ENIC

[DubaiSpur]

You're honestly asking if it’s more rational to make a sport about how much you spend or to promote a greater level of fair competition? I think you are showing up your arguments here.

I am asking you which is more likely to get results between these two options.

1) trying to end rich owners funding their teams to success, which has been happening since the late 1800s - in other words, trying to reform a system that has been running without interruption in England since the founding of professional football.

Or

2) asking for new owners that aren't useless deadweights at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

Forget your emotional 'it's not fair' - it's never been fair, and isn't going to start now. I am asking which is more rational to strive for - which is more achievable?

Almost all sports that rely on investment, curb and control for the uncompetitive force of excessive funding attaining unfair advantage. But you advocate for it!

I don't advocate for it. But while it is in place in football, which it has been for 100+ years, I advocate us playing by the same rules, not artificially straitjacketing ourselves to make Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy more money when they sell. There is nothing noble in what we are doing - Levy and Lewis don't spend like the others because they want to keep their money, not out of a high-minded conviction of fairness in the game.

inadvertently you support Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, Saudi Sportswashing Machine. Where are your ethics!? Where is your loyalty!?

See above. I don't support them, but you can't wish them away through fairytale thinking. They exist, and will always exist - they existed when Arsenal were the Bank of England club in the 1930s, when James Gibson bankrolled United in the 1930s, when Eric Sawyer spent obscene amounts bringing England's best players to newly promoted, barely solvent Liverpool in the 1960s, kickstarting their success.

This is football in England. You can't cry and stamp your feet about it, you have to adapt to it until the day we become like Germany and ban club owners outright.- i.e, never.

Until then, we need to play by the rules everyone else is playing by. And we are not - instead we are handicapping ourselves with a pointless deadweight tax exile criminal, and his equally useless henchman.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I am asking you which is more likely to get results between these two options.

1) trying to end rich owners funding their teams to success, which has been happening since the late 1800s - in other words, trying to reform a system that has been running without interruption in England since the founding of professional football.

Or

2) asking for new owners that aren't useless deadweights at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

Forget your emotional 'it's not fair' - it's never been fair, and isn't going to start now. I am asking which is more rational to strive for - which is more achievable?



I don't advocate for it. But while it is in place in football, which it has been for 100+ years, I advocate us playing by the same rules, not artificially straitjacketing ourselves to make Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy more money when they sell. There is nothing noble in what we are doing - Levy and Lewis don't spend like the others because they want to keep their money, not out of a high-minded conviction of fairness in the game.



See above. I don't support them, but you can't wish them away through fairytale thinking. They exist, and will always exist - they existed when Arsenal were the Bank of England club in the 1930s, when James Gibson bankrolled United in the 1930s, when Eric Sawyer spent obscene amounts bringing England's best players to newly promoted, barely solvent Liverpool in the 1960s, kickstarting their success.

This is football in England. You can't cry and stamp your feet about it, you have to adapt to it until the day we become like Germany and ban club owners outright.- i.e, never.

Until then, we need to play by the rules everyone else is playing by. And we are not - instead we are handicapping ourselves with a pointless deadweight tax exile criminal, and his equally useless henchman.

it’s boring to correct your misrepresentations. But I’ll try quickly.

• there wasn't the level of skewed funding we’ve seen with the likes of Chelsea recently. That didn’t exist, pouring in millions a week. No coincidence that all the sides picking up trophies have unlimited resources they can pump out the ground to fund unlimited transfer budgets. That never existed in the past with UK owned clubs. So got that one wrong I’m afraid.
  
  
• your whole premise that football clubs should be subsidised is flawed on a number of levels:
  • Is it just us that should be subsidised? Of course not, in which case you arr interested in a sport that is effectively about who has the most cash. That is what you wish to support?
  • As with any sport where money plays a part there are rules and controls and there will only be more to combat the skewing of fair competition.
    
  • Why do you think we would be successful in such a setup? You have oils billionaires at other clubs. Even if we are sold who is going to outgun Saudi Arabia!

you haven’t thought this through have you? Your whole premise doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny

 

[billyiddo]

It is wholly irrational, as you and others effectively blame oil-dopped clubs on Levy.

