Spurs-The bitterness is reaching dipperlike proportions

[dom]

And that's what is in it for them. Prestige, oneupmanship, and a marketing extravaganza for free. The Glazers know this, and they will sell when their asset reaches it's peak, but that is hard to quantify as in the last six years the price has already doubled.

And you'd be happy with that? Man Utd PLC, sponsored by AON, sponsored by VW, sponsored by Audi, in association with Sainsbury's, value where it matters!

Talk about a club selling it's soul, you'd be the corporate club, the sell out, the "flagship of the brand", an asset. You'd be no different to what you criticise Chelsea and City for, in fact you'd be worse.

Which is precisely the point. People moaned when shirts had sponsors on, then they moaned when TV money came in, Chelsea and City have simply had to adapt as the game became more obsessed with money, finding new ways to create spending. You can argue which is the more moral way but the goal was the same, create revenue to compete.

Spurs have spent over £220m in the last decade and achieved a 4th place finish and a League Cup. For spending double that Chelsea landed 3 League Titles, Cups and regular European exposure. Football fans are fickle, they only remember the last 3 years at best. I doubt people even know of Spurs outside of England, but even City's spending has created publicity and interest in the club.

Achievement wise Spurs are not much better than Chelsea or City.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but they already are the "flagship of the brand." Sold out ten years ago, when Beckham was doing Pepsi ads with Del Piero.

I don't really mind the whoring out around the world, because it has a purpose in making money. Money to invest in the team, and the stadium.

I don't know how we ended up on this mad tangent, but Spurs have been a big club since the 50's, and throughout my entire lifetime. Their stadium is sold out in good times and bad times, and they have been a top ten side for 30+ years. They are probably only a striker away from mounting a league challenge next season. This season the CL drained them and they fell away in the second half. They'll be back.

Chelsea have been a competing rival with us since 2004. Although, players like Drogba, Terry, Lampard and Cole are on the wane, and I can see them slipping down the pecking order next season, unless Abramovich totally disregards FFPR and buys four top players. If Abramovich walked away and decided to do something else, would I consider Chelsea to be a big club? No, I would view them the same way I did eight years ago, because that is where they would return to.

And your point is ????

 

[Castiel]

Chelsea have been a competing rival with us since 2004. Although, players like Drogba, Terry, Lampard and Cole are on the wane, and I can see them slipping down the pecking order next season, unless Abramovich totally disregards FFPR and buys four top players. If Abramovich walked away and decided to do something else, would I consider Chelsea to be a big club? No, I would view them the same way I did eight years ago, because that is where they would return to.

4th in the table with Spurs in 10th? Thats where we were eight years ago. Man City finished above them too.

 

[Metal Biker]

And that's what is in it for them. Prestige, oneupmanship, and a marketing extravaganza for free. The Glazers know this, and they will sell when their asset reaches it's peak, but that is hard to quantify as in the last six years the price has already doubled.

And you'd be happy with that? Man Utd PLC, sponsored by AON, sponsored by VW, sponsored by Audi, in association with Sainsbury's, value where it matters!

Talk about a club selling it's soul, you'd be the corporate club, the sell out, the "flagship of the brand", an asset. You'd be no different to what you criticise Chelsea and City for, in fact you'd be worse.

Which is precisely the point. People moaned when shirts had sponsors on, then they moaned when TV money came in, Chelsea and City have simply had to adapt as the game became more obsessed with money, finding new ways to create spending. You can argue which is the more moral way but the goal was the same, create revenue to compete.

Spurs have spent over £220m in the last decade and achieved a 4th place finish and a League Cup. For spending double that Chelsea landed 3 League Titles, Cups and regular European exposure. Football fans are fickle, they only remember the last 3 years at best. I doubt people even know of Spurs outside of England, but even City's spending has created publicity and interest in the club.

Achievement wise Spurs are not much better than Chelsea or City.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but they already are the "flagship of the brand." Sold out ten years ago, when Beckham was doing Pepsi ads with Del Piero.

I don't really mind the whoring out around the world, because it has a purpose in making money. Money to invest in the team, and the stadium.

I don't know how we ended up on this mad tangent, but Spurs have been a big club since the 50's, and throughout my entire lifetime. Their stadium is sold out in good times and bad times, and they have been a top ten side for 30+ years. They are probably only a striker away from mounting a league challenge next season. This season the CL drained them and they fell away in the second half. They'll be back.

