So what do we need

[Glenn R]

I was talking to a friend yesterday, an Ars*nal supporter none the less, about last season, next and football in general. After the expected onslaught of Europa league jibes and abuse the conversation turned to more important football issues. He was saying that Ars*nal get stick because they celebrated getting 4th spot, but in his opinion that is unjustified due to having a look at the teams above them. Man U, City and Chelsea all have spent an absolute fortune getting to that position, approximately around £500 million each in recent years. Therefore finishing below them but above everyone else is an achievement. A valid point I feel.

He also went on to say that although he has the usual feelings towards Spurs, he respects the way that we run the club. The fans that he most dislikes and will not take any stick from is Liverpool, because they have spent so much money on rubbish players and look where they are now.

Finally he said that he may be two years away from giving up on English football altogether. If Ars*nal end up with a mega rich owner that goes and 'buys' the title, he will walk away. For him the ethos of football has become too warped and misguided and if his team chooses that path, he will not follow them down it.


So I guess I am wondering if we would feel the same. Would we be happy to 'buy' the title. I am not talking buying the few players we need to keep up or improve, I think all teams have to do that to some extent within their means. But would you put the essence of the beautiful game above the desire for glory at all costs?

I have said for many years that I would rather be relegated than buy a league title like Chelsea or Citeh. At the same time Spurs have gone to far the other way and don't spend anything. Please Mr Levy, how about a decent balance !!

I disagree that Spurs hasn't spent anything. The records show differently.

As for buying a league title" I bet you would accept it? If Spurs had somebody come in for them, as they did at City or Chelsea, we'd jump at it. Until that happens we should be grateful for Mr Levy; we could have had somebody who wouldn't even invest as much as Levy has.

[dimexi]

I disagree that Spurs hasn't spent anything. The records show differently.

As for buying a league title" I bet you would accept it? If Spurs had somebody come in for them, as they did at City or Chelsea, we'd jump at it. Until that happens we should be grateful for Mr Levy; we could have had somebody who wouldn't even invest as much as Levy has.

Spurs' net spend since 2006 is £65 million according to http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130323/premier-league-net-spend-figures-club-revealed-2006-when-Ars*nal-moved-s-194227?p=11

Which is an average of just over £9 million a year. It is only this low because of the money we have had in from the high selling price of some of our stars. Which although is putting money into the club, it is not exactly pushing the boat out either.

You keep talking about if we had a multi-billionaire owner come in, but we already have one of those, he just hasn't chosen to buy the title.

And no I would jump at the chance for us to buy the title, I would still support Spurs but I would not welcome it. I would accept it, because I will always be a spurs supporter, but I would not enjoy it anywhere near the same amount than if we built a side capable of doing it, from the grass roots up and with one or two super, world class players brought in.

[Glenn R]

I disagree that Spurs hasn't spent anything. The records show differently.

As for buying a league title" I bet you would accept it? If Spurs had somebody come in for them, as they did at City or Chelsea, we'd jump at it. Until that happens we should be grateful for Mr Levy; we could have had somebody who wouldn't even invest as much as Levy has.

Spurs' net spend since 2006 is £65 million according to http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130323/premier-league-net-spend-figures-club-revealed-2006-when-Ars*nal-moved-s-194227?p=11

Which is an average of just over £9 million a year. It is only this low because of the money we have had in from the high selling price of some of our stars. Which although is putting money into the club, it is not exactly pushing the boat out either.

You keep talking about if we had a multi-billionaire owner come in, but we already have one of those, he just hasn't chosen to buy the title.

And no I would jump at the chance for us to buy the title, I would still support Spurs but I would not welcome it. I would accept it, because I will always be a spurs supporter, but I would not enjoy it anywhere near the same amount than if we built a side capable of doing it, from the grass roots up and with one or two super, world class players brought in.

You could actually look at it another way. If a billionaire came in and bought players like the other top 4 clubs it would equal things out. It still would be down to the top 5 clubs; only we would have a better chance of winning the title. You are looking at it from a negative point of view, while I am looking at it from a positive point of view. Billionaires taking over clubs isn't going to decline so we should be wishing for more billionaires to take over.

By the way; our millionaire owner(s) isn't in the same league as the top 4 club owners.

