So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
Manchester.

How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
the status quo?

If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
the cartel to use that asset.

Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
things.

What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
that is the Champions League.

Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
the rest are just there to make up the numbers.

well said.
Post of the day, IMHO.


"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
> So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
> four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
> record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
> Manchester.
>
> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
> the status quo?
>
> If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
> they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
> wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
> the cartel to use that asset.
>
> Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
> for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
> that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
> things.
>
> What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
> Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
> towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
> that is the Champions League.
>
> Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
> the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
>

"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
> So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
> four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
> record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
> Manchester.
>
> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
> the status quo?
>
> If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
> they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
> wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
> the cartel to use that asset.
>
> Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
> for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
> that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
> things.
>
> What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
> Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
> towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
> that is the Champions League.
>
> Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
> the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
>

Spurs now have over £50m to spend on players. They will now be in the
business of looking to the January window to see who they will buy. These
players won't grow on trees.....they will be sold by clubs in or trying to
break into the champions league. Where's the difference? So Spurs looked
abroad at Arshavin and Pavlyuchenko. OK to shit there as long as it isn't on
your own doorstep, that it? It's football, and football is a business like
any other.....like it or lump it.

--
Slitheen.
Manchester United - Back to Back Champions 2006/07, 2007/08 & Champions of
Europe 2008.

"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
> So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
> four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
> record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
> Manchester.
>
> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
> the status quo?
>
> If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
> they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
> wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
> the cartel to use that asset.
>
> Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
> for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
> that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
> things.
>
> What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
> Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
> towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
> that is the Champions League.
>
> Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
> the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
>

Hold on a minute Phil - you might well be frustrated about us losing a great
player such as Berbatov, but let's not be all doom and gloom about this.

People consistently talk about the big four and how it's never going to
change and they will always dominate and blah blah... all the usual stuff.

But let's not forget that Spurs actually are a big spending club. Over the
last two seasons, these are our major signings:-

£17m Bentley
£16.5m Bent
£16.5m Modric
£13.8m Pavyluchenko
£10.9m Berbatov
£10m Bale
£9m Hutton
£8.6m Giovanni
£8.5m Coluka
£8.2m Zokora
£8.2m Kaboul
£8m Woodgate
£7.8m Gomes

Add in a number of other transfers - again in the last 2 seasons only (eg.
Chimbonda £5.5m, Boateng £5.4m, Mido £3.5m, Rocha £3.3m, Gunter £3m,
Malbranque £2.5m) and you're talking a spending of around £160m spent, or an
average of £80m per season.

Now I'm not going to ignore the fact that we've received £50m for Keane and
Berbatov, with a further £18.6m for Carrick, but even taking this into
account (and unless I've missed any other large fees received), we're still
talking about net spending of over £90m. Besides, when we signed the likes
of Modric and Bentley and Pavluchenko (that's a mouthful, isn't it!) the
sale of Berbatov had still not gone through.

Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if Spurs
were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would want
to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not going
to give 100% for the team.

But nonetheless, until the contract is signed, you never know. My point
being that you have to assume that the club was prepared to pay upwards £47m
for those three players regardless of whether the bulk of that would be
recouped through Berbatov's sale. In other words, if the purchase of those
players was conditional on the Berbatov money coming in, Berbatov would have
been sold much sooner.

Given that it was not, you have to then acknowledge that Spurs have a strong
spending power which most clubs can only dream of.

By contrast, Arsenal have spent under £40m in the past two seasons (their
biggest signings being Eduardo for £8.25m, Sagna for £6m and this season
Samir Nasri for £12m and Aaron Ramsey for £5m). What's more, they've sold
Henry, Hleb, Gilberto, Hoyte, Reyes, Ljungberg, Diarra and Aliadiere (and a
few others) such that their net spending is next to nothing. They might
even be "in the black" in terms of net spending.

Now you might well be saying - Arsenal is only one club. What about
Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool? Well, you aren't going to break
the top four overnight and displace all of them. One in, one out, that's
how it works. In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, by the end of the 90s
Arsenal had cemented their position as consistent title challengers, and it
took another 4-5 years for Chelsea to emerge too. Yes Abramovich
accelerated the process but Chelsea were 5th in 2000, 6th in 2001, 6th in
2002, and 4th in 2003, before Roman came along and gave them the push to
finish runners up in 2004 and Champions in 2005.

So Chelsea's rise to the top, though artificially boosted towards the end,
was a somewhat organic one in any event. Finishing 5th, 6th, 6th and 4th in
the four seasons preceding Abramovich's take over was the perfect platform
from which they could jump up to the next level, and was a jump which
arguably would have eventually happened anyway.

If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would seriously
be looking at them to become title challengers. Progress is gradual and it
will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack. On
paper, Arsenal appears to be the most likely target, but what Arsenal have
proved is that success is based on more than just money. A good manager,
strong fan base and a well run club are all crucial. Spurs have not enjoyed
a long-term manager in the way that Arsenal have, but I do believe that
otherwise they have everything in place to succeed, with or without a
billionaire owner.

I believe that Spurs are internally a well run club, and the fact that we
have been able to outlay £160m in 2 years is a testament to that. One hopes
that Ramos is now the man who has and continue to spend money wisely, and
forge a team that can challenge.

We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of the
day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.
But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play as
well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of the
teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
should be, and anything else is a bonus.

Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any team
can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at Utd,
but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one level
we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a much
more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd this
season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6 places.
It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win them
all!

Tanel.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:07:21 +0100, "Tanel Kagan"
<tanelkagan@(nospamatall).hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
>> So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
>> four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
>> record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
>> Manchester.
>>
>> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
>> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
>> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
>> the status quo?
>>
>> If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
>> they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
>> wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
>> the cartel to use that asset.
>>
>> Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
>> for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
>> that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
>> things.
>>
>> What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
>> Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
>> towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
>> that is the Champions League.
>>
>> Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
>> the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
>>
>
>Hold on a minute Phil - you might well be frustrated about us losing a great
>player such as Berbatov, but let's not be all doom and gloom about this.
>
>People consistently talk about the big four and how it's never going to
>change and they will always dominate and blah blah... all the usual stuff.
>
>But let's not forget that Spurs actually are a big spending club. Over the
>last two seasons, these are our major signings:-
>
>£17m Bentley
>£16.5m Bent
>£16.5m Modric
>£13.8m Pavyluchenko
>£10.9m Berbatov
>£10m Bale
>£9m Hutton
>£8.6m Giovanni
>£8.5m Coluka
>£8.2m Zokora
>£8.2m Kaboul
>£8m Woodgate
>£7.8m Gomes
>
>Add in a number of other transfers - again in the last 2 seasons only (eg.
>Chimbonda £5.5m, Boateng £5.4m, Mido £3.5m, Rocha £3.3m, Gunter £3m,
>Malbranque £2.5m) and you're talking a spending of around £160m spent, or an
>average of £80m per season.
>
>Now I'm not going to ignore the fact that we've received £50m for Keane and
>Berbatov, with a further £18.6m for Carrick, but even taking this into
>account (and unless I've missed any other large fees received), we're still
>talking about net spending of over £90m. Besides, when we signed the likes
>of Modric and Bentley and Pavluchenko (that's a mouthful, isn't it!) the
>sale of Berbatov had still not gone through.
>
>Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if Spurs
>were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
>the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would want
>to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not going
>to give 100% for the team.
>
>But nonetheless, until the contract is signed, you never know. My point
>being that you have to assume that the club was prepared to pay upwards £47m
>for those three players regardless of whether the bulk of that would be
>recouped through Berbatov's sale. In other words, if the purchase of those
>players was conditional on the Berbatov money coming in, Berbatov would have
>been sold much sooner.
>
>Given that it was not, you have to then acknowledge that Spurs have a strong
>spending power which most clubs can only dream of.
>
>By contrast, Arsenal have spent under £40m in the past two seasons (their
>biggest signings being Eduardo for £8.25m, Sagna for £6m and this season
>Samir Nasri for £12m and Aaron Ramsey for £5m). What's more, they've sold
>Henry, Hleb, Gilberto, Hoyte, Reyes, Ljungberg, Diarra and Aliadiere (and a
>few others) such that their net spending is next to nothing. They might
>even be "in the black" in terms of net spending.
>
>Now you might well be saying - Arsenal is only one club. What about
>Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool? Well, you aren't going to break
>the top four overnight and displace all of them. One in, one out, that's
>how it works. In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
>amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, by the end of the 90s
>Arsenal had cemented their position as consistent title challengers, and it
>took another 4-5 years for Chelsea to emerge too. Yes Abramovich
>accelerated the process but Chelsea were 5th in 2000, 6th in 2001, 6th in
>2002, and 4th in 2003, before Roman came along and gave them the push to
>finish runners up in 2004 and Champions in 2005.
>
>So Chelsea's rise to the top, though artificially boosted towards the end,
>was a somewhat organic one in any event. Finishing 5th, 6th, 6th and 4th in
>the four seasons preceding Abramovich's take over was the perfect platform
>from which they could jump up to the next level, and was a jump which
>arguably would have eventually happened anyway.
>
>If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would seriously
>be looking at them to become title challengers. Progress is gradual and it
>will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack. On
>paper, Arsenal appears to be the most likely target, but what Arsenal have
>proved is that success is based on more than just money. A good manager,
>strong fan base and a well run club are all crucial. Spurs have not enjoyed
>a long-term manager in the way that Arsenal have, but I do believe that
>otherwise they have everything in place to succeed, with or without a
>billionaire owner.
>
>I believe that Spurs are internally a well run club, and the fact that we
>have been able to outlay £160m in 2 years is a testament to that. One hopes
>that Ramos is now the man who has and continue to spend money wisely, and
>forge a team that can challenge.
>
>We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of the
>day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.
>But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play as
>well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of the
>teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
>should be, and anything else is a bonus.
>
>Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
>left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
>money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any team
>can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at Utd,
>but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
>have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one level
>we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a much
>more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd this
>season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6 places.
>It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win them
>all!
>
Fantasic post but Spurs shot themselves in the foot with the whole Jol
/ Ramos farce of last season, that will put us back at least 2 years.


