But Sandy you are not answering the questions.
Will you admit you were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country? so you were doped according to your remarks on other clubs
Did you smash transfer records?
Now its not anbodys fault that despite being bankrolled you won basically nothing more, is because you were then and still to this day a very poor club at making the money work for you.
And I will fully admit Abramovich bankrolled us, would never deny it, but the big difference is we used that money to get even more successful so much in fact we have been self sufficient for over 10 years.
And to the other poster who says he is not an accountant you most certainly are not. Of course we can now spend money, have you seen our sales 54 mil to date so far and more sale to come, 4th in prem oh and the little cup they called the Champions league we wo that again, so plenty of money.
We are also and this is actual fact deemed to be one of the most financially stable clubs in the world, that is on record, check it out
But Sandy you dont answer the questions or admit your club was doped as you say and how you threw all your morals out the window when you thought Spurs were going to be doped by the ESL.
As I said, you Sir are an hypocrite
Over half the clubs in the league are "financially doped". With sugardaddy owners who have sunk hundreds of millions of pounds into their day-to-day operations without any reasonable expectation of breaking even.
You'd struggle to find half a dozen current PL clubs whose owners expect them to "wipe their own arses" financially.
Arsenal, Spurs, United, Burnley, Palace, Southampton and Newcastle.
comment by Bridge of dreams (U8917)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy is the biggest hypocrite on this site.
You see Sandy moans about so called doped clubs.
And portrays this so called old man of football, supporting he's club from year dot and how some few clubs are ruining football.
And yet if and its a very big if Sandy is this 70 plus year old man, he suddenly has lapses in memory.
He accuses clubs of overspending, transfers fees etc.
Well Sandy old fella were you moaning back in the 60s when you were being bankrolled by Lilywhite family.
When in 61 you smashed the transfer record paying 100,000 for Jimmy Greaves and before you say it yes you made them take a £1 off to stop it from looking obscene. You then purchased loads of players.
Then in 1964 you spend 72,500 on Alan Gilzean again smashing a transfer record deal between Scottish and English clubs, I assume both players received high wages.
And blow me down do you not go and smash the transfer record yet again in 1968 spending 125,000 on Martin Chivers.
Now some will say but that was back in the 60s and value was low, but was it? looking at those prices and the wages you must have been paying,
and you have continued from then paying high transfers. they must be quite comparative to todays prices.
But you don't mention that you were in fact guilty of buying success backed by one of the richest families in the world.
You were doped back then, but you make no mention of that, but were you actually there Sandy, I think we all know the answer to that
The problem is Sand your club has spent plenty, just vey badly . God you were like a rabid dog when the ESL was mentioned and your so called morals went right out the window, gimme gimme was all we heard from you.
You are such an hypocrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bang on.
Sandy wasn't crying these salty tears when he thought his club was going to join the ESL - quite the opposite. He got all giddy thinking his club was going to become super rich and do exactly what he constantly bleats about Man City and Chelsea do.
The real reason for Sandy's tears is that he knows Spurs are even further away from winning anything than they have done for the last twenty years.
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
I think its because Spurs fans know the investment is potentially there, maybe not to be like City or Chelsea, but certainly enough resource to compete and win trophies. But it seems like Levy/ENIC hold out on the club, which is a totally understandable approach, but obviously from a fan perspective that would be frustrating.
The only thing that stops Spurs from spending more than they do is the owners. I do also have a sneaky suspicion they had high hopes of the ESL coming to fruition a few months ago, but that was never really the case.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well that is where you are completely wrong. I would not want my club getting an unfair advantage just because of a rich owner.
Some of us do actually have some morals. All you are trying to do is justify your financially doped club.
comment by Bridge of dreams (U8917)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
But Sandy you are not answering the questions.
Will you admit you were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country? so you were doped according to your remarks on other clubs
Did you smash transfer records?
Now its not anbodys fault that despite being bankrolled you won basically nothing more, is because you were then and still to this day a very poor club at making the money work for you.
And I will fully admit Abramovich bankrolled us, would never deny it, but the big difference is we used that money to get even more successful so much in fact we have been self sufficient for over 10 years.
And to the other poster who says he is not an accountant you most certainly are not. Of course we can now spend money, have you seen our sales 54 mil to date so far and more sale to come, 4th in prem oh and the little cup they called the Champions league we wo that again, so plenty of money.
