JFDI, but you're still recording losses and weren't you meant to be self sufficient by 2010? That was your clubs aim when you got bought out. You're still not there yet
FFP will make the gap even wider between the haves and have nots.
JFDI if roman didnt come in and buy a player a day you wouldnt have been winning any titles.
you spend 50 mill on a player and he ends up on your bench.
utterly ridiculous
FFP will make the gap even wider between the haves and have nots.
------
lol people say that but it's complete nonsense. City and Chelsea are the richest clubs in the league, so if you take them out the equation then the gap between richest and poorest instantly becomes smaller. explain how it gets bigger?
Marty..................Impossible to compete?
I think we have competed this season, we are on the same points with one game to go, I would call that competing.
_________________________________________
United are one of the richest clubs in the world, the impossible to compete is a general observation aimed at 85% of the clubs in the PL!
comment by Sir Thomas Of Towton - Wick Voted Best Board (U11544) posted 5 minutes ago
Man U screaming for FFP now that City are about to overtake them.
-------------------
OP is a Spurs fan
If any wealthy businessman from Asia or Middle East will come and buy Tottenham and promise to invest a billion in them, would Spurs' fans go on riot at the new owner? or they simply accept him and move on.
everyone mentions chelsea and city, but lessons were sadly never learnt after jack walker at blackburn. as a result you've now got city defeating the entire object of the sport in this country and psg and malaga doing likewise across europe. it is sadly too little too late.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
We weren't a 'small club' without Roman, but small club is a stupid term anyway. Your apparently either a big club or a small club, if your not like Man Utd, you must be like Rochdale. we were at the least a 'fairly big' club Pre-Roman.
One thing I would say, is if Chelsea hadnt been competitive in the past decade, how boring would the PL have been at the top? With Arsenal struggling, United would have dominated even more than they had in the 90's. If it wasn't for Man City this year, United would have walked it again.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If any wealthy businessman from Asia or Middle East will come and buy Tottenham and promise to invest a billion in them, would Spurs' fans go on riot at the new owner? or they simply accept him and move on.
------
maf i dunno why i am bothering with you, but anyway, that is not really the point is it maf?!
this article is about the wellbeing of football in general - which has been put under strain by disproportionate spending by certain clubs, which has made other clubs spend beyond their means to attempt to compete. if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
i also think that many spurs fans would genuinely rather win things competing at a modest financial level rather than simply buying who we want.
that said it would be great to see the worlds best players at whl week in week out.
lol people say that but it's complete nonsense. City and Chelsea are the richest clubs in the league, so if you take them out the equation then the gap between richest and poorest instantly becomes smaller. explain how it gets bigger?
Because it means that clubs like Everton and Villa are likely to attract wealthy investors and the trickle down effect of large transfer fees wont reach clubs in the lower divisions.
posted 5 minutes ago
JFDI if roman didnt come in and buy a player a day you wouldnt have been winning any titles.
you spend 50 mill on a player and he ends up on your bench.
utterly ridiculous
-----------------------------------------
A player a day, now that is utterly ridiculous you bitter and twisted individual.
i would begrudge it. i find the idea totally abhorrent. manchester united are english football's most successful club and we've achieved such a status without a sugar daddy and relying heavily on self generated income, the way it should be. as such our success has always been pure and our conscience as supporters is clean.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
yes joe lewis is a billionaire but does not pump money in the way city and chelsea owners do. he sees spurs as a business rather than a hobby
Is Dave Whelan at Wigan doing anything different?
He took Wigan from gates of 5000 in L2 to mid table in the Prem by spending money that Wigan did not generate.
QPR also in the recent years. Crawley lower down the pyramid too, and Fleetwood.
Its not just Man City and Chelsea at the top end, its been happening all over English football where rich owners are subsidising mega fees and wages to make their team competitive when otherwise they wouldn't be.
mafiaboy........................................You are missing the point and not for the first time either!
This is not about anyone club but about football in general and whether it can sustain the overspending that currently rules.
This is a problem that affects all football clubs right down to the lower leagues which needs tackling before it creates a situation that is impossible to deal with without many clubs going to the wall!
if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
--
Spurs have a billionaire owner but he don't want to spend money. That actually is bad to football.
comment by number-eight. (U9729) posted 1 minute ago
I dont think any teams fans would begrudge a billionaire investing that amount of money into their team Mafia
----------------------
I would hate it
I prefer to see the likes of Welbeck and Clevs coming throuh the ranks ta
Not saying this is a defintite but would we have seen the Fergie Fledgling era if United had had a multibillionaire owner chucking in 100s of millions for transfers every season at the time?
Don't really mind City doing it. There was simply no other way for them to get to compete at the top table and it's yet another challenge for United but I've said before, if every club had an owner like City, football would get very stupid very quickly
Sign in if you want to comment
Impossible to Compete With?