I’ve never understood why disaffected Spurs fans don’t direct their ire at the real issue which is the likes of Chelsea, city and Saudi Sportswashing Machine making a sport lopsided by using oil wealth to skew fair competition. Instead you call for us to do it too.

Instead of targeting the problem you criticise and sow division within the club you supposedly support. It gets hits and clicks, but what positive benefit comes from it? How dare Levy run a sustainable business. How dare he build the club up to compete long term without subsidy!

Because the media lick the boots of those clubs owners which in turn influences the masses - throwing loads of money around on big name transfers year after year is more sexy than sustainability

 

[DubaiSpur]

it’s boring to correct your misrepresentations. But I’ll try quickly.

• there wasn't the level of skewed funding we’ve seen with the likes of Chelsea recently. That didn’t exist, pouring in millions a week. No coincidence that all the sides picking up trophies have unlimited resources they can pump out the ground to fund unlimited transfer budgets. That never existed in the past with UK owned clubs. So got that one wrong I’m afraid.
  
  
• your whole premise that football clubs should be subsidised is flawed on a number of levels:
  • Is it just us that should be subsidised? Of course not, in which case you arr interested in a sport that is effectively about who has the most cash. That is what you wish to support?
  • As with any sport where money plays a part there are rules and controls and there will only be more to combat the skewing of fair competition.
    
  • Why do you think we would be successful in such a setup? You have oils billionaires at other clubs. Even if we are sold who is going to outgun Saudi Arabia!

you haven’t thought this through have you? Your whole premise doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny

You keep parroting that gotcha about thinking my position through as if you're right - you really aren't mate, though I'm too polite to point it out.

On your first point, do you know how much Liverpool spent in 1960 to build their side, inflation-adjusted?

Here, I'll find a quote for you -

"Liverpool were a second division club but started spending money like a first division giant, They splashed out £37,500 on centre forward Ian St John from Motherwell, and quickly followed that with £30,000 on centre half Ron Yeats from Dundee United.

Bearing in mind the record fee paid by a British club at that time was £50,000 (ironically spent by City on Law) it was a phenomenal amount for a second division club.

Working out football inflation is a hazardous business, but to pay fees which amounted to 75 per cent and 60 per cent of the highest fees ever paid by a British club was remarkable, for a team that had just finished third in the second division.

Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back. Not much “organic growth” going on there.

[...]

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

Does the equivalent of £400 million in spending for a newly promoted side qualify as excessive? That was Eric Sawyer's spending on Liverpool that led to their golden ages.

As you're so fond of asserting, your belief that it was different in the past unfortunately does not stand up to scrutiny.

For your second point, wonder how FSG managed it. Wonder how Kroenke is managing it with 500m-odd in spending on building this Arsenal side. Neither own countries. What's more important is they have a higher chance of winning things than we do - they have *more* of a chance than the perpetual losers we're stuck with.

If you're trying to correct me, at least do it right.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You keep parroting that gotcha about thinking my position through as if you're right - you really aren't mate, though I'm too polite to point it out.

On your first point, do you know how much Liverpool spent in 1960 to build their side, inflation-adjusted?

Here, I'll find a quote for you -

"Liverpool were a second division club but started spending money like a first division giant, They splashed out £37,500 on centre forward Ian St John from Motherwell, and quickly followed that with £30,000 on centre half Ron Yeats from Dundee United.

Bearing in mind the record fee paid by a British club at that time was £50,000 (ironically spent by City on Law) it was a phenomenal amount for a second division club.

Working out football inflation is a hazardous business, but to pay fees which amounted to 75 per cent and 60 per cent of the highest fees ever paid by a British club was remarkable, for a team that had just finished third in the second division.

Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back. Not much “organic growth” going on there.

[...]

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

Does the equivalent of £400 million in spending for a newly promoted side qualify as excessive? That was Eric Sawyer's spending on Liverpool that led to their golden ages.