[dimexi]

You could actually look at it another way. If a billionaire came in and bought players like the other top 4 clubs it would equal things out. It still would be down to the top 5 clubs; only we would have a better chance of winning the title. You are looking at it from a negative point of view, while I am looking at it from a positive point of view. Billionaires taking over clubs isn't going to decline so we should be wishing for more billionaires to take over.

By the way; our millionaire owner(s) isn't in the same league as the top 4 club owners.

You could look at it another, but why would I want to? You have missed the point entirely. I wouldn't want to win the title that way. Not only for footballing reasons, but also because of my views on global finances, multi-national corporations and monopolies.

And you are also 100% wrong saying I am being negative, I think it is the other way round mate! Nothing to me would be more negative than having someone treat Spurs as their play thing, bring fake glory and poor moral and spiritual values to our team and its fans. So no you can stick your multi-billionaire owners, where the banks don't shine.

And one more thing you are also wrong about the owners of the top 5 sides too. Spurs are actually 3rd in that list. Although there are other richer owners further down the league. (Reading, Southampton) And other sides who have shares in the club which have more wealth. (Ars*nal, QPR) I just wish more people would do a little research before making sweeping statements of 'truth', within the same breath of making out they are all knowing and correct. Not too much to ask now is it?

Man City Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan = £20,000m
Chelsea Roman Abramovic = £14,800m
Spurs Joe Lewis = £1937m
Ars*nal Stan Kroenke = £1800m
Man Utd Malcolm Glazer = £1640m

Personally I like the German model, because a billionaire owner cannot come in and buy a club. No one can own more than 50% of the club unless they have been at the club for something like 20 years.

[RiffHard]

You could actually look at it another way. If a billionaire came in and bought players like the other top 4 clubs it would equal things out. It still would be down to the top 5 clubs; only we would have a better chance of winning the title. You are looking at it from a negative point of view, while I am looking at it from a positive point of view. Billionaires taking over clubs isn't going to decline so we should be wishing for more billionaires to take over.

By the way; our millionaire owner(s) isn't in the same league as the top 4 club owners.

You could look at it another, but why would I want to? You have missed the point entirely. I wouldn't want to win the title that way. Not only for footballing reasons, but also because of my views on global finances, multi-national corporations and monopolies.

And you are also 100% wrong saying I am being negative, I think it is the other way round mate! Nothing to me would be more negative than having someone treat Spurs as their play thing, bring fake glory and poor moral and spiritual values to our team and its fans. So no you can stick your multi-billionaire owners, where the banks don't shine.

And one more thing you are also wrong about the owners of the top 5 sides too. Spurs are actually 3rd in that list. Although there are other richer owners further down the league. (Reading, Southampton) And other sides who have shares in the club which have more wealth. (Ars*nal, QPR) I just wish more people would do a little research before making sweeping statements of 'truth', within the same breath of making out they are all knowing and correct. Not too much to ask now is it?

Man City Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan = £20,000m
Chelsea Roman Abramovic = £14,800m
Spurs Joe Lewis = £1937m
Ars*nal Stan Kroenke = £1800m
Man Utd Malcolm Glazer = £1640m

Personally I like the German model, because a billionaire owner cannot come in and buy a club. No one can own more than 50% of the club unless they have been at the club for something like 20 years.

For me the biggest problem with these billionaire owners is that they tend to know absolutely nothing about running a football club, they have no patience whatsoever and they treat their employees (managers, staff, payers) like s**t.

[RSS61]

You could actually look at it another way. If a billionaire came in and bought players like the other top 4 clubs it would equal things out. It still would be down to the top 5 clubs; only we would have a better chance of winning the title. You are looking at it from a negative point of view, while I am looking at it from a positive point of view. Billionaires taking over clubs isn't going to decline so we should be wishing for more billionaires to take over.

By the way; our millionaire owner(s) isn't in the same league as the top 4 club owners.

You could look at it another, but why would I want to? You have missed the point entirely. I wouldn't want to win the title that way. Not only for footballing reasons, but also because of my views on global finances, multi-national corporations and monopolies.

And you are also 100% wrong saying I am being negative, I think it is the other way round mate! Nothing to me would be more negative than having someone treat Spurs as their play thing, bring fake glory and poor moral and spiritual values to our team and its fans. So no you can stick your multi-billionaire owners, where the banks don't shine.