We are also and this is actual fact deemed to be one of the most financially stable clubs in the world, that is on record, check it out
But Sandy you dont answer the questions or admit your club was doped as you say and how you threw all your morals out the window when you thought Spurs were going to be doped by the ESL.
As I said, you Sir are an hypocrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF do you get the nonsense Spurs were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country back in the 1960s?
I don’t have to justify anything, your ‘morals’ are just a defence against the changing face of professional football.
Stop living in denial, get with the program as us youngsters say
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well that is where you are completely wrong. I would not want my club getting an unfair advantage just because of a rich owner.
Some of us do actually have some morals. All you are trying to do is justify your financially doped club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously must not like your club and owners for that very reason now then. Why is it fair that you have the capacity to afford Kane on £200k a week and have a total weekly wage bill of just over £2.5m whereas other clubs such as Burnley, Brentford etc probably only have half of that maximum?
How far do you take the "rich owners" remark?
Spurs have been to the same number of CL finals as Man City, one is a club run within it means, with British owners, and is one of the first really big British football clubs.
The other is bankrolled by middle eastern oil money and is run with a money is no object approach to spending, with dodgy sponsorship deals around every corner and clear breaches of FFP regulations that have conveniently had a blind eye turned to.
Guess which one picks up trophies.
£2,000 season tickets and a fekin Cheese Room
I wonder how that would go down at Turf Moor
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 2 minutes ago
Spurs have been to the same number of CL finals as Man City, one is a club run within it means, with British owners, and is one of the first really big British football clubs.
The other is bankrolled by middle eastern oil money and is run with a money is no object approach to spending, with dodgy sponsorship deals around every corner and clear breaches of FFP regulations that have conveniently had a blind eye turned to.
Guess which one picks up trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of your ‘British Owners’ is a traitorous tax dodger who deliberately trashed the National economy to increase his own greedy wealth.
Give me the ‘Sand Dogs’ any day of the week
comment by For Fox Sake (U4263)
posted 5 hours, 21 minutes ago
I understand where you are coming from Sandy. I'm not sure it will push the rest of the PL clubs to compete and try and offer the same wages. It maybe that Man City and Chelsea hoover up the very top players and pay them ludicrous wages, and the rest of us pay more reasonable wages to those players that are simply very good.
and then every now and then one of the 'other' clubs will have a special season and win the PL (2016?) or the FA Cup (2021?) etc.
Not saying it's right, but I do think this has been the way for years. It used to be a Big 4 of Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd.
Then Chelsea and Man City joined the pack when they got some money and it became the Big Six.
Leicester are now nipping at the heels of the Big Six although still miles away from realistically being able to challenge on a financial footing. Who is to say Villa won't also be challenging soon? Or Leeds?
I still think there is an interesting competitiveness to the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 😂
The Big 6 of the 1970’s was City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Spurs.
Before that you had Wolves and the a Lancashire Giants.
Status in football ebbs and flows
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 seconds ago
How exactly are City ‘blowing you out of the water’?
Grealish was £75m + add-ons, Sancho was £73m + add-ons.
City have sold more than £50m worth of squad players, United have spent £50m on Varane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ye. Your whole financial structure is unfair and embarrassing but you aren't blowing United away at all. Just in a more soulless way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly would have been better to survive through selling green meat to school kids. That is the mark of a truly great club obviously.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that has happened since 1860 Ted, so what`s your point? In nobody went through the turnstiles, then there would be no football.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that has happened since 1860 Ted, so what`s your point? In nobody went through the turnstiles, then there would be no football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I have to spell it out for you in one syllable words?
YOU a e paying the owners.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is football as a serious competitive
Page 3 of 3
posted on 6/8/21
But Sandy you are not answering the questions.
Will you admit you were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country? so you were doped according to your remarks on other clubs
Did you smash transfer records?
Now its not anbodys fault that despite being bankrolled you won basically nothing more, is because you were then and still to this day a very poor club at making the money work for you.
And I will fully admit Abramovich bankrolled us, would never deny it, but the big difference is we used that money to get even more successful so much in fact we have been self sufficient for over 10 years.