Chelsea have been a competing rival with us since 2004. Although, players like Drogba, Terry, Lampard and Cole are on the wane, and I can see them slipping down the pecking order next season, unless Abramovich totally disregards FFPR and buys four top players. If Abramovich walked away and decided to do something else, would I consider Chelsea to be a big club? No, I would view them the same way I did eight years ago, because that is where they would return to.

And at exactly what point have Spurs been your 'rival'? They haven't, they've been stagnating in 10th for decades. Spending millions and achieving a couple of FA Cups and a couple of League Cups as a result. Chelsea meanwhile took the bull by the horns and achieved more in 7 years than Spurs did in 30.

Are Spurs a bigger club than Everton, who have won 7 more league titles but less trophies overall? Chelsea have the merchandising empire in place to cope, even if Abramovich left he'd sell it to a NEW owner who'd still invest in the club.
After 7 years of CL regular appearence they are regarded as a current European Giant, whereas historic clubs like Juventus, Italy's most successful club, are not.

At some point you could argue that Spurs might have been bigger than City and Chelsea, just as City were bigger than United by the 1930's, but that's no longer the case.

By the time of their 1999 and 2008 League Cup triumphs, since the Premier League started they'd spent £257m, having finished outside the top 6 ten times. In contrast by 2008 City had spent £155m. £50m difference between each League Cup?
Does 10th place offer THAT much money?

 

[Yaya_Tony]

Only up to page 3 of our thread, and I got benny hill playing while I read this;

Exactly. He's a shite manager who's so fearful of losing that he'll employ three holding players in midfield just like he did against us in the opening game of the season. I have never seen anything so pathetic in my life.

De Jong, ok he is defensive. Barry is a play maker, he passes a lot. Yaya we know what he can do attacking, Mancini knows too. 3 defensive holding midfielders, don't make me laugh. Suppose we had 3 forwards on too, whilst SWP and Silva supported Tevez. No wingers, no... It's Bullshit.


Back to reading.......

-- Sun May 22, 2011 3:30 am --

---------------------Hart-------------------
Richards-----Kompany-----Dawson-----Ekotto
-------------------De Jong------------------
Silva-------Y.Toure--------Modric--------Bale
--------------------Tevez-------------------

That's some team. That would win the League imo.

The Spurs players are the weak links in that XI imho.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 3:36 am --

currency speculator, Joe Lewis

Wouldn't he be one of those cunts who put the world into meltdown in 2008, but under a different disguise then?

-- Sun May 22, 2011 3:43 am --

they all prefer Sandro to De Jong, says it all really. LOL

Sandro is going to be a beast next season.

When is this rag twat gonna be ejected? Same for the others I've seen tonight. Unless it is like I suspect, and all just the same **** under a different name.

Still, not kidding anyone. OBSESSED MUCH??? HA!!!!!!!!!!

I just noticed how 'MUCH' looks a lot like a certain European city name. 'Obsessed' is a good prefix.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:03 am --

For what it's worth, I'd say City, Spurs, Everton and Villa are about the same size, depending on how you measure it. But so what?

I'd agree, but we clearly have a better ride to look forward to.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:10 am --

The real working class Chelsea fans who used to stand in the shed end are well and truely gone. The stands are now full of daytrippers who have popped along on the way to the opera. They are a part-time hobby of the rich and famous. Peter Kenyon tried to market them around the world, just like he'd done at his previous club, nobody was interested. They didn't attend the games or buy the shirts. It's a club that's status is completely reliant on a man who uses them as a part-time hobby.

Ok seriously. I was starting to think the City fans were overreacting but you really are deluded and its an embarrassment to think we're from the same City. I'm at the Bridge for every home game and Chelsea's "soul" is very much alive. We've welcomed our new foreign fans and those from outside the City because they made a choice to support this club too, yes because of our relatively new elite status but so what? Would Man United, Liverpool or Arsenal have as many fans in the 2nd division?

The self entitlement you have is frankly ridiculous. Such bitterness because you're not even the best club in your local area let alone the European stage for christ sake. Can't wait for QPR to come up and send you to 4th in London so you really have something to cry about. I'm not even going to bother retorting your claims about the global market because its so unsubstantiated that it'd be insulting to even read it.