>Tanel.
>
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69

--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:21:42 +0100, YID ARMY wrote in alt.sports.spurs
:

>well said.
>Post of the day, IMHO.
>

Fuck me!

Last time we exchanged dialogue we were trying to rip each other's
throat out fighting as to who knew best for *a* way forward.

I've not been happy with the way things have gone in N17 since Jol was
treated so badly so I figured back off and wait and see.

Unfortunately I see this as the end of a "competitive" league. Man
City may fancy their chances but it is becoming fantasy football for
real for the super rich. Us real fans may as well find something else
to do with our precious hard earned each weekend even if it is only
paying the bills. Those super rich don't need us and they are taking
our game away from us.

"Luke Curtis" <luke@whofan.pNOSPAMlus.com> wrote in message
news:3ivqb455b1kun4tv2ublfchubie4vhhnqk@4ax.com...
>
> Fantasic post but Spurs shot themselves in the foot with the whole Jol
> / Ramos farce of last season, that will put us back at least 2 years.
>

Ever heard of snipping posts? LOL
--
Slitheen.
Manchester United - Back to Back Champions 2006/07, 2007/08 & Champions of
Europe 2008.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:46:16 +0100, Slitheen wrote in alt.sports.spurs
:

>"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
>> So Man Utd snatch a striker from a club aspiring to break into the top
>> four. Just as they did with Rooney a few years back. Would've been a
>> record British fee but for some desperate moves on the other side of
>> Manchester.
>>
>> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
>> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
>> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
>> the status quo?
>>
>> If Levy and Kenwright and Co are serious about breaking the cartel
>> they should hold onto the "assets" even if it means those assets
>> wither away in the Reserves. At least it denies the opportunity for
>> the cartel to use that asset.
>>
>> Its been going on since Kevin Keegan had an offer "too good to refuse"
>> for Andy Cole. It stopped Newcastle dead in their tracks challenging
>> that season and Manchester went on to win the title and a few other
>> things.
>>
>> What's needed is a strong executive management that when they tell Man
>> Utd no they mean NO. Starve them of the success, bring them back
>> towards the pack, let someone else get their noses into the trough
>> that is the Champions League.
>>
>> Otherwise the English League is as strong as the Scottish League and
>> the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
>>
>
>Spurs now have over £50m to spend on players. They will now be in the
>business of looking to the January window to see who they will buy. These
>players won't grow on trees.....they will be sold by clubs in or trying to
>break into the champions league. Where's the difference? So Spurs looked
>abroad at Arshavin and Pavlyuchenko. OK to shit there as long as it isn't on
>your own doorstep, that it? It's football, and football is a business like
>any other.....like it or lump it.


Where does this £50m come from? Spurs spent just shy of £70m bringing
"talent " in this summer and recouped just over £70 million unloading
previously identified talent. According to Sky sports, only three
Premier League clubs made a net profit over the summer and Spurs were
third of those clubs with IIRC a £6m gain.

Where is the "other " £ 44m ?

How much is being set aside for a new stadium?

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:07:21 +0100, "Tanel Kagan"
<tanelkagan@(nospamatall).hotmail.com> wrote in alt.sports.spurs :

>
>"Phil O'Sofa" <Philosofa@spamunwanted.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2u2qb494t4saf9s0bro1b55mj7d36b8b1u@4ax.com...
>>
>> How are the likes of Everton or Spurs or anyone else for that matter
>> going to break into the coveted top four if they keep selling the
>> ammunition to do this to the very club(s) who are looking to preserve
>> the status quo?
>
>Hold on a minute Phil - you might well be frustrated about us losing a great
>player such as Berbatov, but let's not be all doom and gloom about this.
>
>People consistently talk about the big four and how it's never going to
>change and they will always dominate and blah blah... all the usual stuff.
>
>But let's not forget that Spurs actually are a big spending club. Over the
>last two seasons, these are our major signings:-

What has spending got to do with anything? It is an argument long
proposed by the vociferous Spurs faithful (although not exclusively
Spurs) as the means to the end but it is a red herring. Over the last
20 years Spurs management have shelled out big money and big wages yet
have constantly changed the playing and management personnel chasing
what is now becoming unreachable. Your micro analysis of just two
seasons of activity more then evidences this ridiculous rate of
turnover. You didn't even mention the managerial changes and it was
not that long ago we lost our Director of Football to the Black Hole
of West London.

>Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if Spurs
>were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
>the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would want
>to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not going
>to give 100% for the team.

If it meant we didn't have to hear that asset saying in a post match
interview for the new club that he gave 110% or 150% or 200% "for the
cause" then maybe that "cause" was rightfully denied. That cause may
simultaneously be denying us our ability to "compete" for it.

> In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
>amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, by the end of the 90s
>Arsenal had cemented their position as consistent title challengers, and it
>took another 4-5 years for Chelsea to emerge too. Yes Abramovich
>accelerated the process but Chelsea were 5th in 2000, 6th in 2001, 6th in
>2002, and 4th in 2003, before Roman came along and gave them the push to
>finish runners up in 2004 and Champions in 2005.

>If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would seriously
>be looking at them to become title challengers.

Finding and retaining a manager is useful for stability in chasing for
the title. You mention Blackburn and Newcastle who could be argued to
be one season wonders. The assembly of players at Blackburn was
largely put down to the owner throwing his millions around. Off the
top of your head can you name half a dozen of the core players that
won the title? What else did they do in their career? Newcastle had
(or "have" - as I write this he is back in a second spell and hanging
on by the skin of his teeth!!!!) an inspirational manager which worked
wonders. Dalglish must have done something even if it was only have an
eye for the players he wanted to do a particular job for him and the
ability to find a translator to communicate what that job was to the
players.

>Progress is gradual and it
>will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack. On
>paper, Arsenal appears to be the most likely target, but what Arsenal have
>proved is that success is based on more than just money. A good manager,
>strong fan base and a well run club are all crucial. Spurs have not enjoyed
>a long-term manager in the way that Arsenal have, but I do believe that
>otherwise they have everything in place to succeed, with or without a
>billionaire owner.

Arsenal and Man United have set the benchmark as title challengers by
allowing the manager to bed in and develop their own system. Everton
have reached 4th and 5th and Spurs have notched a couple of 5ths and
head the pack chasing to break into the top four. Liverpool have
regularly been in the top four. Managerial stability is a contributory
factor.

But at the end of the day, it is players on the park who have to
deliver. Selling Berby for £30m this week increases the probability of
Man Utd staying in the top 4 this year probably at our expense.
Denying them his signature should have them weakened until January
when they could have sourced an alternative or this one is cup tied.
They have "only" Rooney and Tevez left as a recognised forwards.
Ronaldo's freak season last year is unlikely to be repeated. Saha had
been released or sold so what talent did they have to fall back on?

Surely this should have been seen as an opportunity for someone to
close the gap. What was the points margin last year over Chelsea and
Arsenal? One change of one result between that top 3 and a different
finishing order would have resulted. Take out half the volume of
Ronaldo goals and not only would Man Utd's goal difference be
obviously significantly different, results and finishing position
would have been.

The chasing pack of Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Man City,
possibly Newcastle and Portsmouth could all have been closing in on
the at group of 3 and one or more of the Big Four could have been
shifted in one season.

>We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of the
>day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.

What is the business exactly?

So shareholders will miss out on a return on their investment in a
particular asset. But this is why executive management are employed to
control the day to day business. They decide how the assets are
employed such that the WHOLE business makes an appropriate return.

If the aim of the WHOLE business is to win the league or break into
the top 4 then the rewards for achieving those aims need to be weighed
against the opportunity of banking cash in the short term.

One player is not bigger than the club. IIRC it was you that said this
when Ginola left.

Wilfully letting one asset rot and wasting £11m (or what's left after
a years write down value because that is what is on the books ), or
passing an opportunity to sell that asset for 3 times the purchase
price is the decision of the management not the shareholders. The
management should be looking at the needs of the whole business.

