didn't other than a few spectacular failures like Dean Richards under Sugar's rein. The fact is Tottenham's income has doubled now under Levy compared to what it was under Sugar, speculate to accumulate. LM is right you hardly ever talk about football, I doubt you're even capable of it, and when you do talk about the financial stuff, your knowledge is about as empty as the mackems upper tier on Saturday night.

[McFaul 35]

2003/2004

Turnover

Newcastle United £90.8m (FFS)

Tottenham Hotspur £66.2m (Sugar)

 

2010/2011

Turnover

Newcastle United £88m (Ashley)

Tottenham Hotspur £162m (Levy)

 

Pointless debating with pointless old doilums anyway but these figures end a lot of debate about the influence Mike Ashley has had on NUFC. I can't even see a POV where you can stick up for these or explain them away, but some sad cunt will.

[Toonpack 10002]

No you complete erectile disfunction old doilum. Sugar never speculated to accumulate, whereas Levy has to an extent while retaining their wage ceiling. Sugar devalued the club he ran it as a functional business within its' means, they were getting pennies off HOLSTEN and PONY, they now have one of the largest sponsorship deals in football with Mansion House, because of how Levy has enhanced the clubs stature. They pay big fees, they largely didn't other than a few spectacular failures like Dean Richards under Sugar's rein. The fact is Tottenham's income has doubled now under Levy compared to what it was under Sugar, speculate to accumulate. LM is right you hardly ever talk about football, I doubt you're even capable of it, and when you do talk about the financial stuff, your knowledge is about as empty as the mackems upper tier on Saturday night.

 

Spurs have never spent more than they earned, yet they've still managed, within that framework, to make that "what they earn" grow, so what they can spend in relation becomes greater, they do not ever break that rule (or haven't yet).

 

You are wrong (not a suprise) - They have never speculated (gone out on a limb financially) to accumulate. That is a 100% fact.

 

They have sold well (high) and bought well (cheaper), consistently. Exactly the same model as NUFC's current model, whether we can keep it consistent is another matter.

 

This is about football you ignoramus.