It has been well documented in the press that Chelsea tried to pool fans from the US, but toured to mainly empty stadiums. When they played other European sides, all the fans were there to see the opposition. Abramovich wants Chelsea to be a self sufficient club, who can generate funds from the demand for shirts and matchday tickets. Six years in, he's still bank rolling them. The demand isn't there.

IMO, Spurs are much bigger interms of fanbase and longterm sustainability.

Again, you've got such a chip on your shoulder over being shit that you spew this bile. Chelsea were one of six clubs who tried to market football to the US and the entire project was marginally successful. So its our fault that the Americans don't like football? Even though your so called "real" clubs tried along side us to broaden the market?

I also feel you should know that Chelsea has been breaking even since 2009. We have a world class youth academy producing incredible prospects every year (just ask the Championship sides who we loaned the players to), a world class training ground which is the envy of other clubs and Abramovich; like City's owners, has invested untold fortunes into the local community and outlying areas to improve the sport at its grass roots. Levy on the other hand is taking money OUT of football, like the Glazers and the people in charge of Liverpool - for their own selfish personal gains. Chelsea and City now operate without debt; Spurs, United, Arsenal, Liverpool are all in crushing debt which punishes the countries economy. Which club is more soulless? The clubs who put money into football or those that take money out?

Spurs are way bigger than Chelsea. Speak to anyone in London, you never ever meet a Chelsea fan. I have never met one, and I don't know of anyone who supports them. Their stadium is filled with corporate numpties, which aren't hard to find in that location. Souless club, propped up by a Russian billionaire. If he walked away they would drop like a stone and everyone knows it.

I currently live in Thamesmead and my neighbours are Chelsea fans. Half my work mates are Chelsea fans, the other half are Arses. There are more Man United fans living in London than there are Spurs and thats really something you should be ashamed of for a so called "big club".

Really, as the City fans have been saying, you and your fan base are predominately bitter little pricks with a superiority complex and an odious sense of self entitlement. Chelsea were more successful than Spurs before Abramovich. You'll come back and say Matthew Harding was your sugar daddy then. Well what about Levy? Sheffield and Leeds can shit on your so called history while they languish in the lower divisions, claiming you're a soulless club because you have Levy bankrolling your position in the Premier League. Kindly fuck off until you can argue with any sense of reality.

Very well said.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:16 am --

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

I see that this thread has evolved somewhat. The original statement was that Spurs fans are saying that they are a bigger club than Chelsea.

I agree that they are. I also commute to London on a regular basis and have lots of colleagues and friends/family in the big smoke. I have never ever met a Chelsea fan. I don't know anyone who supports them. I have never seen a kid in the park wearing their strip, although I have seen fakes in Thailand. I have no reason to lie to you. IMHO I would put Chelsea on a par with West Ham in terms of fan base and actual status.

I stated that if RA decided to call it a day, your club would drop like a stone. I still stand by this. Players and fans would leave and you'd return to mid-table mediocrity, playing infront of 25-30k. So in my opinion, a club that's status is only guaranteed at the whim or depths of the owners pockets, is living a lie.

This is a facade that clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Everton do not have to hide behind, regardless of current success or failure.

I think you'll find that Man United are on the brink of fundamental financial collapse on par with what happened to Leeds. That club is living on the absolute edge of bankruptcy from where there can be no recovery. Chelsea and City are in no such danger.

If RA decided to leave, the club wouldn't have the financial power it does now. But it would not drop like a stone as you imagine purely because its no longer operating at a loss or at the mercy of crushing debts. The club pays its own bills and isn't propped up by flimsy debts to banks and 3rd party corporations. The only money Roman has reinvested directly into the club's bank account since his initial take over was to buy Torres. In time, the same will be true of City. We're in FAR healthier financial situations than anyone else in the league.

Your personal experiences of who you meet are completely irrelevant. On what planet do you consider personal observation in passing a justifiable source to gauge a clubs relative fan base? I sincerely hope you don't work in a technical or financial field.

The bottom line is, Chelsea and City bring money into football. Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal are some of the biggest culprits of leeching money from football. Yet somehow, the blue clubs are labelled the enemies of football. The logic is flawed on every level. This has been going on for decades, and it isn't exclusive to this country. Real Madrid and Barcelona are even worse which is why their league is the sum total of 2 clubs. That is not a healthy environment and without the investments in City and Chelsea, our league would be the same.