And one more thing you are also wrong about the owners of the top 5 sides too. Spurs are actually 3rd in that list. Although there are other richer owners further down the league. (Reading, Southampton) And other sides who have shares in the club which have more wealth. (Ars*nal, QPR) I just wish more people would do a little research before making sweeping statements of 'truth', within the same breath of making out they are all knowing and correct. Not too much to ask now is it?

Man City Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan = £20,000m
Chelsea Roman Abramovic = £14,800m
Spurs Joe Lewis = £1937m
Ars*nal Stan Kroenke = £1800m
Man Utd Malcolm Glazer = £1640m

Personally I like the German model, because a billionaire owner cannot come in and buy a club. No one can own more than 50% of the club unless they have been at the club for something like 20 years.

For me the biggest problem with these billionaire owners is that they tend to know absolutely nothing about running a football club, they have no patience whatsoever and they treat their employees (managers, staff, payers) like s**t.

I agree, football clubs are their way of letting everybody in this country know that they are richer than the lot of us put together, in the same way that they race around the West End in the middle of the night in their Ferraris with no fear of anything being done to them. So they are allowed to ruin OUR sport by pumping unlimited millions into it for their amusement.
Henry 8th would have been a typical football club owner I think.

[Glenn R]

You could look at it another, but why would I want to? You have missed the point entirely. I wouldn't want to win the title that way. Not only for footballing reasons, but also because of my views on global finances, multi-national corporations and monopolies.

To be honest the only way we are going to win the league in today’s modern football world is through a billionaire benefactor. Whether we like it or not.
You may not like monopolies, global finances etc but they are not going anywhere any time soon so we either sit back and smile or jump on the bandwagon. And I have no problems jumping on the bandwagon.

And you are also 100% wrong saying I am being negative, I think it is the other way round mate! Nothing to me would be more negative than having someone treat Spurs as their play thing, bring fake glory and poor moral and spiritual values to our team and its fans. So no you can stick your multi-billionaire owners, where the banks don't shine.

In theory I agree with you, in reality that is the world we live in. It is not a case of being negative or positive  butwhat we’ve got to work with. I can’t see anything changing in our life time. I want Spurs to start winning things and competing with the top 4 teams and there is only one way that is going to happen. Another; what you agree or not agree with you will continue supporting Spurs. The only possible way of change is if all the fans stood up to be counted; i.e. stop going to football matches. And there is more chance of you having a sex change than that happening. Billionaires and millionaires are the masters and as long as you/ they follow the team(s) nothing will change.

And one more thing you are also wrong about the owners of the top 5 sides too. Spurs are actually 3rd in that list. Although there are other richer owners further down the league. (Reading, Southampton) And other sides who have shares in the club which have more wealth. (Ars*nal, QPR) I just wish more people would do a little research before making sweeping statements of 'truth', within the same breath of making out they are all knowing and correct. Not too much to ask now is it?

Man City Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan = £20,000m
Chelsea Roman Abramovic = £14,800m
Spurs Joe Lewis = £1937m
Ars*nal Stan Kroenke = £1800m
Man Utd Malcolm Glazer = £1640m

People like Abramovi and Zayed Al Nahyan have more money to burn while millionaires like Joe Lewis have their money tied up in investments/ companies. In other words they are paper millionaires. The others can afford to gamble, others can’t. I also wish people did their research.

Personally I like the German model, because a billionaire owner cannot come in and buy a club. No one can own more than 50% of the club unless they have been at the club for something like 20 years.

I am not sure about that. There are swings and roundabouts.  What looks good from a fans point of view may not be practical.

[dimexi]

You may not like monopolies, global finances etc but they are not going anywhere any time soon so we either sit back and smile or jump on the bandwagon. And I have no problems jumping on the bandwagon.

Then sell your soul to devil you will.

The only possible way of change is if all the fans stood up to be counted; i.e. stop going to football matches. And there is more chance of you having a sex change than that happening. Billionaires and millionaires are the masters and as long as you/ they follow the team(s) nothing will change.

My Ars*nal friend was proposing to do just that. Although I will always be a Spurs follower, to think that my love for Spurs would supersede my moral and ethical beliefs is plain wrong. I would give spurs up in a heartbeat if it was owned by a Fascist or supported the exploitation of children etc. Making my feelings known in only a small but direct manner is the very reason I have not eaten at MacDonald’s for 10 years, will never buy Monsanto or any GM products, and always take up my right to vote, but then spoil my paper in protest. So don’t be so sure that there are not people out there who are willing to sacrifice a little for their moral beliefs.