They should not be pandering to the human rights of one part of that
business that might like to think it is "enslaved" on a contract that
is obliging the club to pay 50 grand a week every week of the year.
Ideally there will be 40 to 70 matches played over a 10 or 11 month
season requiring him to actually work for this money maybe 4 hours per
day.
11 months = 46 weeks (6 weeks holiday) x 28 hours = 1,288 hours a
year.
GBP50k *52 =GBP£2.6m per year. Or £2000 per hour. Not bad for
"slavery". Some of these players should have such a reality check and
shut the fuck up. Or do like Winston Bogarde at Chelsea and just take
the money and not bother at all.

>But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play as
>well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of the
>teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
>should be, and anything else is a bonus.

But of all the players bought for all the positions how much of a
lottery is there going to be to find who works with who? At what cost
in terms of points and then ultimately finances? There will be plenty
of rotation which will cost in terms of points lost. Gaining one point
at the Bridge is an achievement in itself especially considering the
20 year picture.

But at the end of this season it will still be only worth 1 point. We
dropped up to six points home and away to sides that are realistically
looking to avoid getting dragged into a relegation fight. We cannot
afford to get cut adrift where we are in the table or somebody will
start looking for the panic button.

>Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
>left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
>money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any team
>can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at Utd,
>but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
>have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one level
>we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a much
>more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd this
>season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6 places.
>It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win them
>all!

"Giving" Man Utd a 20 goal a year player is worth at least £30m to
them and they will get their money back within 12 months. Spurs will
miss out on that £30m and more from prize money in the Premier League
plus loss of access to the Champions League and all the huge sums of
money that follow that cash cow around.

If the economy is really going to hell in a handcart that cash cow
will be a lot slimmer next time the TV contracts are renewed. This
will be especially so as advertisers can play the broadcasters off
against each other now that the rights have been spread around.

In a few years these values for player transfers may be a thing from
history. So cashing in and banking £30m for Berby might be the right
move as long as what is left can still break into that top 4 and
collect those cash prizes. If so, hip hip hoorah.

But to miss out on an opportunity to hamstring an opponent for half a
season whilst having a squad that you hope was going to take you into
the top 4 anyway is just effing madness. If we sold Berby because he
was surplus to requirements or because we need the cash then so be it.
This wasn't the case. This was a case of a player having a strop and
the management of Levy, Ramos and Co caving in and delivering him to a
business "rival". That management is not operating in the interests of
the business as a whole or its primary financial backers - the fans.

--
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries and chocolate in
the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming
WOO HOO - What a Ride!"

anon

So learn how to use your DELETE key and strip the irrelevance from the
messages you reply to!

> What has spending got to do with anything? It is an argument long
> proposed by the vociferous Spurs faithful (although not exclusively
> Spurs) as the means to the end but it is a red herring. Over the last
> 20 years Spurs management have shelled out big money and big wages yet
> have constantly changed the playing and management personnel chasing
> what is now becoming unreachable. Your micro analysis of just two
> seasons of activity more then evidences this ridiculous rate of
> turnover. You didn't even mention the managerial changes and it was
> not that long ago we lost our Director of Football to the Black Hole
> of West London.

Spending has everything to do with it. Spending power is a major factor in
what we define as a "big club". Of course it is not the only factor but 99%
of clubs in the country, from the Premier League down to the grass roots,
cannot even come close to Tottenham's spending power. That is a fact and
one which we cannot ignore.

That the funds may not have been spent wisely is a separate issue. The
quality of the signings over the years has been questionable (aside from
some obvious stars) and that is a pattern which Ramos has to end. But at
least he has the money to make good signings. If he were to identify 4 or 5
excellent players who were perfect for Spurs, in his opinion, and NOT have
the money to buy them, that would surely be a much worse position.

And yes, I have analysed the past two seasons, firstly because these two
seasons are clearly much more relevant for comparative purposes than looking
back further through the years.

But secondly the escalation of transfer fees is a major factor in widening
the gap between the "big clubs" and the rest of the pack. What I mean by
this is that 15 years ago the highest fees payable were no more than a few
million. There were still wealthy clubs and there were still not so wealthy
clubs, but the gap wasn't as large. Now at the top end fees have increased
20 times, and the fact that Spurs have managed to keep pace in terms of
purchasing power is an extremely positive sign.

>>Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if
>>Spurs
>>were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
>>the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would want
>>to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not going
>>to give 100% for the team.
>
> If it meant we didn't have to hear that asset saying in a post match
> interview for the new club that he gave 110% or 150% or 200% "for the
> cause" then maybe that "cause" was rightfully denied. That cause may
> simultaneously be denying us our ability to "compete" for it.

Understood, but has this not *always* been the case with football? That is
the difference between players and supporters. You support one club for
life, usually, but "one club for life" for players is a distant memory.
Some people may not like the player power that exists today, but there was a
time when clubs held all the cards and many players were treated unfairly.

>> In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
>>amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, [snip]
>>If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would
>>seriously
>>be looking at them to become title challengers.
>
> Finding and retaining a manager is useful for stability in chasing for
> the title. You mention Blackburn and Newcastle who could be argued to
> be one season wonders. The assembly of players at Blackburn was
> largely put down to the owner throwing his millions around. Off the
> top of your head can you name half a dozen of the core players that
> won the title? What else did they do in their career? Newcastle had
> (or "have" - as I write this he is back in a second spell and hanging
> on by the skin of his teeth!!!!) an inspirational manager which worked
> wonders. Dalglish must have done something even if it was only have an
> eye for the players he wanted to do a particular job for him and the
> ability to find a translator to communicate what that job was to the
> players.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Blackburn did in the 90s what
Chelsea did a few years ago. So money was, and still is, crucial. But I
absolutely agree that managerial stability is important, the Arsenal example
shows that. Sir Alex has been around longer than God, and Liverpool haven't
done too badly in sticking with Benitez for 4 years. By the way, behind
Wenger is David Moyes, who has been at Everton for 6 whole years. Now if
spending had "nothing to do with it", as you implied, Everton would be the
third most successful team of the last 5 years behind Man Utd and Arsenal.
Clearly they have been not, and you have to ask how much of that is down to
not being in the same "money league".

Interestingly if you asked who was next in line in terms of the length of
time they have been with their current club, I guess not many people would
correctly guess Harry Redknapp, who's now been at Portsmouth for nearly 3
years. Maybe them winning the FA Cup is a testament to that!

>>Progress is gradual and it
>>will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack.
>>[snip]

> Arsenal and Man United have set the benchmark as title challengers by
> allowing the manager to bed in and develop their own system. Everton
> have reached 4th and 5th and Spurs have notched a couple of 5ths and
> head the pack chasing to break into the top four. Liverpool have
> regularly been in the top four. Managerial stability is a contributory
> factor.

No argument there.

> But at the end of the day, it is players on the park who have to
> deliver. Selling Berby for £30m this week increases the probability of
> Man Utd staying in the top 4 this year probably at our expense.
> Denying them his signature should have them weakened until January
> when they could have sourced an alternative or this one is cup tied.
> They have "only" Rooney and Tevez left as a recognised forwards.
> Ronaldo's freak season last year is unlikely to be repeated. Saha had
> been released or sold so what talent did they have to fall back on?

Right, but this is not a situation where Berbatov came out and said "I love
Spurs and want to stay and am willing to give 100% every week", and the
board then sold him in any case. What Spurs have done (and by the way, they
could have handled it even better) is a classic piece of making the best of
a bad situation. I don't think any Spurs fan seriously believed that we
would be looking to finish above Man Utd this season. Under the
circumstances, your argument about them staying in the Top 4 "at our
expense" is tainted with some degree of fantasy. As I said, if we'd sold
him to a club like Everton, Man City, Blackburn etc who are challenging for
UEFA cup spots and maybe 4th/5th place (why he would go to them I don't
know, but anyway), then this would be a very bad decision. As it stands,
Utd are a man stronger but we now have 4 or 5 new signings who (we hope)
will play their hearts out for us.

> Surely this should have been seen as an opportunity for someone to
> close the gap. What was the points margin last year over Chelsea and
> Arsenal? One change of one result between that top 3 and a different
> finishing order would have resulted. Take out half the volume of
> Ronaldo goals and not only would Man Utd's goal difference be
> obviously significantly different, results and finishing position
> would have been.

But surely you can't believe that football is *that* scientific? You can't
plug in the names and numbers and expect a result. If there was a formula
that you could apply and it said that keeping Berbatov and not having the
£30m means that you definitely finish top 4, then no doubt he'd still be a
Spurs player. But you could finish top 4 without him, and likewise you
could hold on to him and we finish mid-table again as we did last season
with him.

> The chasing pack of Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Man City,
> possibly Newcastle and Portsmouth could all have been closing in on
> the at group of 3 and one or more of the Big Four could have been
> shifted in one season.

Well I've thought about this and I do think Arsenal are in line for a change
of fortune. I don't say that because of any rivalry and I'm not here to
have a pop at the gooners or anything, I just think that with the number of
changes to their side, and the money spent on their new stadium clearly
having an impact on their spending power, they are the most likely to
decline. Of course the further down the line we go the money spent on the
stadium becomes less significant and their finances will be rebuilt, but at
the same time unless they win something very soon Wenger may decide that 12
years at one club is long enough.