And to the other poster who says he is not an accountant you most certainly are not. Of course we can now spend money, have you seen our sales 54 mil to date so far and more sale to come, 4th in prem oh and the little cup they called the Champions league we wo that again, so plenty of money.
We are also and this is actual fact deemed to be one of the most financially stable clubs in the world, that is on record, check it out
But Sandy you dont answer the questions or admit your club was doped as you say and how you threw all your morals out the window when you thought Spurs were going to be doped by the ESL.
As I said, you Sir are an hypocrite
posted on 6/8/21
Over half the clubs in the league are "financially doped". With sugardaddy owners who have sunk hundreds of millions of pounds into their day-to-day operations without any reasonable expectation of breaking even.
You'd struggle to find half a dozen current PL clubs whose owners expect them to "wipe their own arses" financially.
Arsenal, Spurs, United, Burnley, Palace, Southampton and Newcastle.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Bridge of dreams (U8917)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy is the biggest hypocrite on this site.
You see Sandy moans about so called doped clubs.
And portrays this so called old man of football, supporting he's club from year dot and how some few clubs are ruining football.
And yet if and its a very big if Sandy is this 70 plus year old man, he suddenly has lapses in memory.
He accuses clubs of overspending, transfers fees etc.
Well Sandy old fella were you moaning back in the 60s when you were being bankrolled by Lilywhite family.
When in 61 you smashed the transfer record paying 100,000 for Jimmy Greaves and before you say it yes you made them take a £1 off to stop it from looking obscene. You then purchased loads of players.
Then in 1964 you spend 72,500 on Alan Gilzean again smashing a transfer record deal between Scottish and English clubs, I assume both players received high wages.
And blow me down do you not go and smash the transfer record yet again in 1968 spending 125,000 on Martin Chivers.
Now some will say but that was back in the 60s and value was low, but was it? looking at those prices and the wages you must have been paying,
and you have continued from then paying high transfers. they must be quite comparative to todays prices.
But you don't mention that you were in fact guilty of buying success backed by one of the richest families in the world.
You were doped back then, but you make no mention of that, but were you actually there Sandy, I think we all know the answer to that
The problem is Sand your club has spent plenty, just vey badly . God you were like a rabid dog when the ESL was mentioned and your so called morals went right out the window, gimme gimme was all we heard from you.
You are such an hypocrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bang on.
Sandy wasn't crying these salty tears when he thought his club was going to join the ESL - quite the opposite. He got all giddy thinking his club was going to become super rich and do exactly what he constantly bleats about Man City and Chelsea do.
The real reason for Sandy's tears is that he knows Spurs are even further away from winning anything than they have done for the last twenty years.
posted on 6/8/21
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
posted on 6/8/21
I think its because Spurs fans know the investment is potentially there, maybe not to be like City or Chelsea, but certainly enough resource to compete and win trophies. But it seems like Levy/ENIC hold out on the club, which is a totally understandable approach, but obviously from a fan perspective that would be frustrating.
The only thing that stops Spurs from spending more than they do is the owners. I do also have a sneaky suspicion they had high hopes of the ESL coming to fruition a few months ago, but that was never really the case.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well that is where you are completely wrong. I would not want my club getting an unfair advantage just because of a rich owner.
Some of us do actually have some morals. All you are trying to do is justify your financially doped club.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Bridge of dreams (U8917)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
But Sandy you are not answering the questions.
Will you admit you were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country? so you were doped according to your remarks on other clubs
Did you smash transfer records?
Now its not anbodys fault that despite being bankrolled you won basically nothing more, is because you were then and still to this day a very poor club at making the money work for you.
And I will fully admit Abramovich bankrolled us, would never deny it, but the big difference is we used that money to get even more successful so much in fact we have been self sufficient for over 10 years.
And to the other poster who says he is not an accountant you most certainly are not. Of course we can now spend money, have you seen our sales 54 mil to date so far and more sale to come, 4th in prem oh and the little cup they called the Champions league we wo that again, so plenty of money.
We are also and this is actual fact deemed to be one of the most financially stable clubs in the world, that is on record, check it out
But Sandy you dont answer the questions or admit your club was doped as you say and how you threw all your morals out the window when you thought Spurs were going to be doped by the ESL.