As you're so fond of asserting, your belief that it was different in the past unfortunately does not stand up to scrutiny.

For your second point, wonder how FSG managed it. Wonder how Kroenke is managing it with 500m-odd in spending on building this Arsenal side. Neither own countries. What's more important is they have a higher chance of winning things than we do - they have *more* of a chance than the perpetual losers we're stuck with.

If you're trying to correct me, at least do it right.

Your facts, like your arguements don't stand up to scrunity. Liverpool in 1960 didn't spend the equilivant of £400m - according to what you yourself posted! Come on man, you're even misquoting your own text

You couldn't answer the glaringly obvious issues with advocating for financial doping. And why not admit that organically elevating Spurs fincial position is a credit Levy holds? Who knows it might become more critical still if effective spending controls are implimented.

It would make your arguements far stronger if you were more ballanced. Credit Levy where its due and you look less like you've been down the rabit hole and come out the other end a bit of fanatic. There is a lot you can fairly critise Enic for, but I'd recomend investing into a more positive past time. Even if Enic sells up, the vision you have is simply to be another chelsea, City or Saudi Sportswashing Machine. The light you see is really a mirrage.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

You keep parroting that gotcha about thinking my position through as if you're right - you really aren't mate, though I'm too polite to point it out.

On your first point, do you know how much Liverpool spent in 1960 to build their side, inflation-adjusted?

Here, I'll find a quote for you -

"Liverpool were a second division club but started spending money like a first division giant, They splashed out £37,500 on centre forward Ian St John from Motherwell, and quickly followed that with £30,000 on centre half Ron Yeats from Dundee United.

Bearing in mind the record fee paid by a British club at that time was £50,000 (ironically spent by City on Law) it was a phenomenal amount for a second division club.

Working out football inflation is a hazardous business, but to pay fees which amounted to 75 per cent and 60 per cent of the highest fees ever paid by a British club was remarkable, for a team that had just finished third in the second division.

Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back. Not much “organic growth” going on there.

[...]

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

Does the equivalent of £400 million in spending for a newly promoted side qualify as excessive? That was Eric Sawyer's spending on Liverpool that led to their golden ages.

As you're so fond of asserting, your belief that it was different in the past unfortunately does not stand up to scrutiny.

For your second point, wonder how FSG managed it. Wonder how Kroenke is managing it with 500m-odd in spending on building this Arsenal side. Neither own countries. What's more important is they have a higher chance of winning things than we do - they have *more* of a chance than the perpetual losers we're stuck with.

If you're trying to correct me, at least do it right.

As it states...'working out football inflation is a hazardous business'....but he tries a way.

Easier just to look at the spending (transfers and wages) as a percentage of income levels and then compare that against today?

 

[Baleforce]

Owner investment is cheating.

I’d say, if ENIC sell up, there is a 99% chance the club won’t exist 5 years later.

That’s how precarious things are.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[El Guepardo]

Theoretically we can spend £500m this summer. We received circa £100m for Kane, as he’s homegrown then that fee goes straight into our books. We then sign 5 £100m players on 5 year contracts apiece and that’s an acceptable way to do business. Whether we can sustain the continued spend associated with this is another matter but if we were to spend the £500m across an assortment of players we could technically rebuild the squad and give us a great chance of huge success going forwards. If needed then chances are that we could sell players into the future. It could be a financial risk but so is stagnating and sliding backwards and so not having CL revenue. We will be stuck in midtable which is not something anyone wants.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Your facts, like your arguements don't stand up to scrunity. Liverpool in 1960 didn't spend the equilivant of £400m - according to what you yourself posted! Come on man, you're even misquoting your own text

You couldn't answer the glaringly obvious issues with advocating for financial doping. And why not admit that organically elevating Spurs fincial position is a credit Levy holds? Who knows it might become more critical still if effective spending controls are implimented.