>>We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of the
>>day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.
>
> What is the business exactly?
>
> So shareholders will miss out on a return on their investment in a
> particular asset. But this is why executive management are employed to
> control the day to day business. They decide how the assets are
> employed such that the WHOLE business makes an appropriate return.
>
> If the aim of the WHOLE business is to win the league or break into
> the top 4 then the rewards for achieving those aims need to be weighed
> against the opportunity of banking cash in the short term.

That would be a perfectly sound argument if you could separate the financial
success from the success of the team. But you can't. You name me one club
in the world where the two have not shown correlation. The "business",
since you ask, is managing a club to become successful both on and off the
pitch (which I think you agree with). Once again I have to stress that if
it was as simple as applying a formula, then anyone could manage a club.
You suggest that we have prevented ourselves from qualifying for the
Champions League by selling a £30m asset, but could you offer any guarantee
that by keeping him, and either getting 50% out of him as an unhappy player,
or getting nothing out of him on the bench or in the reserves, that we would
achieve that goal? Not to mention the contractual wrangles that might arise
if (as I suspect) there are provisions in his contract which mean he has to
play if fit and so on.

> One player is not bigger than the club. IIRC it was you that said this
> when Ginola left.

And I say exactly the same thing now. Berbatov is not bigger than Spurs,
and I refuse to believe that we are dead and buried because he's gone.

> Wilfully letting one asset rot and wasting £11m (or what's left after
> a years write down value because that is what is on the books ), or
> passing an opportunity to sell that asset for 3 times the purchase
> price is the decision of the management not the shareholders. The
> management should be looking at the needs of the whole business.

Who said it was a decision for the shareholders? Do you think the club
called a shareholders' general meeting and put it to the vote? Just because
a club is a PLC it doesn't mean that the shareholders (which by the way
could be you or I) have decision making power over everyday aspects of club
policy. That's not the case with any company, and not the case with
football clubs either. Yes, the interests of shareholders does come into
the equation at some point, but there's nothing to suggest that these
interests would be inconsistent with the interests of the football club.

Besides, those "shareholders" you talk about are not a faceless mass of
thousands of investors looking for a return on their money. Believe me, if
you want a good return on your money then football is the last thing you
should invest in. No as far as I know, over 80% of the shares in THFC PLC
are held by ENIC Limited, which in turn is owned entirely by Joe Lewis and
Daniel Levy. Major decisions about how the club is run are therefore almost
entirely made by these two individuals. Though the club is a PLC in terms
of the actual form of entity, the management style is more akin to a
privately owned club with a chairman calling the shots.

Now you might not agree with every decision Daniel Levy makes, but you have
to believe that he's making the decisions for the good of the club. Unless
you're suggesting that you want ENIC and Levy out. But it would be wrong to
mislead people into believing that there is a large mass of shareholders
which call the shots and make every decision based on their next dividend.
Yes, there are other shareholders in THFC PLC, but their votes only count in
*very* limited circumstances, such as where an elective resolution (90%+) is
required to change the constitution of the company.

> They should not be pandering to the human rights of one part of that
> business that might like to think it is "enslaved" on a contract that
> is obliging the club to pay 50 grand a week every week of the year.
> Ideally there will be 40 to 70 matches played over a 10 or 11 month
> season requiring him to actually work for this money maybe 4 hours per
> day.
> 11 months = 46 weeks (6 weeks holiday) x 28 hours = 1,288 hours a
> year.
> GBP50k *52 =GBP£2.6m per year. Or £2000 per hour. Not bad for
> "slavery". Some of these players should have such a reality check and
> shut the fuck up. Or do like Winston Bogarde at Chelsea and just take
> the money and not bother at all.

Well I'm sorry but that is really going off on a tangent. I don't believe
players are slaves any more than you do.

>>But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play
>>as
>>well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of
>>the
>>teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
>>should be, and anything else is a bonus.
>
> But of all the players bought for all the positions how much of a
> lottery is there going to be to find who works with who? At what cost
> in terms of points and then ultimately finances? There will be plenty
> of rotation which will cost in terms of points lost. Gaining one point
> at the Bridge is an achievement in itself especially considering the
> 20 year picture.

Did you say that when we bought Berbatov? Maybe we shouldn't have bought
him in the first place. He was a gamble like any other, and it paid off,
for a while. Who's to say that Pavyluchenko won't be the next Berbatov?
Who's to say that Berbatov will mess up Fergie's system and they lose the
title to someone else this year? :-)

> But at the end of this season it will still be only worth 1 point. We
> dropped up to six points home and away to sides that are realistically
> looking to avoid getting dragged into a relegation fight. We cannot
> afford to get cut adrift where we are in the table or somebody will
> start looking for the panic button.

Let's see where we are at Christmas and then reach a view shall we? We keep
talking about giving managers time, hopefully we'll give it a bit more than
3 games before we start worrying about relegation, and God help us, changing
the manager...

>>Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
>>left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
>>money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any team
>>can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at
>>Utd,
>>but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
>>have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one
>>level
>>we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a much
>>more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd this
>>season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6
>>places.
>>It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win
>>them
>>all!
>
> "Giving" Man Utd a 20 goal a year player is worth at least £30m to
> them and they will get their money back within 12 months. [snip]

I have a tiny little gut feeling that life at Old Trafford won't be so rosy
for Berbatov as it is at WHL. On one level I understand his decision, but
on another I say "be careful what you wish for". If things don't go well
for him immediately, and he starts to pull a strop, the Man Utd fans might
be less willing to forgive. He'll just be another superstar in the crowd,
rather than the club's shining light, and the pressure of the transfer fee
will be on him very quickly.

Watch this space... stranger things have happened...

Tanel.

>> Finding and retaining a manager is useful for stability in chasing for
>> the title. You mention Blackburn and Newcastle who could be argued to
>> be one season wonders.

>I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Blackburn did in the 90s what
>Chelsea did a few years ago. So money was, and still is, crucial.

Money *IS* part of the equation but it was the manager knowing what
(who) they wanted that was equally if not more important. Walker and
Abramovich signed the cheques. They spent big compared to their rivals
at the time but that was a case of backing the manager who insisted
they knew what they were doing and the end results repaid that
investment.

As events this week have shown, that approach looks to be a thing of
the past with Curbishley and Keegan heading for their nearest dole
office because they were not being backed by their chairmen. The new
approach seems to be the continental version where the managers are no
more than first team coaches and the chairmen and directors assemble
players from wherever for the coach to mould and deliver results.

>But I
>absolutely agree that managerial stability is important, the Arsenal example
>shows that. Sir Alex has been around longer than God, and Liverpool haven't
>done too badly in sticking with Benitez for 4 years. By the way, behind
>Wenger is David Moyes, who has been at Everton for 6 whole years. Now if
>spending had "nothing to do with it", as you implied, Everton would be the
>third most successful team of the last 5 years behind Man Utd and Arsenal.
>Clearly they have been not, and you have to ask how much of that is down to
>not being in the same "money league".

Everton are leading the pack outside the 4. If they hadn't sold Rooney
three years ago where would they be now? If, if, if, goes nowhere.

>> The chasing pack of Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Man City,
>> possibly Newcastle and Portsmouth could all have been closing in on
>> the at group of 3 and one or more of the Big Four could have been
>> shifted in one season.
>
>Well I've thought about this and I do think Arsenal are in line for a change
>of fortune. I don't say that because of any rivalry and I'm not here to
>have a pop at the gooners or anything, I just think that with the number of
>changes to their side, and the money spent on their new stadium clearly
>having an impact on their spending power, they are the most likely to
>decline.

With Henry disappearing a year ago I thought that losing such a
prolific scorer would impact on their side and they would struggle to
stay in the top 4. As it turned out the goals were still being scored
but they were now being shared around instead of fed into one player.
IIRC losing to Man Utd towards the end of the season was the one
result that if reversed would have meant Arsenal were Champions
instead of finishing third.

And yes I think it will happen again. Ronaldo not scoring shit loads
of goals will mean Man Utd won't do as well. As for Arsenal, having
overcome the departure of Viera and Henry in successive seasons and
staying in the top 4, I don't foresee them slipping back so easily.
BICBW again.

The stadium is financed on a very cheap long term loan deal, possibly
one of the best deals Dein ever did after securing Wenger. Financing
that loan can be done with Highbury level attendances. Seeing as they
tend to fill the house every time they should be ahead of the game
cash wise and Wenger should have a massive "war chest" of cash to
compete with Man City in bidding £100m plus for Ronaldo in January.

I don't know why Wenger isn't splashing it around. Maybe the Wiltord
experience haunts him. Maybe he thinks he can pick up a Sulzeer
whenever he wants.

> Of course the further down the line we go the money spent on the
>stadium becomes less significant and their finances will be rebuilt, but at
>the same time unless they win something very soon Wenger may decide that 12
>years at one club is long enough.

IIRC it is 4 whole years since they won something down the road. What
an eternity that must feel like...............
If the manager doesn't walk then they will be screaming for his head
anyway...
If only Newcastle were our rivals <titter>

>> Wilfully letting one asset rot and wasting £11m (or what's left after
>> a years write down value because that is what is on the books ), or
>> passing an opportunity to sell that asset for 3 times the purchase
>> price is the decision of the management not the shareholders. The
>> management should be looking at the needs of the whole business.
>
>Who said it was a decision for the shareholders? Do you think the club
>called a shareholders' general meeting and put it to the vote? Just because
>a club is a PLC it doesn't mean that the shareholders (which by the way
>could be you or I) have decision making power over everyday aspects of club
>policy.