As I said, you Sir are an hypocrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF do you get the nonsense Spurs were being bankrolled by the richest family in the country back in the 1960s?
posted on 6/8/21
I don’t have to justify anything, your ‘morals’ are just a defence against the changing face of professional football.
Stop living in denial, get with the program as us youngsters say
posted on 6/8/21
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Sandy would slap one out if there was the slightest hint of ENIC selling out to a progressive Billionaire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well that is where you are completely wrong. I would not want my club getting an unfair advantage just because of a rich owner.
Some of us do actually have some morals. All you are trying to do is justify your financially doped club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously must not like your club and owners for that very reason now then. Why is it fair that you have the capacity to afford Kane on £200k a week and have a total weekly wage bill of just over £2.5m whereas other clubs such as Burnley, Brentford etc probably only have half of that maximum?
How far do you take the "rich owners" remark?
posted on 6/8/21
Spurs have been to the same number of CL finals as Man City, one is a club run within it means, with British owners, and is one of the first really big British football clubs.
The other is bankrolled by middle eastern oil money and is run with a money is no object approach to spending, with dodgy sponsorship deals around every corner and clear breaches of FFP regulations that have conveniently had a blind eye turned to.
Guess which one picks up trophies.
posted on 6/8/21
£2,000 season tickets and a fekin Cheese Room
I wonder how that would go down at Turf Moor
posted on 6/8/21
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 2 minutes ago
Spurs have been to the same number of CL finals as Man City, one is a club run within it means, with British owners, and is one of the first really big British football clubs.
The other is bankrolled by middle eastern oil money and is run with a money is no object approach to spending, with dodgy sponsorship deals around every corner and clear breaches of FFP regulations that have conveniently had a blind eye turned to.
Guess which one picks up trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of your ‘British Owners’ is a traitorous tax dodger who deliberately trashed the National economy to increase his own greedy wealth.
Give me the ‘Sand Dogs’ any day of the week
posted on 6/8/21
comment by For Fox Sake (U4263)
posted 5 hours, 21 minutes ago
I understand where you are coming from Sandy. I'm not sure it will push the rest of the PL clubs to compete and try and offer the same wages. It maybe that Man City and Chelsea hoover up the very top players and pay them ludicrous wages, and the rest of us pay more reasonable wages to those players that are simply very good.
and then every now and then one of the 'other' clubs will have a special season and win the PL (2016?) or the FA Cup (2021?) etc.
Not saying it's right, but I do think this has been the way for years. It used to be a Big 4 of Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd.
Then Chelsea and Man City joined the pack when they got some money and it became the Big Six.
Leicester are now nipping at the heels of the Big Six although still miles away from realistically being able to challenge on a financial footing. Who is to say Villa won't also be challenging soon? Or Leeds?
I still think there is an interesting competitiveness to the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 😂
posted on 6/8/21
The Big 6 of the 1970’s was City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Spurs.
Before that you had Wolves and the a Lancashire Giants.
Status in football ebbs and flows
posted on 6/8/21
Excellent post Sandy.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 seconds ago
How exactly are City ‘blowing you out of the water’?
Grealish was £75m + add-ons, Sancho was £73m + add-ons.
City have sold more than £50m worth of squad players, United have spent £50m on Varane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ye. Your whole financial structure is unfair and embarrassing but you aren't blowing United away at all. Just in a more soulless way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly would have been better to survive through selling green meat to school kids. That is the mark of a truly great club obviously.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
posted on 7/8/21
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that has happened since 1860 Ted, so what`s your point? In nobody went through the turnstiles, then there would be no football.
posted on 7/8/21
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 21 minutes ago
We complain mightily, don't we, Sandy?
But then...we still go and watch the game, don't we Sandy?
We put the money into the game, don't we, Sandy?
If we stopped watching the game, what would happen, Sandy?
The TV money, the sponsorships would all disappear.
And it would be back to the good old amateur days.
And we would all like that, wouldn't we, Sandy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Ted, I am doing what every football fan has done since the game has invented, put money over the turnstile in order to gain entry into the ground to watch the football.
What I am not doing is putting money into an oil rich state to run British football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you think your turnstile money goes, if not to the owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that has happened since 1860 Ted, so what`s your point? In nobody went through the turnstiles, then there would be no football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I have to spell it out for you in one syllable words?
YOU a e paying the owners.
Page 3 of 3