It would make your arguements far stronger if you were more ballanced. Credit Levy where its due and you look less like you've been down the rabit hole and come out the other end a bit of fanatic. There is a lot you can fairly critise Enic for, but I'd recomend investing into a more positive past time. Even if Enic sells up, the vision you have is simply to be another chelsea, City or Saudi Sportswashing Machine. The light you see is really a mirrage.

Sigh. Oh no - £365M instead of £400M, my apologies. Clearly that puts it in a totally different light and Liverpool were spending exactly what every other Champo club spends on a regular basis. Not abnormal at all, clearly.

As for the 'glaringly obvious issues with financial doping', there's absolutely nothing new in what you asked me - I can and have answered before. But, for the sake of completeness -

• Is it just us who should be subsidized? Ideally yes, in reality everyone is so we would just be catching up after being handicapped by deadweights for a quarter century.
• Do you want to watch a sport where only he who has the most cash wins? That is literally the sport we are in, right now. Again, what you seem to deliberately ignore because it demolishes most of this moralistic whining with no basis in fact, is that it has *always* been this way. Dunno what sport you were watching for the past few decades, mate.
• There are rules and controls - they will always be worked around, and will never curtail spending. Because ultimately, spending the sums that are in football now is a geopolitical benefit to the UK - the vast sums of foreign money being pumped into the game are taxed, and benefit the British exchequer and ordinary Brits as a consequence. There is no incentive for the government to ever stop that gravy train.
• Why do you think we would be successful? I have answered this about fifty times, but others can be and are successful, even against the oil states. Wiser, better, more ambitious owners than ENIC.

To your last point, honestly, I doubt you would 'fairly criticise' ENIC for anything, mate. But for balance's sake, I did give ENIC credit up until the point where they stopped earning it - that was about a decade ago. Since then, the occasional positive move, but mostly just grating failures, again and again.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm pretty happy. Like I said at the start, people are realizing what ENIC are, there are more and more chants for Levy to fudge off every game, the media are starting to catch on. I'm optimistic, mate.

Though, if ENIC sell up, my condolences in advance - I know it'll be tough, but you'll manage, we'll win things again, and the silverware and happiness will wash away the pain, I assure you.

 

[DubaiSpur]

As it states...'working out football inflation is a hazardous business'....but he tries a way.

Easier just to look at the spending (transfers and wages) as a percentage of income levels and then compare that against today?

If you wish - here's their accounts from 1958-1959, the season before they embarked on their spending spree.

https://playupliverpool.com/1959/06/10/liverpool-f-c-balance-sheet-1958-59/

Their total income was roughly £120,000. Their spending on players was roughly £10,000, against income from sales of £2,000.

They then spent £67,500 on those two players mentioned the very next summer, while they had roughly the same accounts due to still being a middling second-division side. I.e, over 50% of total revenue went to buying those two players alone. Expenditure on those other players mentioned would have totalled roughly 175%-200% of their income that year.

To put that proportion into perspective, Liverpool's current revenue is 600M. That expenditure on just two players in 1960 would have been the equivalent of dropping just over £150M, *twice*.

As I said, nearly every club that succeeded in England had financial backing and heavy investment. This is the history of English football.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Theoretically we can spend £500m this summer. We received circa £100m for Kane, as he’s homegrown then that fee goes straight into our books. We then sign 5 £100m players on 5 year contracts apiece and that’s an acceptable way to do business. Whether we can sustain the continued spend associated with this is another matter but if we were to spend the £500m across an assortment of players we could technically rebuild the squad and give us a great chance of huge success going forwards. If needed then chances are that we could sell players into the future. It could be a financial risk but so is stagnating and sliding backwards and so not having CL revenue. We will be stuck in midtable which is not something anyone wants.

We defo could, but when have we ever? That isn't us, that's clubs that actually want to win.

You see Chelsea pumping in a billion dollars while finding every trick possible to make a mockery of FFP - this is because they actually want to win.