The club purchased my and a lot of others shares and cancelled them
last summer (2007) so there is little or no need to keep shareholders
informed through reports at the Stock Exchange. For some reason they
still do this with for example the revelation that the Pavlychenko
deal was done only made via the Stock Exchange and not the Reuters or
Sky Sports News desks.

So whoever the remaining shareholders are, whether it be Joe Lewis or
ENIC or someone else, someone feels that the Stock Market gets told
anything before anyone else does. If the shares are not freely
tradeable then why do the club insist on telling them in this manner?
They must have some sort of influence.

>Well I'm sorry but that is really going off on a tangent. I don't believe
>players are slaves any more than you do.

C Ronaldo was alleged to have complained in the summer because he was
not allowed to go to Real Madrid when he wanted to. Sepp Blatter
jumped in and agreed that elite footballers should not be held as
slaves in their contract. Berbatov then says he wants out.

For all the work (training a few mornings a week and possibly one or
two matches a week) that they do in cashing in on the cash cow that is
football in its present state, they all forget about the mugs filling
the stadia week in and week. Too many simply have no concept of how
those mugs come to be there and what they have to do to get there each
week.

A father and son can fork out over a £100 on match tickets alone for
90 something minutes "entertainment" each fortnight. Throw in the
incidental costs of travelling and eating and drinking and the spend
per hour by the mugs far outweighs the earning power of the mugs. If
anyone is enslaved at a club it is the mugs <fans>.

How long before those mugs realise this and start to chase value for
money lower down the pyramid system? Where will the Premier League get
its audience from if the children (the consumers of tomorrow) are
priced out of the game and develop a loyalty to someone else?
--
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries and chocolate in
the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming
WOO HOO - What a Ride!"

anon

So learn how to use your DELETE key and strip the irrelevance from the
messages you reply to!

"Tanel Kagan" <tanelkagan@(nospamatall).hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d-KdnYvG7sYlUCLVnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@bt.com...
>> What has spending got to do with anything? It is an argument long
>> proposed by the vociferous Spurs faithful (although not exclusively
>> Spurs) as the means to the end but it is a red herring. Over the last
>> 20 years Spurs management have shelled out big money and big wages yet
>> have constantly changed the playing and management personnel chasing
>> what is now becoming unreachable. Your micro analysis of just two
>> seasons of activity more then evidences this ridiculous rate of
>> turnover. You didn't even mention the managerial changes and it was
>> not that long ago we lost our Director of Football to the Black Hole
>> of West London.
>
> Spending has everything to do with it. Spending power is a major factor
> in what we define as a "big club". Of course it is not the only factor
> but 99% of clubs in the country, from the Premier League down to the grass
> roots, cannot even come close to Tottenham's spending power. That is a
> fact and one which we cannot ignore.
>
> That the funds may not have been spent wisely is a separate issue. The
> quality of the signings over the years has been questionable (aside from
> some obvious stars) and that is a pattern which Ramos has to end. But at
> least he has the money to make good signings. If he were to identify 4 or
> 5 excellent players who were perfect for Spurs, in his opinion, and NOT
> have the money to buy them, that would surely be a much worse position.
>
> And yes, I have analysed the past two seasons, firstly because these two
> seasons are clearly much more relevant for comparative purposes than
> looking back further through the years.
>
> But secondly the escalation of transfer fees is a major factor in widening
> the gap between the "big clubs" and the rest of the pack. What I mean by
> this is that 15 years ago the highest fees payable were no more than a few
> million. There were still wealthy clubs and there were still not so
> wealthy clubs, but the gap wasn't as large. Now at the top end fees have
> increased 20 times, and the fact that Spurs have managed to keep pace in
> terms of purchasing power is an extremely positive sign.
>
>>>Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if
>>>Spurs
>>>were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
>>>the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would
>>>want
>>>to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not
>>>going
>>>to give 100% for the team.
>>
>> If it meant we didn't have to hear that asset saying in a post match
>> interview for the new club that he gave 110% or 150% or 200% "for the
>> cause" then maybe that "cause" was rightfully denied. That cause may
>> simultaneously be denying us our ability to "compete" for it.
>
> Understood, but has this not *always* been the case with football? That
> is the difference between players and supporters. You support one club
> for life, usually, but "one club for life" for players is a distant
> memory. Some people may not like the player power that exists today, but
> there was a time when clubs held all the cards and many players were
> treated unfairly.
>
>>> In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
>>>amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, [snip]
>>>If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would
>>>seriously
>>>be looking at them to become title challengers.
>>
>> Finding and retaining a manager is useful for stability in chasing for
>> the title. You mention Blackburn and Newcastle who could be argued to
>> be one season wonders. The assembly of players at Blackburn was
>> largely put down to the owner throwing his millions around. Off the
>> top of your head can you name half a dozen of the core players that
>> won the title? What else did they do in their career? Newcastle had
>> (or "have" - as I write this he is back in a second spell and hanging
>> on by the skin of his teeth!!!!) an inspirational manager which worked
>> wonders. Dalglish must have done something even if it was only have an
>> eye for the players he wanted to do a particular job for him and the
>> ability to find a translator to communicate what that job was to the
>> players.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Blackburn did in the 90s
> what Chelsea did a few years ago. So money was, and still is, crucial.
> But I absolutely agree that managerial stability is important, the Arsenal
> example shows that. Sir Alex has been around longer than God, and
> Liverpool haven't done too badly in sticking with Benitez for 4 years.
> By the way, behind Wenger is David Moyes, who has been at Everton for 6
> whole years. Now if spending had "nothing to do with it", as you implied,
> Everton would be the third most successful team of the last 5 years behind
> Man Utd and Arsenal. Clearly they have been not, and you have to ask how
> much of that is down to not being in the same "money league".
>
> Interestingly if you asked who was next in line in terms of the length of
> time they have been with their current club, I guess not many people would
> correctly guess Harry Redknapp, who's now been at Portsmouth for nearly 3
> years. Maybe them winning the FA Cup is a testament to that!
>
>>>Progress is gradual and it
>>>will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack.
>>>[snip]
>
>> Arsenal and Man United have set the benchmark as title challengers by
>> allowing the manager to bed in and develop their own system. Everton
>> have reached 4th and 5th and Spurs have notched a couple of 5ths and
>> head the pack chasing to break into the top four. Liverpool have
>> regularly been in the top four. Managerial stability is a contributory
>> factor.
>
> No argument there.
>
>> But at the end of the day, it is players on the park who have to
>> deliver. Selling Berby for £30m this week increases the probability of
>> Man Utd staying in the top 4 this year probably at our expense.
>> Denying them his signature should have them weakened until January
>> when they could have sourced an alternative or this one is cup tied.
>> They have "only" Rooney and Tevez left as a recognised forwards.
>> Ronaldo's freak season last year is unlikely to be repeated. Saha had
>> been released or sold so what talent did they have to fall back on?
>
> Right, but this is not a situation where Berbatov came out and said "I
> love Spurs and want to stay and am willing to give 100% every week", and
> the board then sold him in any case. What Spurs have done (and by the
> way, they could have handled it even better) is a classic piece of making
> the best of a bad situation. I don't think any Spurs fan seriously
> believed that we would be looking to finish above Man Utd this season.
> Under the circumstances, your argument about them staying in the Top 4 "at
> our expense" is tainted with some degree of fantasy. As I said, if we'd
> sold him to a club like Everton, Man City, Blackburn etc who are
> challenging for UEFA cup spots and maybe 4th/5th place (why he would go to
> them I don't know, but anyway), then this would be a very bad decision.
> As it stands, Utd are a man stronger but we now have 4 or 5 new signings
> who (we hope) will play their hearts out for us.
>
>> Surely this should have been seen as an opportunity for someone to
>> close the gap. What was the points margin last year over Chelsea and
>> Arsenal? One change of one result between that top 3 and a different
>> finishing order would have resulted. Take out half the volume of
>> Ronaldo goals and not only would Man Utd's goal difference be
>> obviously significantly different, results and finishing position
>> would have been.
>
> But surely you can't believe that football is *that* scientific? You
> can't plug in the names and numbers and expect a result. If there was a
> formula that you could apply and it said that keeping Berbatov and not
> having the £30m means that you definitely finish top 4, then no doubt he'd
> still be a Spurs player. But you could finish top 4 without him, and
> likewise you could hold on to him and we finish mid-table again as we did
> last season with him.
>
>> The chasing pack of Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Man City,
>> possibly Newcastle and Portsmouth could all have been closing in on
>> the at group of 3 and one or more of the Big Four could have been
>> shifted in one season.
>
> Well I've thought about this and I do think Arsenal are in line for a
> change of fortune. I don't say that because of any rivalry and I'm not
> here to have a pop at the gooners or anything, I just think that with the
> number of changes to their side, and the money spent on their new stadium
> clearly having an impact on their spending power, they are the most likely
> to decline. Of course the further down the line we go the money spent on
> the stadium becomes less significant and their finances will be rebuilt,
> but at the same time unless they win something very soon Wenger may decide
> that 12 years at one club is long enough.
>
>>>We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of
>>>the
>>>day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.
>>
>> What is the business exactly?
>>
>> So shareholders will miss out on a return on their investment in a
>> particular asset. But this is why executive management are employed to
>> control the day to day business. They decide how the assets are
>> employed such that the WHOLE business makes an appropriate return.
>>
>> If the aim of the WHOLE business is to win the league or break into
>> the top 4 then the rewards for achieving those aims need to be weighed
>> against the opportunity of banking cash in the short term.
>
> That would be a perfectly sound argument if you could separate the
> financial success from the success of the team. But you can't. You name
> me one club in the world where the two have not shown correlation. The
> "business", since you ask, is managing a club to become successful both on
> and off the pitch (which I think you agree with). Once again I have to
> stress that if it was as simple as applying a formula, then anyone could
> manage a club. You suggest that we have prevented ourselves from
> qualifying for the Champions League by selling a £30m asset, but could you
> offer any guarantee that by keeping him, and either getting 50% out of him
> as an unhappy player, or getting nothing out of him on the bench or in the
> reserves, that we would achieve that goal? Not to mention the contractual
> wrangles that might arise if (as I suspect) there are provisions in his
> contract which mean he has to play if fit and so on.
>
>> One player is not bigger than the club. IIRC it was you that said this
>> when Ginola left.
>
> And I say exactly the same thing now. Berbatov is not bigger than Spurs,
> and I refuse to believe that we are dead and buried because he's gone.
>
>> Wilfully letting one asset rot and wasting £11m (or what's left after
>> a years write down value because that is what is on the books ), or
>> passing an opportunity to sell that asset for 3 times the purchase
>> price is the decision of the management not the shareholders. The
>> management should be looking at the needs of the whole business.
>
> Who said it was a decision for the shareholders? Do you think the club
> called a shareholders' general meeting and put it to the vote? Just
> because a club is a PLC it doesn't mean that the shareholders (which by
> the way could be you or I) have decision making power over everyday
> aspects of club policy. That's not the case with any company, and not the
> case with football clubs either. Yes, the interests of shareholders does
> come into the equation at some point, but there's nothing to suggest that
> these interests would be inconsistent with the interests of the football
> club.
>
> Besides, those "shareholders" you talk about are not a faceless mass of
> thousands of investors looking for a return on their money. Believe me,
> if you want a good return on your money then football is the last thing
> you should invest in. No as far as I know, over 80% of the shares in THFC
> PLC are held by ENIC Limited, which in turn is owned entirely by Joe Lewis
> and Daniel Levy. Major decisions about how the club is run are therefore
> almost entirely made by these two individuals. Though the club is a PLC
> in terms of the actual form of entity, the management style is more akin
> to a privately owned club with a chairman calling the shots.
>
> Now you might not agree with every decision Daniel Levy makes, but you
> have to believe that he's making the decisions for the good of the club.
> Unless you're suggesting that you want ENIC and Levy out. But it would be
> wrong to mislead people into believing that there is a large mass of
> shareholders which call the shots and make every decision based on their
> next dividend. Yes, there are other shareholders in THFC PLC, but their
> votes only count in *very* limited circumstances, such as where an
> elective resolution (90%+) is required to change the constitution of the
> company.
>
>> They should not be pandering to the human rights of one part of that
>> business that might like to think it is "enslaved" on a contract that
>> is obliging the club to pay 50 grand a week every week of the year.
>> Ideally there will be 40 to 70 matches played over a 10 or 11 month
>> season requiring him to actually work for this money maybe 4 hours per
>> day.
>> 11 months = 46 weeks (6 weeks holiday) x 28 hours = 1,288 hours a
>> year.
>> GBP50k *52 =GBP£2.6m per year. Or £2000 per hour. Not bad for
>> "slavery". Some of these players should have such a reality check and
>> shut the fuck up. Or do like Winston Bogarde at Chelsea and just take
>> the money and not bother at all.
>
> Well I'm sorry but that is really going off on a tangent. I don't believe
> players are slaves any more than you do.
>
>>>But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play
>>>as
>>>well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of
>>>the
>>>teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
>>>should be, and anything else is a bonus.
>>
>> But of all the players bought for all the positions how much of a
>> lottery is there going to be to find who works with who? At what cost
>> in terms of points and then ultimately finances? There will be plenty
>> of rotation which will cost in terms of points lost. Gaining one point
>> at the Bridge is an achievement in itself especially considering the
>> 20 year picture.
>
> Did you say that when we bought Berbatov? Maybe we shouldn't have bought
> him in the first place. He was a gamble like any other, and it paid off,
> for a while. Who's to say that Pavyluchenko won't be the next Berbatov?
> Who's to say that Berbatov will mess up Fergie's system and they lose the
> title to someone else this year? :-)
>
>> But at the end of this season it will still be only worth 1 point. We
>> dropped up to six points home and away to sides that are realistically
>> looking to avoid getting dragged into a relegation fight. We cannot
>> afford to get cut adrift where we are in the table or somebody will
>> start looking for the panic button.
>
> Let's see where we are at Christmas and then reach a view shall we? We
> keep talking about giving managers time, hopefully we'll give it a bit
> more than 3 games before we start worrying about relegation, and God help
> us, changing the manager...
>
>>>Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
>>>left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
>>>money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any
>>>team
>>>can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at
>>>Utd,
>>>but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
>>>have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one
>>>level
>>>we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a
>>>much
>>>more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd
>>>this
>>>season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6
>>>places.
>>>It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win
>>>them
>>>all!
>>
>> "Giving" Man Utd a 20 goal a year player is worth at least £30m to
>> them and they will get their money back within 12 months. [snip]
>
> I have a tiny little gut feeling that life at Old Trafford won't be so
> rosy for Berbatov as it is at WHL. On one level I understand his
> decision, but on another I say "be careful what you wish for". If things
> don't go well for him immediately, and he starts to pull a strop, the Man
> Utd fans might be less willing to forgive. He'll just be another
> superstar in the crowd, rather than the club's shining light, and the
> pressure of the transfer fee will be on him very quickly.
>
> Watch this space... stranger things have happened...
>