Page 2 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 10/5/12
JFDI, but you're still recording losses and weren't you meant to be self sufficient by 2010? That was your clubs aim when you got bought out. You're still not there yet
posted on 10/5/12
FFP will make the gap even wider between the haves and have nots.
posted on 10/5/12
JFDI if roman didnt come in and buy a player a day you wouldnt have been winning any titles.
you spend 50 mill on a player and he ends up on your bench.
utterly ridiculous
posted on 10/5/12
great article
posted on 10/5/12
FFP will make the gap even wider between the haves and have nots.
------
lol people say that but it's complete nonsense. City and Chelsea are the richest clubs in the league, so if you take them out the equation then the gap between richest and poorest instantly becomes smaller. explain how it gets bigger?
posted on 10/5/12
Marty..................Impossible to compete?
I think we have competed this season, we are on the same points with one game to go, I would call that competing.
_________________________________________
United are one of the richest clubs in the world, the impossible to compete is a general observation aimed at 85% of the clubs in the PL!
posted on 10/5/12
comment by Sir Thomas Of Towton - Wick Voted Best Board (U11544) posted 5 minutes ago
Man U screaming for FFP now that City are about to overtake them.
-------------------
OP is a Spurs fan
posted on 10/5/12
If any wealthy businessman from Asia or Middle East will come and buy Tottenham and promise to invest a billion in them, would Spurs' fans go on riot at the new owner? or they simply accept him and move on.
posted on 10/5/12
8bit............
posted on 10/5/12
everyone mentions chelsea and city, but lessons were sadly never learnt after jack walker at blackburn. as a result you've now got city defeating the entire object of the sport in this country and psg and malaga doing likewise across europe. it is sadly too little too late.
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
We weren't a 'small club' without Roman, but small club is a stupid term anyway. Your apparently either a big club or a small club, if your not like Man Utd, you must be like Rochdale. we were at the least a 'fairly big' club Pre-Roman.
One thing I would say, is if Chelsea hadnt been competitive in the past decade, how boring would the PL have been at the top? With Arsenal struggling, United would have dominated even more than they had in the 90's. If it wasn't for Man City this year, United would have walked it again.
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
If any wealthy businessman from Asia or Middle East will come and buy Tottenham and promise to invest a billion in them, would Spurs' fans go on riot at the new owner? or they simply accept him and move on.
------
maf i dunno why i am bothering with you, but anyway, that is not really the point is it maf?!
this article is about the wellbeing of football in general - which has been put under strain by disproportionate spending by certain clubs, which has made other clubs spend beyond their means to attempt to compete. if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
i also think that many spurs fans would genuinely rather win things competing at a modest financial level rather than simply buying who we want.
that said it would be great to see the worlds best players at whl week in week out.
posted on 10/5/12
lol people say that but it's complete nonsense. City and Chelsea are the richest clubs in the league, so if you take them out the equation then the gap between richest and poorest instantly becomes smaller. explain how it gets bigger?
Because it means that clubs like Everton and Villa are likely to attract wealthy investors and the trickle down effect of large transfer fees wont reach clubs in the lower divisions.
posted on 10/5/12
posted 5 minutes ago
JFDI if roman didnt come in and buy a player a day you wouldnt have been winning any titles.
you spend 50 mill on a player and he ends up on your bench.
utterly ridiculous
-----------------------------------------
A player a day, now that is utterly ridiculous you bitter and twisted individual.
posted on 10/5/12
i would begrudge it. i find the idea totally abhorrent. manchester united are english football's most successful club and we've achieved such a status without a sugar daddy and relying heavily on self generated income, the way it should be. as such our success has always been pure and our conscience as supporters is clean.
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
*unlikely.
posted on 10/5/12
yes joe lewis is a billionaire but does not pump money in the way city and chelsea owners do. he sees spurs as a business rather than a hobby
posted on 10/5/12
Is Dave Whelan at Wigan doing anything different?
He took Wigan from gates of 5000 in L2 to mid table in the Prem by spending money that Wigan did not generate.
QPR also in the recent years. Crawley lower down the pyramid too, and Fleetwood.
Its not just Man City and Chelsea at the top end, its been happening all over English football where rich owners are subsidising mega fees and wages to make their team competitive when otherwise they wouldn't be.
posted on 10/5/12
mafiaboy........................................You are missing the point and not for the first time either!
This is not about anyone club but about football in general and whether it can sustain the overspending that currently rules.
This is a problem that affects all football clubs right down to the lower leagues which needs tackling before it creates a situation that is impossible to deal with without many clubs going to the wall!
posted on 10/5/12
if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
--
Spurs have a billionaire owner but he don't want to spend money. That actually is bad to football.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by number-eight. (U9729) posted 1 minute ago
I dont think any teams fans would begrudge a billionaire investing that amount of money into their team Mafia
----------------------
I would hate it
I prefer to see the likes of Welbeck and Clevs coming throuh the ranks ta
Not saying this is a defintite but would we have seen the Fergie Fledgling era if United had had a multibillionaire owner chucking in 100s of millions for transfers every season at the time?
Don't really mind City doing it. There was simply no other way for them to get to compete at the top table and it's yet another challenge for United but I've said before, if every club had an owner like City, football would get very stupid very quickly
Page 2 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10