We won't ever use up our FFP cap because winning isn't our priority.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Part of me hope ENIC sells up and Levy leaves just to stop this continual argument, it brings a shadow if negativity to the club and give the fans an image of entitled moaners. Ever 6 months we have the great transfer rant with only the exit from a cup competition to start an other round.
I wont be here to see the utopia of continual CL and PL titles this change will bring us along with the greatest players on the planet gracing our ground.
Probably my comments will be shot down as a misrepresentation of the ENIC out cliche as that is not what they expect as they would happy finishing in top 4 with a few big signings and reduced ticket prices real ambition.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Sigh. Oh no - £365M instead of £400M, my apologies. Clearly that puts it in a totally different light and Liverpool were spending exactly what every other Champo club spends on a regular basis. Not abnormal at all, clearly.

As for the 'glaringly obvious issues with financial doping', there's absolutely nothing new in what you asked me - I can and have answered before. But, for the sake of completeness -

• Is it just us who should be subsidized? Ideally yes, in reality everyone is so we would just be catching up after being handicapped by deadweights for a quarter century.
• Do you want to watch a sport where only he who has the most cash wins? That is literally the sport we are in, right now. Again, what you seem to deliberately ignore because it demolishes most of this moralistic whining with no basis in fact, is that it has *always* been this way. Dunno what sport you were watching for the past few decades, mate.
• There are rules and controls - they will always be worked around, and will never curtail spending. Because ultimately, spending the sums that are in football now is a geopolitical benefit to the UK - the vast sums of foreign money being pumped into the game are taxed, and benefit the British exchequer and ordinary Brits as a consequence. There is no incentive for the government to ever stop that gravy train.
• Why do you think we would be successful? I have answered this about fifty times, but others can be and are successful, even against the oil states. Wiser, better, more ambitious owners than ENIC.

To your last point, honestly, I doubt you would 'fairly criticise' ENIC for anything, mate. But for balance's sake, I did give ENIC credit up until the point where they stopped earning it - that was about a decade ago. Since then, the occasional positive move, but mostly just grating failures, again and again.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm pretty happy. Like I said at the start, people are realizing what ENIC are, there are more and more chants for Levy to fudge off every game, the media are starting to catch on. I'm optimistic, mate.

Though, if ENIC sell up, my condolences in advance - I know it'll be tough, but you'll manage, we'll win things again, and the silverware and happiness will wash away the pain, I assure you.

You posted:

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

And that is over 4 seasons? Are you quoted things that are inaccurate, or are you inaccurate!? It doesn't say anything in the puff piece article you took this from that they spent the equivilant of 365m in a season. It says: Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back.

This is the most extreme example of pre-oil baron spending you could find to back up your point!? It is nowhere near Abramovich or Mansour, a puddle in comparison to an ocean. Most of a football clubs spend is on wages anyway, transfer fees are less important (why chelsea spending 900m on transfers isn't as shocking as it initially seems as they are actually cutting their wage budget). Harlands transfer to City was just 50m, but the contract is probably one of the most expensive in British football history alltold. Factor in £30m odd a year wages over 5 years, a massive singing on bonus, huge agents fees, and it is almost certainly the most expensive player signing made in the UK to date (hidden behind a relatively low transfer fee). Long and short of it is, even the most extreme example you could find in history of spening by a club is nowhere close to what the PL has expereinced with oil-subsidised clubs.

---

Then in your Spurs utopia, what you are wishing is we get an owner like Abramovich or Mansour! While everyone else remains self-sustaining. Forgive me for giggling at this naivety.

• Mansour and Saudi at Saudi Sportswashing Machine are already gaming the setup. Even if an oil barron snaps us up,we won't have a free run. Abramovich beat you to it by a couple of decades and ruined all the oil barron fun.
  
• Why does an oil-rich owner wishing to play a computer game with a real football club, choose us over the hundreds of others?
• Why would you want to perpetuate the problem? Your frustrations relate to almost all trophies going to financially doped clubs. But now you want the cool aid dogy injections too?
• Is fair competition a thing of the past? All about who has the most cash. Unchecked it would kill any sport. Checked, who is well-positioned in the PL to win using sustainable revenue?