Indeed they have, but you only have to have a half decent understanding of
his game, and the way we play, to see that in football terms it is a match
made in heaven. That is why Ferguson never pursued the younger, cheaper and
even more prolific a scorer, Klaas Jan Huntelaar from Ajax. Berbatov will
fit our style like a well worn glove.

Sometime it is too easy to project what you might *want* to happen. I'm sure
I'd be no different should Ronaldo leave us. Look at it rationally, though,
and you can see he will fit in well. I have no worries about his game
whatsoever - I just hope his personality won't be a problem.
--
Slitheen.
Manchester United - Back to Back Champions 2006/07, 2007/08 & Champions of
Europe 2008.

Slitheen wrote on 06/09/2008 :
> "Tanel Kagan" <tanelkagan@(nospamatall).hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d-KdnYvG7sYlUCLVnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> What has spending got to do with anything? It is an argument long
>>> proposed by the vociferous Spurs faithful (although not exclusively
>>> Spurs) as the means to the end but it is a red herring. Over the last
>>> 20 years Spurs management have shelled out big money and big wages yet
>>> have constantly changed the playing and management personnel chasing
>>> what is now becoming unreachable. Your micro analysis of just two
>>> seasons of activity more then evidences this ridiculous rate of
>>> turnover. You didn't even mention the managerial changes and it was
>>> not that long ago we lost our Director of Football to the Black Hole
>>> of West London.
>>
>> Spending has everything to do with it. Spending power is a major factor in
>> what we define as a "big club". Of course it is not the only factor but
>> 99% of clubs in the country, from the Premier League down to the grass
>> roots, cannot even come close to Tottenham's spending power. That is a
>> fact and one which we cannot ignore.
>>
>> That the funds may not have been spent wisely is a separate issue. The
>> quality of the signings over the years has been questionable (aside from
>> some obvious stars) and that is a pattern which Ramos has to end. But at
>> least he has the money to make good signings. If he were to identify 4 or
>> 5 excellent players who were perfect for Spurs, in his opinion, and NOT
>> have the money to buy them, that would surely be a much worse position.
>>
>> And yes, I have analysed the past two seasons, firstly because these two
>> seasons are clearly much more relevant for comparative purposes than
>> looking back further through the years.
>>
>> But secondly the escalation of transfer fees is a major factor in widening
>> the gap between the "big clubs" and the rest of the pack. What I mean by
>> this is that 15 years ago the highest fees payable were no more than a few
>> million. There were still wealthy clubs and there were still not so
>> wealthy clubs, but the gap wasn't as large. Now at the top end fees have
>> increased 20 times, and the fact that Spurs have managed to keep pace in
>> terms of purchasing power is an extremely positive sign.
>>
>>>>Of course, the businessman in me says that it would be a big shock if
>>>> Spurs
>>>>were to block a move for Berbatov or not pull out all the stops to secure
>>>>the transfer, because for all the posturing there's no way they would want
>>>>to see a £30m asset sit in the reserves and lose value when he's not going
>>>>to give 100% for the team.
>>>
>>> If it meant we didn't have to hear that asset saying in a post match
>>> interview for the new club that he gave 110% or 150% or 200% "for the
>>> cause" then maybe that "cause" was rightfully denied. That cause may
>>> simultaneously be denying us our ability to "compete" for it.
>>
>> Understood, but has this not *always* been the case with football? That is
>> the difference between players and supporters. You support one club for
>> life, usually, but "one club for life" for players is a distant memory.
>> Some people may not like the player power that exists today, but there was
>> a time when clubs held all the cards and many players were treated
>> unfairly.
>>
>>>> In the early 90s Man United emerged as the dominant force,
>>>>amongst Blackburn and Newcastle as challengers, [snip]
>>>>If Spurs were to finish top 6 for 4 seasons in a row, then I would
>>>> seriously
>>>>be looking at them to become title challengers.
>>>
>>> Finding and retaining a manager is useful for stability in chasing for
>>> the title. You mention Blackburn and Newcastle who could be argued to
>>> be one season wonders. The assembly of players at Blackburn was
>>> largely put down to the owner throwing his millions around. Off the
>>> top of your head can you name half a dozen of the core players that
>>> won the title? What else did they do in their career? Newcastle had
>>> (or "have" - as I write this he is back in a second spell and hanging
>>> on by the skin of his teeth!!!!) an inspirational manager which worked
>>> wonders. Dalglish must have done something even if it was only have an
>>> eye for the players he wanted to do a particular job for him and the
>>> ability to find a translator to communicate what that job was to the
>>> players.
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Blackburn did in the 90s
>> what Chelsea did a few years ago. So money was, and still is, crucial. But
>> I absolutely agree that managerial stability is important, the Arsenal
>> example shows that. Sir Alex has been around longer than God, and
>> Liverpool haven't done too badly in sticking with Benitez for 4 years. By
>> the way, behind Wenger is David Moyes, who has been at Everton for 6 whole
>> years. Now if spending had "nothing to do with it", as you implied,
>> Everton would be the third most successful team of the last 5 years behind
>> Man Utd and Arsenal. Clearly they have been not, and you have to ask how
>> much of that is down to not being in the same "money league".
>>
>> Interestingly if you asked who was next in line in terms of the length of
>> time they have been with their current club, I guess not many people would
>> correctly guess Harry Redknapp, who's now been at Portsmouth for nearly 3
>> years. Maybe them winning the FA Cup is a testament to that!
>>
>>>>Progress is gradual and it
>>>>will start by one of the four slipping behind one of the chasing pack.
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>> Arsenal and Man United have set the benchmark as title challengers by
>>> allowing the manager to bed in and develop their own system. Everton
>>> have reached 4th and 5th and Spurs have notched a couple of 5ths and
>>> head the pack chasing to break into the top four. Liverpool have
>>> regularly been in the top four. Managerial stability is a contributory
>>> factor.
>>
>> No argument there.
>>
>>> But at the end of the day, it is players on the park who have to
>>> deliver. Selling Berby for £30m this week increases the probability of
>>> Man Utd staying in the top 4 this year probably at our expense.
>>> Denying them his signature should have them weakened until January
>>> when they could have sourced an alternative or this one is cup tied.
>>> They have "only" Rooney and Tevez left as a recognised forwards.
>>> Ronaldo's freak season last year is unlikely to be repeated. Saha had
>>> been released or sold so what talent did they have to fall back on?
>>
>> Right, but this is not a situation where Berbatov came out and said "I love
>> Spurs and want to stay and am willing to give 100% every week", and the
>> board then sold him in any case. What Spurs have done (and by the way,
>> they could have handled it even better) is a classic piece of making the
>> best of a bad situation. I don't think any Spurs fan seriously believed
>> that we would be looking to finish above Man Utd this season. Under the
>> circumstances, your argument about them staying in the Top 4 "at our
>> expense" is tainted with some degree of fantasy. As I said, if we'd sold
>> him to a club like Everton, Man City, Blackburn etc who are challenging for
>> UEFA cup spots and maybe 4th/5th place (why he would go to them I don't
>> know, but anyway), then this would be a very bad decision. As it stands,
>> Utd are a man stronger but we now have 4 or 5 new signings who (we hope)
>> will play their hearts out for us.
>>
>>> Surely this should have been seen as an opportunity for someone to
>>> close the gap. What was the points margin last year over Chelsea and
>>> Arsenal? One change of one result between that top 3 and a different
>>> finishing order would have resulted. Take out half the volume of
>>> Ronaldo goals and not only would Man Utd's goal difference be
>>> obviously significantly different, results and finishing position
>>> would have been.
>>
>> But surely you can't believe that football is *that* scientific? You can't
>> plug in the names and numbers and expect a result. If there was a formula
>> that you could apply and it said that keeping Berbatov and not having the
>> £30m means that you definitely finish top 4, then no doubt he'd still be a
>> Spurs player. But you could finish top 4 without him, and likewise you
>> could hold on to him and we finish mid-table again as we did last season
>> with him.
>>
>>> The chasing pack of Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Man City,
>>> possibly Newcastle and Portsmouth could all have been closing in on
>>> the at group of 3 and one or more of the Big Four could have been