I can't argue around your self imposed ignorance over the subtle differences in the financing of different clubs, and now what the red clubs have been doing is a cancer on the economy of the country and the sport. However if and when the day comes that the debt finally implodes on you, and you end up next to Leeds, we'll see if you have the same opinion.

*claps* You've had time to think about this, haven't you?

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:19 am --

The figures will also raise questions as to whether Chelsea will be able to comply with the financial fair play rules being introduced by Uefa.

I think that should be the last of your worries, don't you?

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:24 am --

So Chelsea didn't break even? And they have an ageing squad that needs replacing.

I don't know where the 1.1bn figure came from. The Glazers gross debt is £477.7m. If the club was to carry on making profits of 100 million every season, they could have it paid off in 6 years, give or take signings. This is the fundamental reason why they are in no hurry to pay it off or sell. It makes money and doubles in price from their original investment.

Deluded...

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:36 am --

Just as an aside to this conversation, football is no longer a failing enterprise in the U.S. It's doing fairly well in the ratings and is building its fanbase at a very good rate. Will it ever be as big as American football? Unlikely, but that doesn't preclude it from being a very lucrative, popular sport. I have no problem finding Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, MLS, and other matches. I can watch J.League and the Mexican league if I want to stay up crazy hours. It's growing. That's a good thing, especially for the Premier League.

Not just for the Prem, it's good for everyone. When a World Cup means the whole world, even if USA ends up winning then too ;)

It's about time you Yanks caught up with the rest of us about the best game: as decdied by the rest of the world ;P

It has been the case that in the US footy was a girls sport, is that statement correct? Not now ofc, but in the past..

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:39 am --

Glazer could be doing a business master stroke OR he could be fucking you over, and by what many Blues on here have seen and commented on, it's most likely the latter.

Yeah. Hell yeah.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:44 am --

*blues don't watch this*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh2iavkUXYM

I didn't heed the advice. I think I'm going to be sick. That was fucking repulsive.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 4:56 am --

It's different though.

Right, now I understand. It's different. Just like when you spent 7mil on Andy Cole, it was 'different', just like the dodgy school supplies, if it was your kids it'd be 'different', like when your lot chant hillsborough crap but complain when it's munich, it's 'different', no one else can spend money, it's 'different'. Fuck off.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:02 am --

Okay, that's the wrong story I had in mind. I read in the press this week that for winning the Premier league they will get 52 million. For getting to the final of the champions league 65 million. Add to this shirt sales and match day revenue and the profits are substantial. This makes the club self sufficient and able to live within their means. Which was the actual point I was making to our Chelsea friend.

Can you guarantee both? Thought not.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:04 am --

If we really want to get technical, the EU economic regulations would prevent the UAE oil family from purchasing Man United because of conflict of interest. So that's one bunch of billionaires rules out already. There are only a hand full of them in the world.

Is that true? Pmsl if so, no hope for them!

-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:10 am --

I feel fucking exhausted, and all I have come away with is all clubs have fans that are dicks, and I knew that anyway. Time to glance at some of the tabs I opened while ploughing through this thread.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:21 am --

Had forgotten Corluka ever played for Cidy to be honest.

Of course he is right, it's just a shame that this sort of normal, sensible, informed quote is considered newsworthy. Its not news.

Yeah, that perfectly describes Corluka's view on City, sensible and informed... Fuck me.

Did you know Chelsea winning the league didn't count, somehow? A Spurs fan said so, must be true.

-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:29 am --

We need someone to put the ball in the net, and to keep it out of the back of our net, in my opinion.

Why didn't we think of this before? This spud has struck gold!

It's like this;[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwk38srACrA[/youtube]reading that crap (which I'm about to give up on).<br /><br />-- Sun May 22, 2011 5:35 am --<br /><br />I could either read tottenham.TV or watch this;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2PCBx6s9SY&feature=related[/youtube]What do you think I'll be doing? Answers on a postcard, and sorry for the spam.