People like Abramovi and Zayed Al Nahyan have more money to burn while millionaires like Joe Lewis have their money tied up in investments/ companies. In other words they are paper millionaires. The others can afford to gamble, others can’t. I also wish people did their research.

 Yes but that is only 2 sides that have more money available. Does not matter if it is tied up or not. There are no paper millionaires everyone with money are millionaires due to lots of 1010110101010101 its all digital and none of it really exists. And everyone with lots of money have it all tied up in different investments and companies. Abramovic etc. Don’t look at their bank statement and see £14 billion on their balance sheet.

[Glenn R]

Then sell your soul to devil you will.

Yes, but it won’t just be me; you as well. Unless there is a limit you won’t go past by supporting Spurs?

My Ars*nal friend was proposing to do just that. Although I will always be a Spurs follower, to think that my love for Spurs would supersede my moral and ethical beliefs is plain wrong. I would give spurs up in a heartbeat if it was owned by a Fascist or supported the exploitation of children etc. Making my feelings known in only a small but direct manner is the very reason I have not eaten at MacDonald’s for 10 years, will never buy Monsanto or any GM products, and always take up my right to vote, but then spoil my paper in protest. So don’t be so sure that there are not people out there who are willing to sacrifice a little for their moral beliefs.

Your friend doing that on his own is futile. It would be a waste of time and the only loss would be himself.
As for “fascist” or “exploitation” of children; there are laws against that. However, there is such a thing as exploitation through the back door; i.e. Primark as one example.
You not eating at MacDonald’s won’t change anything, if everybody stopped eating at MacDonald’s then that is a different matter. It is ok having principles in the great scheme of things, but as a lone wolf you are just falling on your sword; once dead and forgotten life goes on. Only a collective support will make a difference.

Yes but that is only 2 sides that have more money available. Does not matter if it is tied up or not. There are no paper millionaires everyone with money are millionaires due to lots of 1010110101010101 its all digital and none of it really exists. And everyone with lots of money have it all tied up in different investments and companies. Abramovic etc. Don’t look at their bank statement and see £14 billion on their balance sheet.

In theory; yes. But in reality it is slightly different. For Spurs to compete with the top teams/ billionaires we will need a bigger stadium – to generate more money – or a billionaire to take over. The most likely and most positive would be for Spurs to build a new stadium.

[dimexi]

Yes, but it won’t just be me; you as well. Unless there is a limit you won’t go past by supporting Spurs?

No it will just be you, not me.  You said you would welcome it (being taken over by a billionaire to be their play thing), I would not and would seriously consider my options for the level of support/ involvement with the team I gave. Everyone can make their own choice, but we would not make the same one.

Your friend doing that on his own is futile. It would be a waste of time and the only loss would be himself.

You think too simply about how to change the world. For you, change only happens through revolutions or mass demonstration.  In reality change happens slowly over time, although it can escalate at crucial points to mass responses, but not always. You obviously just do what everyone else does because what would be the point of doing something original based on your own views, rather than anybody else’s . That is your choice but not everyone has to play sheep. My friend’s action if he took it, would not be futile because if that was what he felt was best for him where would the loss be?

As for “fascist” or “exploitation” of children; there are laws against that. However, there is such a thing as exploitation through the back door; i.e. Primark as one example.

I know, and we need to have this information more freely available so we can make informed decisions about what we do about it. The difficulty is, that because there is so much that goes on that we do not know about, it makes it very difficult to do anything.  You also have to pick you battles as it is impossible to fight them all.

You not eating at MacDonald’s won’t change anything, if everybody stopped eating at MacDonald’s then that is a different matter. It is ok having principles in the great scheme of things, but as a lone wolf you are just falling on your sword; once dead and forgotten life goes on. Only a collective support will make a difference.

An individual can only change his/her actions, they can only do what is right for them. I am not out to change other people’s minds or get them to follow the same path as me. If asked I would share my reasons why, if not I keep to my path.  As a lone wolf I am free and there is no sword of my creation to fall on. The collective support you talk of is just a group of individuals doing what they think is right. Yes, the greater the collection of individuals, the greater the chance for serious change.  But people have to make their own conclusions, not be told what to say, do and think and we do not all need to wear the same colour bandana or badge to make the ‘difference’.

I have no problem with any individual who looks at all the facts and then makes a choice different to me, as long as that choice is not harmful to anyone but themselves, but I really dislike apathy.