>>> shifted in one season.
>>
>> Well I've thought about this and I do think Arsenal are in line for a
>> change of fortune. I don't say that because of any rivalry and I'm not
>> here to have a pop at the gooners or anything, I just think that with the
>> number of changes to their side, and the money spent on their new stadium
>> clearly having an impact on their spending power, they are the most likely
>> to decline. Of course the further down the line we go the money spent on
>> the stadium becomes less significant and their finances will be rebuilt,
>> but at the same time unless they win something very soon Wenger may decide
>> that 12 years at one club is long enough.
>>
>>>>We can't blame Manchester United for the Berbatov saga. At the end of the
>>>>day he wanted to leave and we got the price we wanted. That's business.
>>>
>>> What is the business exactly?
>>>
>>> So shareholders will miss out on a return on their investment in a
>>> particular asset. But this is why executive management are employed to
>>> control the day to day business. They decide how the assets are
>>> employed such that the WHOLE business makes an appropriate return.
>>>
>>> If the aim of the WHOLE business is to win the league or break into
>>> the top 4 then the rewards for achieving those aims need to be weighed
>>> against the opportunity of banking cash in the short term.
>>
>> That would be a perfectly sound argument if you could separate the
>> financial success from the success of the team. But you can't. You name
>> me one club in the world where the two have not shown correlation. The
>> "business", since you ask, is managing a club to become successful both on
>> and off the pitch (which I think you agree with). Once again I have to
>> stress that if it was as simple as applying a formula, then anyone could
>> manage a club. You suggest that we have prevented ourselves from qualifying
>> for the Champions League by selling a £30m asset, but could you offer any
>> guarantee that by keeping him, and either getting 50% out of him as an
>> unhappy player, or getting nothing out of him on the bench or in the
>> reserves, that we would achieve that goal? Not to mention the contractual
>> wrangles that might arise if (as I suspect) there are provisions in his
>> contract which mean he has to play if fit and so on.
>>
>>> One player is not bigger than the club. IIRC it was you that said this
>>> when Ginola left.
>>
>> And I say exactly the same thing now. Berbatov is not bigger than Spurs,
>> and I refuse to believe that we are dead and buried because he's gone.
>>
>>> Wilfully letting one asset rot and wasting £11m (or what's left after
>>> a years write down value because that is what is on the books ), or
>>> passing an opportunity to sell that asset for 3 times the purchase
>>> price is the decision of the management not the shareholders. The
>>> management should be looking at the needs of the whole business.
>>
>> Who said it was a decision for the shareholders? Do you think the club
>> called a shareholders' general meeting and put it to the vote? Just
>> because a club is a PLC it doesn't mean that the shareholders (which by the
>> way could be you or I) have decision making power over everyday aspects of
>> club policy. That's not the case with any company, and not the case with
>> football clubs either. Yes, the interests of shareholders does come into
>> the equation at some point, but there's nothing to suggest that these
>> interests would be inconsistent with the interests of the football club.
>>
>> Besides, those "shareholders" you talk about are not a faceless mass of
>> thousands of investors looking for a return on their money. Believe me, if
>> you want a good return on your money then football is the last thing you
>> should invest in. No as far as I know, over 80% of the shares in THFC PLC
>> are held by ENIC Limited, which in turn is owned entirely by Joe Lewis and
>> Daniel Levy. Major decisions about how the club is run are therefore
>> almost entirely made by these two individuals. Though the club is a PLC in
>> terms of the actual form of entity, the management style is more akin to a
>> privately owned club with a chairman calling the shots.
>>
>> Now you might not agree with every decision Daniel Levy makes, but you have
>> to believe that he's making the decisions for the good of the club. Unless
>> you're suggesting that you want ENIC and Levy out. But it would be wrong
>> to mislead people into believing that there is a large mass of shareholders
>> which call the shots and make every decision based on their next dividend.
>> Yes, there are other shareholders in THFC PLC, but their votes only count
>> in *very* limited circumstances, such as where an elective resolution
>> (90%+) is required to change the constitution of the company.
>>
>>> They should not be pandering to the human rights of one part of that
>>> business that might like to think it is "enslaved" on a contract that
>>> is obliging the club to pay 50 grand a week every week of the year.
>>> Ideally there will be 40 to 70 matches played over a 10 or 11 month
>>> season requiring him to actually work for this money maybe 4 hours per
>>> day.
>>> 11 months = 46 weeks (6 weeks holiday) x 28 hours = 1,288 hours a
>>> year.
>>> GBP50k *52 =GBP£2.6m per year. Or £2000 per hour. Not bad for
>>> "slavery". Some of these players should have such a reality check and
>>> shut the fuck up. Or do like Winston Bogarde at Chelsea and just take
>>> the money and not bother at all.
>>
>> Well I'm sorry but that is really going off on a tangent. I don't believe
>> players are slaves any more than you do.
>>
>>>>But we've bought in good players in all positions and if we can just play
>>>> as
>>>>well as we did at Stamford bridge, then we will be too strong for 80% of
>>>> the
>>>>teams out there. And if we're in the top 20%, then we're top 5, where we
>>>>should be, and anything else is a bonus.
>>>
>>> But of all the players bought for all the positions how much of a
>>> lottery is there going to be to find who works with who? At what cost
>>> in terms of points and then ultimately finances? There will be plenty
>>> of rotation which will cost in terms of points lost. Gaining one point
>>> at the Bridge is an achievement in itself especially considering the
>>> 20 year picture.
>>
>> Did you say that when we bought Berbatov? Maybe we shouldn't have bought
>> him in the first place. He was a gamble like any other, and it paid off,
>> for a while. Who's to say that Pavyluchenko won't be the next Berbatov?
>> Who's to say that Berbatov will mess up Fergie's system and they lose the
>> title to someone else this year? :-)
>>
>>> But at the end of this season it will still be only worth 1 point. We
>>> dropped up to six points home and away to sides that are realistically
>>> looking to avoid getting dragged into a relegation fight. We cannot
>>> afford to get cut adrift where we are in the table or somebody will
>>> start looking for the panic button.
>>
>> Let's see where we are at Christmas and then reach a view shall we? We
>> keep talking about giving managers time, hopefully we'll give it a bit more
>> than 3 games before we start worrying about relegation, and God help us,
>> changing the manager...
>>
>>>>Finally, I don't think you can take the view that players should just be
>>>>left in the reserves. That's not a long-term strategy. £30m is a lot of
>>>>money and you can't ignore the benefits it may bring. Ultimately any team
>>>>can only play 11 players at once, so yes Berbatov may make an impact at
>>>> Utd,
>>>>but at another player's expense. Who that will be I don't know, but Utd
>>>>have managed to win the last two titles without him. I suppose on one
>>>> level
>>>>we should be happy that he went to Utd instead of City, who are now a much
>>>>more comparable threat to Spurs. We were never going to overtake Utd this
>>>>season but City are a club that is directly challenging us for top 6
>>>> places.
>>>>It doesn't help that they now have Robinho of course but you can't win
>>>> them
>>>>all!
>>>
>>> "Giving" Man Utd a 20 goal a year player is worth at least £30m to
>>> them and they will get their money back within 12 months. [snip]
>>
>> I have a tiny little gut feeling that life at Old Trafford won't be so rosy
>> for Berbatov as it is at WHL. On one level I understand his decision, but
>> on another I say "be careful what you wish for". If things don't go well
>> for him immediately, and he starts to pull a strop, the Man Utd fans might
>> be less willing to forgive. He'll just be another superstar in the crowd,
>> rather than the club's shining light, and the pressure of the transfer fee
>> will be on him very quickly.
>>
>> Watch this space... stranger things have happened...
>>
>
> Indeed they have, but you only have to have a half decent understanding of
> his game, and the way we play, to see that in football terms it is a match
> made in heaven. That is why Ferguson never pursued the younger, cheaper and
> even more prolific a scorer, Klaas Jan Huntelaar from Ajax. Berbatov will fit
> our style like a well worn glove.
>
> Sometime it is too easy to project what you might *want* to happen. I'm sure
> I'd be no different should Ronaldo leave us. Look at it rationally, though,
> and you can see he will fit in well. I have no worries about his game
> whatsoever - I just hope his personality won't be a problem.