 

[Balti]

since the formation of the Premier League Spurs are the 3rd biggest nett spender living well beyond their means in an attempt to buy success

its no wonder they are bitter seeing as they have basically failed for so long trying

all that money wasted and they're still just the 3rd team in London with a piss poor support

 

[bluemoondays]

Chelsea have been a competing rival with us since 2004. Although, players like Drogba, Terry, Lampard and Cole are on the wane, and I can see them slipping down the pecking order next season, unless Abramovich totally disregards FFPR and buys four top players. If Abramovich walked away and decided to do something else, would I consider Chelsea to be a big club? No, I would view them the same way I did eight years ago, because that is where they would return to.

You see, this is why people hate the arrogance of the rags. Prior to 1992 (and Ferguson) you were one of several moderately succesful teams and only a few cups ahead of City. Your history, as you bang on about it, has really been set in the last 20 years. "History" is not just the years since the PL was formed!

I can remember United being the also-ran's next to City and the Dennis Law back-heel which relegated United. We screwed it up but you can also screw it up. It will be harder for you to screw up now due to the vast amount of money the United commercial machine makes and unfair financial environment caused by the CL.

The CL virtually guarantees the top clubs will keep winning by giving them £30m-50m extra to spend each season compared to other clubs in the same league. You are only a couple of years of missing out on the CL away from a major catastrophe. The loss of £40m+ a season for 2 seasons running would put your finances on a knifes edge due to the owners debts.

The United view that all other clubs are small-time clubs next to the "mighty reds" is petty and arrogant. I'm really hoping for a good Top 6 challenging next season for the top 4 places, it's going to be interesting. I hope to be around when it all goes tits-up, as it will do eventually.

 

[Balti]

Chelsea have been a competing rival with us since 2004. Although, players like Drogba, Terry, Lampard and Cole are on the wane, and I can see them slipping down the pecking order next season, unless Abramovich totally disregards FFPR and buys four top players. If Abramovich walked away and decided to do something else, would I consider Chelsea to be a big club? No, I would view them the same way I did eight years ago, because that is where they would return to.

You see, this is why people hate the arrogance of the rags. Prior to 1992 (and Ferguson) you were one of several moderately succesful teams and only a few cups ahead of City. Your history, as you bang on about it, has really been set in the last 20 years. "History" is not just the years since the PL was formed!

I can remember United being the also-ran's next to City and the Dennis Law back-heel which relegated United. We screwed it up but you can also screw it up. It will be harder for you to screw up now due to the vast amount of money the United commercial machine makes and unfair financial environment caused by the CL.

The CL virtually guarantees the top clubs will keep winning by giving them £30m-50m extra to spend each season compared to other clubs in the same league. You are only a couple of years of missing out on the CL away from a major catastrophe. The loss of £40m+ a season for 2 seasons running would put your finances on a knifes edge due to the owners debts.

The United view that all other clubs are small-time clubs next to the "mighty reds" is petty and arrogant. I'm really hoping for a good Top 6 challenging next season for the top 4 places, it's going to be interesting. I hope to be around when it all goes tits-up, as it will do eventually.

Man Yoo's ''history'' started in 1992 as promoted and perpetuated by their business partners at $ky. They hadn't won the league for 26 years back then and I don't recall fans from their their average attendance of 36K in 1989 banging on about their massive history then. Hypocrites.

 

[Castiel]

If we really want to get technical, the EU economic regulations would prevent the UAE oil family from purchasing Man United because of conflict of interest. So that's one bunch of billionaires rules out already. There are only a hand full of them in the world.

Is that true? Pmsl if so, no hope for them!

Just to answer this, yes it'd be illegal because then they could effectively fix the Premier League.

 

[lancashirelad]

WE
HATE
TOTTENHAM

scored more goals, let fewer in, we get higher crowds etc etc, fu** off cockney cu**s

 

[Castiel]

Sorry to resurrect this but someone pointed out a comment to me on Spurs forums over the CL final and its just unbelievable:

Barca played the game we invented imho

I could be wrong but ...........wasnt that pass & run...........give & go at its most sublime.

They have refined it ....... added really tasty intricacies around the box to needle their way through shitty defensive teams like the Manc Globetrotters were tonight.

But its still the stuff we have been famed for over the past 60 years.

Wow, just wow.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/away-team-dugout/21662-cl-final-man-united-vs-barca-4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/away-te ... rca-4.html</a>