[Glenn R]

No it will just be you, not me.  You said you would welcome it (being taken over by a billionaire to be their play thing), I would not and would seriously consider my options for the level of support/ involvement with the team I gave. Everyone can make their own choice, but we would not make the same one.

If a billionaire took over nothing would change where the fans were concerned. In fact it would probably bring more fans to our “new stadium”.

You think too simply about how to change the world. For you, change only happens through revolutions or mass demonstration.  In reality change happens slowly over time, although it can escalate at crucial points to mass responses, but not always. You obviously just do what everyone else does because what would be the point of doing something original based on your own views, rather than anybody else’s . That is your choice but not everyone has to play sheep. My friend’s action if he took it, would not be futile because if that was what he felt was best for him where would the loss be?

Have you thought that that has actually happened? That the change has been slow; from pre Premier league to Premier league and were we are now. Change can be a slow process, I grant you, but you’ve got to have the voices or people behind it and you are the only person I’ve met who has said what you’ve said. Of course there are people from lower clubs who have said similar; actually Chelsea supporter have said similar, until they were taken over by a billionaire. In fact; didn’t Spurs supporters say the same – before we were taken over by the millionaires? Now they accept it, or moan that our millionaires are not spending enough.

I know, and we need to have this information more freely available so we can make informed decisions about what we do about it. The difficulty is, that because there is so much that goes on that we do not know about, it makes it very difficult to do anything.  You also have to pick you battles as it is impossible to fight them all.

I agree with you here, sadly though, even if we had the information I doubt things will change significantly. I remember when they interviewed people from Primark after that terrible accident in India (?) and they send it was a shame but they won’t stop shopping in their store.

An individual can only change his/her actions, they can only do what is right for them. I am not out to change other people’s minds or get them to follow the same path as me. If asked I would share my reasons why, if not I keep to my path.  As a lone wolf I am free and there is no sword of my creation to fall on. The collective support you talk of is just a group of individuals doing what they think is right. Yes, the greater the collection of individuals, the greater the chance for serious change.  But people have to make their own conclusions, not be told what to say, do and think and we do not all need to wear the same colour bandana or badge to make the ‘difference’.

I agree with you. But I do think that unhappy changes create action. A good example of this was the Poll tax. It affected everybody and that everybody wasn’t happy so they rebelled.

[dimexi]

No it will just be you, not me.  You said you would welcome it (being taken over by a billionaire to be their play thing), I would not and would seriously consider my options for the level of support/ involvement with the team I gave. Everyone can make their own choice, but we would not make the same one.

If a billionaire took over nothing would change where the fans were concerned. In fact it would probably bring more fans to our “new stadium”.

You think too simply about how to change the world. For you, change only happens through revolutions or mass demonstration.  In reality change happens slowly over time, although it can escalate at crucial points to mass responses, but not always. You obviously just do what everyone else does because what would be the point of doing something original based on your own views, rather than anybody else’s . That is your choice but not everyone has to play sheep. My friend’s action if he took it, would not be futile because if that was what he felt was best for him where would the loss be?

Have you thought that that has actually happened? That the change has been slow; from pre Premier league to Premier league and were we are now. Change can be a slow process, I grant you, but you’ve got to have the voices or people behind it and you are the only person I’ve met who has said what you’ve said. Of course there are people from lower clubs who have said similar; actually Chelsea supporter have said similar, until they were taken over by a billionaire. In fact; didn’t Spurs supporters say the same – before we were taken over by the millionaires? Now they accept it, or moan that our millionaires are not spending enough.

I know, and we need to have this information more freely available so we can make informed decisions about what we do about it. The difficulty is, that because there is so much that goes on that we do not know about, it makes it very difficult to do anything.  You also have to pick you battles as it is impossible to fight them all.

I agree with you here, sadly though, even if we had the information I doubt things will change significantly. I remember when they interviewed people from Primark after that terrible accident in India (?) and they send it was a shame but they won’t stop shopping in their store.

An individual can only change his/her actions, they can only do what is right for them. I am not out to change other people’s minds or get them to follow the same path as me. If asked I would share my reasons why, if not I keep to my path.  As a lone wolf I am free and there is no sword of my creation to fall on. The collective support you talk of is just a group of individuals doing what they think is right. Yes, the greater the collection of individuals, the greater the chance for serious change.  But people have to make their own conclusions, not be told what to say, do and think and we do not all need to wear the same colour bandana or badge to make the ‘difference’.