What makes you think Klaas Jan Huntelaar wanted to go to Utd ? He
already plays for a very well know club and one that has a far superior
European Cup pedigree than your club.

--
Count Baldoni

> Money *IS* part of the equation but it was the manager knowing what
> (who) they wanted that was equally if not more important. Walker and
> Abramovich signed the cheques. They spent big compared to their rivals
> at the time but that was a case of backing the manager who insisted
> they knew what they were doing and the end results repaid that
> investment.

Sure, but I think we're moving away from the original point. I've never
disputed that having a manager who is a) given more than 5 minutes to build
a team and b) backed by his superiors, is a very important factor.

I don't think there is any issue with the Spurs hierarchy backing the
managers or not, as far as I know Ramos has the support as did his
predecessors. You might argue that Jol should have been given a little
longer but now we have a manager with an even higher pedigree and I would
expect that he will be given time. At the end of the day, there is nothing
about the Spurs setup which would cause me worries in terms of whether we
can ever challenge for honours. I can think of much worse positions to be
in right now (any Newcastle fans out there?) than to be in a stable club,
with a good manager, which is well run and has lots of spending power.

> As events this week have shown, that approach looks to be a thing of
> the past with Curbishley and Keegan heading for their nearest dole
> office because they were not being backed by their chairmen. The new
> approach seems to be the continental version where the managers are no
> more than first team coaches and the chairmen and directors assemble
> players from wherever for the coach to mould and deliver results.

Since we're on that topic now, I agree. The easy answer would be to say
that you always give the manager full control. The more sensible answer is
that when a manager is appointed, the division of powers and
responsibilities is clearly set out for all concerned. If a manager is told
that the Director of Football will identify potential players and the
manager will have the final say on a shortlist, and he takes the job, he
can't complain if he's then not permitted to pick his own players from
scratch.

We complain about how much players are paid, well let's not forget that
managers often earn just as much as the top players. It's all well and good
putting pen to paper for £50,000 a week but if a manager does so he needs to
know where he stands from the outset. If he doesn't like the terms, he
shouldn't take the job.

> Everton are leading the pack outside the 4. If they hadn't sold Rooney
> three years ago where would they be now? If, if, if, goes nowhere.

Are they? You are right about one thing - "if" goes nowhere. If I
understand you correctly and you are implying that if they hadn't sold
Rooney, they would now be title challengers, then by your own argument we
can't make that assumption. "If" means nothing, and we can only speculate,
what might have happened if they had kept Rooney, which may have been that
they would be many million poorer with one great player in an average team,
and still where they are now in terms of success.

> The club purchased my and a lot of others shares and cancelled them
> last summer (2007) so there is little or no need to keep shareholders
> informed through reports at the Stock Exchange. For some reason they
> still do this with for example the revelation that the Pavlychenko
> deal was done only made via the Stock Exchange and not the Reuters or
> Sky Sports News desks.
>
> So whoever the remaining shareholders are, whether it be Joe Lewis or
> ENIC or someone else, someone feels that the Stock Market gets told
> anything before anyone else does. If the shares are not freely
> tradeable then why do the club insist on telling them in this manner?
> They must have some sort of influence.

Yes but what you are referring to bears no correlation to the success of the
club. Think about this. A few years ago the Glazers turned up from the
States, borrowed heavily, and bought up enough of the shares in Manchester
United plc. to take the company back to private company status.

All those "diehard" fans who in 1990 thought the floatation of the club on
the Stock Exchange was a terrible thing, arguing that the future of the club
should not be in the hands of investors (ring any bells? :-) ), were now up
in arms about the fact that a US businessman could assume control and take
the club private. Some of them even went so far as to form FC United of
Manchester.

Two seasons, two league titles and a Champions League title later and where
are all those fans now? Not nearly as vocal as they were. Sure, FC United
is still around, but I wonder how many of those fans still head down to Old
Trafford every other week and how many are absolutely delighted at Man Utd's
success over the last two years.

My point is that fans love to have an enemy, a scapegoat. They love to be
able to point the finger. Today it might be the club's decision to go
public on the Stock Exchange. Tomorrow it might be the decision to go
private. Next week it might be that the club is spending too much, the week
after that it's not spending enough. One day fans will complain that not
enough youngsters are coming through, another they will complain that they
are not bringing in enough big names.

Whether fans understand the real implications of a change in structure or
policy is debatable. Of course some do, and there are many intelligent fans
out there who are able to challenge for better reasons than that it simply
"doesn't feel right". But there are also a large number who fall into that
second category, who don't like something simply because it's different, and
they're not used to it.

Spurs have been a buying club for a long time, and you can go back down the
years to see just how much we have spent. Now that we have over the past
few years sold a few major names for big money, some people are uneasy about
it. Before, the crime was to spend too much on bad players, now the crime
is to sell good players for large amounts of money. Different day,
different complaint.

However, if we stop thinking in terms of being a "buying club", or a
"selling club", and just be a club that is well managed at all levels, which
makes difficult decisions when they need to be made, then I can't complain.

Tanel.