For all the guff about how football has always been like this, trophies and success were far far more open prior, with a range of winning teams coming from nowhere. That never happens now. And wierdly this setup is what you seem to back. While crying that we don't have an oil-laiden barron backing us.

----

The tired, attempted dig at the end of your post, suggesting those who understand the reality would somehow be upset if Enic moved on, is also basless. Understanding reality is not tanamount to irrational backing of enic/irrational hating on enic. That is your bag, don't try to bring others into your space.

 

[Finney Is Back]

You posted:

The spending did not stop there — in the next four seasons they totted up £230,000 in purchases for players like Willie Stevenson, Peter Thompson, Phil Chisnall and Geoff Strong. Again, translated to modern-day fees, that is around £230million just to get out of the second division and become competitive in the first division.

And that is over 4 seasons? Are you quoted things that are inaccurate, or are you inaccurate!? It doesn't say anything in the puff piece article you took this from that they spent the equivilant of 365m in a season. It says: Translated into modern terms, it was like the current Huddersfield Town spending £75million on a striker and £60million on a centre back.

This is the most extreme example of pre-oil baron spending you could find to back up your point!? It is nowhere near Abramovich or Mansour, a puddle in comparison to an ocean. Most of a football clubs spend is on wages anyway, transfer fees are less important (why chelsea spending 900m on transfers isn't as shocking as it initially seems as they are actually cutting their wage budget). Harlands transfer to City was just 50m, but the contract is probably one of the most expensive in British football history alltold. Factor in £30m odd a year wages over 5 years, a massive singing on bonus, huge agents fees, and it is almost certainly the most expensive player signing made in the UK to date (hidden behind a relatively low transfer fee). Long and short of it is, even the most extreme example you could find in history of spening by a club is nowhere close to what the PL has expereinced with oil-subsidised clubs.

---

Then in your Spurs utopia, what you are wishing is we get an owner like Abramovich or Mansour! While everyone else remains self-sustaining. Forgive me for giggling at this naivety.

• Mansour and Saudi at Saudi Sportswashing Machine are already gaming the setup. Even if an oil barron snaps us up,we won't have a free run. Abramovich beat you to it by a couple of decades and ruined all the oil barron fun.
  
• Why does an oil-rich owner wishing to play a computer game with a real football club, choose us over the hundreds of others?
• Why would you want to perpetuate the problem? Your frustrations relate to almost all trophies going to financially doped clubs. But now you want the cool aid dogy injections too?
• Is fair competition a thing of the past? All about who has the most cash. Unchecked it would kill any sport. Checked, who is well-positioned in the PL to win using sustainable revenue?

For all the guff about how football has always been like this, trophies and success were far far more open prior, with a range of winning teams coming from nowhere. That never happens now. And wierdly this setup is what you seem to back. While crying that we don't have an oil-laiden barron backing us.

----

The tired, attempted dig at the end of your post, trying to make out those who understand the reality would somehow be upset if Enic moved on, is also basless. Understanding reality is not tanamount to irrational backing of enic/irrational hating on enic. That is your bag, don't try to bring others into your space.

If Liverpool’s income was £120k a year and they’d spent £230k on transfer fees over 4 years, that is the equivalent of them spending about £1.2b on transfer fees over 4 years now.

 

[Raziel]

I'm not sure what the argument is here

- Have some owners "always" tried to buy success, yes.
- Was it at the level it is now, no (and arguing that is disingenuous)

What makes the current model different?

- Not just the scale, but the consistency, Chelsea & City have now been spending like that for a decade+
- It's a fudging country investing (City & Saudi Sportswashing Machine), are we really comparing Blackburn's ownership to Saudi Arabi?
- The results, the sharing of trophies has dried up, if someone wants to go do statistical analysis, go do this, take a look at variety/spread of wins of the 3 domestic trophies in past 20 years vs. any other period of time, hint, it isn't good and gets worse, quick point City has pretty much owned the PL & League Cup for last 7 years

And yes

- It isn't going to change
- And if your personal ambition is to see Spurs dominate, we need "cheaters" as owners as well (and when I say cheaters, it isn't just the investment, it's the bogus accounting, shady brick)

 

[Finney Is Back]

I'm not sure what the argument is here

- Have some owners "always" tried to buy success, yes.
- Was it at the level it is now, no (and arguing that is disingenuous)

What makes the current model different?

