I don't think so. He knows there was a vote and that Spurs voted for it. His "problem" is that the PL went it alone, which hindered Spurs (and everyone else) in their dealings with overseas clubs.I interpreted that Jim meant that it was a unilateral decision of the PL without consulting the clubs
I don't think so. He knows there was a vote and that Spurs voted for it. His "problem" is that the PL went it alone, which hindered Spurs (and everyone else) in their dealings with overseas clubs.
A convenient excuse for Levy methinks.
Levy knew exactly what he was doing. The sooner the window closes the sooner the pressure to spend disappears.
JimB needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
CL next Tuesday, so they were never going to move the league game to Sunday.
As they should have been told the minute they played their first home game there this season.The i today has a piece saying the PL are finally (!) getting annoyed with Spurs, and Levy's dissembling. Reckons the chances are they'll be told to be at Wembley all season.
It's pretty obvious that Levy is playing silly buggers. First "first game" was Liverpool. Second "first game" was City. Third "first game" is Utd. What are the chances, eh?
The paper also reckons that Spurs will run a bond issue as per Utd, with a range of repayment dates (so not just everything at 5 years).
Overall, I feel a bit sorry for the Spurs fans as this must be embarrassing. It's not their fault - it's Levy and his 6M bonus for bringing the stadium in on time.
Overall, I feel a bit sorry for the Spurs fans as this must be embarrassing. It's not their fault - it's Levy and his 6M bonus for bringing the stadium in on time.
I think you need to look up the meaning of “unilateral” This was a democratic vote by all the members of the PL each had a vote 5 said no the rest including Spurs yes So Spurs got what they wanted
Yes, Spurs got what they wanted so sympathy is in extremely short supply, but it was still a unilateral move by the Premier League, as it acted alone and was the only league to make the change.
I interpreted that Jim meant that it was a unilateral decision of the PL without consulting the clubs
A convenient excuse for Levy methinks.
Levy knew exactly what he was doing. The sooner the window closes the sooner the pressure to spend disappears.
JimB needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
You'd have to wonder why they voted for it then, if it was going to cause them difficulties due to their recruitment policies (and will continue to do so)Correct, Dubai Blue. It was a unilateral decision by the PL clubs to move the transfer window to the beginning of the season. The remainder of Europe didn't follow. And just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Spurs were deserving of sympathy because of the difficulties that it caused them. It was their own fault. I was merely explaining why Spurs didn't sign anyone this summer and that it didn't, as most have wrongly interpreted, mean a change of policy necessitated by stadium costs.
Ah right. So nothing official. That'll explain why i can't find anything 'official' about the change. Spurs will have the same issue this summer then as well
I already asked if you had any link to anything official about this change. I can't find anything. Can you show me anything that backs your assertion please?No, they won't. As others have said, Europe is moving its transfer window to early August next year too. But even if, for whatever reason, they decided to reverse that decision and keep things as they are, then I'm quite certain that the PL will revert to an end of August closure too. They won't want this past summer's difficulties repeated, regardless that the early August closure otherwise makes far more sense.
The FA had nothing to do with those decisions (besides agreeing to rent their ground to Spurs). The exemptions were granted by the Premier League and the Football League.As they should have been told the minute they played their first home game there this season.
Whereas in reality the FA have granted them special exemption not once but twice this season allowing them to use Stadium MK, Wembley and potentially their new stadium all in one season for home games.
It's almost as if the captain of the national team plays for Spurs or something.
I stand by the point though, what made Scudamore change his principles and previous precedent?The FA had nothing to do with those decisions (besides agreeing to rent their ground to Spurs). The exemptions were granted by the Premier League and the Football League.
But the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Scudamore, has revealed that would be against its regulations. “They’d have to play in the same stadium for the entire year,” he said. “For the integrity of the competition. You can’t have 19 home games with 10 at Milton Keynes and nine at Wembley – completely, completely unfair. That won’t be allowed in our competition.”
Can I also just recognise that @JimB comes on here, one versus many, and engages with us with humour and good grace throughout, even when he's getting a kicking from everyone over this issue. It isn't easy to be the one rival supporter trying to answer hundreds of posts from City fans, but he manages it very well, irrespective of how we disagree with him and argue with him. He adds to the place, when it must feel like being under siege at times. Hats off.
Not at all. As I said previously, Spurs have effectively operated a zero net spend policy for years now. It was the same this year - the only difference being that, because of the early transfer window closure (and the disadvantage that it caused PL clubs in negotiations), Spurs neither bought nor sold anyone.
You just don’t get it Jim. Levy doesn’t give a shit who he pisses off including his own customers
Once again there was ZERO chance of playing any game this year, 2018,never mind the Liverpool one ZERO. I don’t care what the “high-up” told you the evidence is clear
Just consider this both Spurs and Mace management have to toe the party line they would not risk telling Jim the truth because Jim goes on forums and he might slip up, instead tell Jim the official party-line, so that he can go on forums and spit out the lies. Jim knows the “high-up” Chris Cowlin has been spouting miss-information all along, only to prove himself wrong in his videos, maybe Chris knows the same “high-up”
You are at liberty to believe what you want but frankly blaming the early closure of the window which everyone knew about and Spurs voted for is stretching credibility.
But you clearly believe everything that comes out of your club so carry on.
I agree with you completely on that. Once the first scheduled home game was missed, they should have been made to stay at Wembley for the rest of the season, for the very reasons stated originally by Scudamore. There's an argument to justify one or two games being shifted, but that's as far as any leniency should have gone. As I've said before on this thread, I imagine the PL are privately fuming about how they've been repeatedly misled by Spurs.I stand by the point though, what made Scudamore change his principles and previous precedent?
Apologies if I hadn't already made myself clear, but I'm not blaming anyone or anything. I was merely trying to explain, in response to a previous post, why Spurs bought no players this summer.