I agree with you. But I do think that unhappy changes create action. A good example of this was the Poll tax. It affected everybody and that everybody wasn’t happy so they rebelled.

We have a billionaire owner already, so that isn't the key factor for me. I think it would be more to do with the direction the club went in, or the feeling that the owner was an idiot, or the club were involved in things that were not moral.

No I think that change happens very quickly and is speeding up in many ways, in regards to corporatocracy, the destruction of the planet and mass apathy. Football also changed very quickly, which has been good in some ways, but not in most. I actually think that change should be slower and more organic, we think that we need to have change to show that things are getting better, but the core values and evolution of the human mind is going in the wrong direction on so many levels.

But yes people being unhappy is the greatest catalyst for mass response. Just look at Turkey right now, there were obviously many unhappy people there, wanting things to change, but it took a simple thing like destroying a park to spark a huge outcry, calling for the resignation of their leader.

There may not be many people who have said, or would say what I have said. I am okay with that, I may not be right, but I will think and do what I feel is right, even if I am alone saying it.

[Glenn R]

We have a billionaire owner already, so that isn't the key factor for me. I think it would be more to do with the direction the club went in, or the feeling that the owner was an idiot, or the club were involved in things that were not moral.

If you take things at face value then I would say our prospects are good. We’ve got a good manager and if you believe what is written then they are going to invest heavily; one of the reasons they need to do this is so that we will keep Bale.

No I think that change happens very quickly and is speeding up in many ways, in regards to corporatocracy, the destruction of the planet and mass apathy. Football also changed very quickly, which has been good in some ways, but not in most. I actually think that change should be slower and more organic, we think that we need to have change to show that things are getting better, but the core values and evolution of the human mind is going in the wrong direction on so many levels.

English football is one of the biggest sports in the world; so long as it stays like that we won’t see much change, other than billionaires jumping on the bandwagon. I must admit I wouldn’t be very happy if an American billionaire came in for the club. They are more opportunistic and think money before the game of football. You watch the owners of United ditch them if they thought they could make money out of them.

But yes people being unhappy is the greatest catalyst for mass response. Just look at Turkey right now, there were obviously many unhappy people there, wanting things to change, but it took a simple thing like destroying a park to spark a huge outcry, calling for the resignation of their leader.

I agree; but I can’t see people being that unhappy with football and Spurs in particularly at the moment. But things could change.

There may not be many people who have said, or would say what I have said. I am okay with that, I may not be right, but I will think and do what I feel is right, even if I am alone saying it.

I agree with you to a point; one example I pointed out above is if an American wanted to take over the club.

[Metalanimal]

I can only see more clubs being brought by oil ty****s as they plan for the future, a stable large money making opportunity to replace their core business as natural resources run out, its common knowledge that these people are focusing on buying up sports clubs and teams both Football, baseball etc.

I think which ever way it is looked at what has happened at Chelsea and Man City is not any good for the sport at all, very few players will pick a club and values over a massive wage and signing on fee.

The likes a Real, BARCA and Bayern have always been richer due top their continued success over many many years hence a massive fan base and good merchandising strategies.

I would hate to see THFC, its values our history destroyed by a an Roman Abramovich type, I would remain a fan and support the club to a degree but what we achieve would hold far less value for me!

[baldbloke]

I can only see more clubs being brought by oil ty****s as they plan for the future, a stable large money making opportunity to replace their core business as natural resources run out, its common knowledge that these people are focusing on buying up sports clubs and teams both Football, baseball etc.

I think which ever way it is looked at what has happened at Chelsea and Man City is not any good for the sport at all, very few players will pick a club and values over a massive wage and signing on fee.

The likes a Real, BARCA and Bayern have always been richer due top their continued success over many many years hence a massive fan base and good merchandising strategies.

I would hate to see THFC, its values our history destroyed by a an Roman Abramovich type, I would remain a fan and support the club to a degree but what we achieve would hold far less value for me!

Whilst I don't want our club to be used as a play thing, like Chelsea or Citeh, at the same time it irritates me that Lewis only sees the club as an investment. If he built a new stadium, bought a CL winning side and had two weeks in Loret De Mar, he would still be left with over a billion pounds. What's the point of having money if you don't enjoy it ?