- Not just the scale, but the consistency, Chelsea & City have now been spending like that for a decade+
- It's a fudging country investing (City & Saudi Sportswashing Machine), are we really comparing Blackburn's ownership to Saudi Arabi?
- The results, the sharing of trophies has dried up, if someone wants to go do statistical analysis, go do this, take a look at variety/spread of wins of the 3 domestic trophies in past 20 years vs. any other period of time, hint, it isn't good and gets worse, quick point City has pretty much owned the PL & League Cup for last 7 years

And yes

- It isn't going to change
- And if your personal ambition is to see Spurs dominate, we need "cheaters" as owners as well (and when I say cheaters, it isn't just the investment, it's the bogus accounting, shady brick)

Have FSG cheated at Liverpool then?

 

[Lilbaz]

1. Pretty much - the idea is to compete with these teams. Whether it is possible without state backing is the question - some believe it isn't, some believe it is. I believe it is - FSG did it, Kroenke's doing it with 600m-odd in spending on his side.

2. See above. I acknowledge that the next owners might not be better, but I choose to believe they will be, on the logic that the nonentities we have now contribute next to nothing anyway. The floor for a new owner is zero impact - that's a pretty generous place to start from.

3. Sure, but that's how you see it. Flipped around, people who want the owners out might see that as the healthiest thing possible for our team and club - and the short term pain is worth it for the long term gain of forcing them out, or at least drawing attention to the fact that we are a club crying for new owners. If the chanting and the anger force a change, that will be far healthier than continuing on in this situation for another 23 years.

It's the same calculation people make about ENIC's 'slow and steady rise' - short term pain for long term gain. Just flipped around to suit the question of ownership.

You think the chants are going to reach the Bahamas?

If you are that tinkled off stop going. Stop giving them your money. And let the rest of us enjoy going to games.

 

[Raziel]

Have FSG cheated at Liverpool then?

You mean the Liverpool that just watches Chelsea take whatever player they want off them?

Last 17 years (start of the cheating)

PL titles -> Liverpool 1, City 7, Chelsea 5
FA Cups -> Liverpool 2, City 3, Chelsea 5
League Cups -> Liverpool 2, City 6, Chelsea 3
Total -> Liverpool 5, City 16, Chelsea 13

So one of the biggest clubs/brands in world football, with owner investment, top manager, generally good transfer policy and after putting together what is widely regarded as the best team in their history is still unable to get anywhere close to the results of the money doping clubs, but you think there is no problem, that if ENIC just put in a couple hundred million we would be competition?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

If you wish - here's their accounts from 1958-1959, the season before they embarked on their spending spree.

https://playupliverpool.com/1959/06/10/liverpool-f-c-balance-sheet-1958-59/

Their total income was roughly £120,000. Their spending on players was roughly £10,000, against income from sales of £2,000.

They then spent £67,500 on those two players mentioned the very next summer, while they had roughly the same accounts due to still being a middling second-division side. I.e, over 50% of total revenue went to buying those two players alone. Expenditure on those other players mentioned would have totalled roughly 175%-200% of their income that year.

To put that proportion into perspective, Liverpool's current revenue is 600M. That expenditure on just two players in 1960 would have been the equivalent of dropping just over £150M, *twice*.

As I said, nearly every club that succeeded in England had financial backing and heavy investment. This is the history of English football.

The irony being they won fudge all from that investment

 

[Bedfordspurs]

We defo could, but when have we ever? That isn't us, that's clubs that actually want to win.

You see Chelsea pumping in a billion dollars while finding every trick possible to make a mockery of FFP - this is because they actually want to win.

We won't ever use up our FFP cap because winning isn't our priority.

That’s countries that want to win
Not clubs
What are are ending up with us a tinkling contest between Arab states.