Dele 'Muhammad' Alli | Walker takes the finger from Dele | FIFA open disciplinary proceedings

balaks said:
At the end of the day Spurs were a midtable club that have done extremely well getting Alli and in developing Kane and as a result are now a top 4 team. I changed the wording a little for you. No need to thank me.
Click to expand...

Your far from a middle table side nowadays.

In terms of starting 11, I wonder who most would say is stronger. Ours or yours.
 
"As usual, you miss the point. The key factor for Spurs is not the two NFL games per year agreed so far (a minimum of 20 games in total), it's (a) the boost to brand exposure this gives us in the USA; and (b) the possibility of the stadium hosting an NFL franchise down the line (the NFL is even more lucrative than the Prem). You've also ignored (or else don't know about) the £10m contributed so far by the NFL towards construction costs, with more to come"
With regards to this point that you mentioned, the American fans are a loyal bunch, you don't see someone from Atlanta supporting Chicago Bears or something on those lines. So if a NFL franchise is going to host it's home games in New White Hart Lane or whatever it's going to be called..you're mistaken...You'll get a maximum of 2 games per season. people here are already disinterested in the games that are held in the UK so my guess is the interest will definitely die down so pinning any hopes on NFL will not get you lot anywhere
 
fatmanWazza said:
"As usual, you miss the point. The key factor for Spurs is not the two NFL games per year agreed so far (a minimum of 20 games in total), it's (a) the boost to brand exposure this gives us in the USA; and (b) the possibility of the stadium hosting an NFL franchise down the line (the NFL is even more lucrative than the Prem). You've also ignored (or else don't know about) the £10m contributed so far by the NFL towards construction costs, with more to come"
With regards to this point that you mentioned, the American fans are a loyal bunch, you don't see someone from Atlanta supporting Chicago Bears or something on those lines. So if a NFL franchise is going to host it's home games in New White Hart Lane or whatever it's going to be called..you're mistaken...You'll get a maximum of 2 games per season. people here are already disinterested in the games that are held in the UK so my guess is the interest will definitely die down so pinning any hopes on NFL will not get you lot anywhere
Click to expand...

Well, we'll see I suppose. It's certainly it's a gamble that Levy has embarked on here, but he's a canny guy, thinks long-term and usually does his homework well.

The new stadium will be the first in the UK with facilities -including a pitch - dedicated to NFL football, so that may swing things in our favour. And certainly we've received a lot of encouragement from Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner.

By the way, the current agreement is for a minimum of 2 games per year - there could be more.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Bigger does not necessarily mean better - a point which seems to elude you. Nor does it necessarily provide the means to host NFL games or large entertainment events on any of the 6 days (say) on average each week when the stadium is standing empty and unused.

So I'll leave you to obsess about United's bigger seating capacity and move onto your next dumb claim, namely ".... they are stadium construction projects with vastly more capacity at considerably less cost. "

Lol ... more obsession with seating capacity. However, the "less cost" stadium construction projects you've referred to have inferior facilities and mostly aren't able to host NFL games ... and even if they can (pace Wembley) they can't do it on the same weekend when they are also hosting a football match.

Essentially you're talking out of your ignorant arse. You claim that the "NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost", when in fact the NFL facilities are adding hugely to the stadium cost (far more than we will ever get back from the NFL in the short term), but are being put in place because Levy is taking the long view and believing that an NFL franchise is a prize on potential offer.

You claim that Levy is terrible as a club chairman, yet his club is looking down the league table - both this year and last - at several clubs who have vastly outspent Spurs for donkey's year ..... clubs who look enviously at Spurs' players and wonder how Spurs have managed to progress whilst still funding - with no sugar-daddy - the building of a world-class training centre and soon a world-class stadium.

Levy is a club chair that the fans of many Prem teams would give their right arms to have.
Click to expand...

Your posts seem to basically boil down to "We're spending £750m to build a stadium with mediocre capacity, but it doesn't matter because NFL".

I just think you should show more ambition. It's a backhanded compliment if anything. It would actually be pretty exciting if Spurs were building a 90k or 100k capacity arena. Imagine Arsenal fans' reaction if Spurs were building a stadium 30k bigger than theirs. Instead you did the small-time Spurs thing and made sure to get 500 more seats than them (at vastly greater cost to you as a club). But it's all ok because NFL.

I'm just dealing in the reality of the situation which you don't seem to like. Accountants have been all over this NFL tie up and recommended against it. How can you deny that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for the money? That's literally the only reason to do it! Wealthier clubs haven't gone near shit like this because they don't need to, or they value their own club's brand enough that they wouldn't dilute it with an association to a dominant partner organisation.

Levy has next to zero to do with Spurs' recent league positions, having hired a string of shit managers and lucking out on one decent one, with what must have been his 10th appointment? You have a couple of coveted players in the same way Everton and Southampton do. But clubs exist to win trophies and you seem to do anything possible not to win them. You should've built this stadium years ago. And the succession of shit decisions Levy has made on managers has delayed your progress hugely. There are few clubs who have spent so much for so little gain in terms of trophies. None of that can be denied, as hard as you try.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Your posts seem to basically boil down to "We're spending £750m to build a stadium with mediocre capacity, but it doesn't matter because NFL".

I just think you should show more ambition. It's a backhanded compliment if anything. It would actually be pretty exciting if Spurs were building a 90k or 100k capacity arena. Imagine Arsenal fans' reaction if Spurs were building a stadium 30k bigger than theirs. Instead you did the small-time Spurs thing and made sure to get 500 more seats than them (at vastly greater cost to you as a club). But it's all ok because NFL.

I'm just dealing in the reality of the situation which you don't seem to like. Accountants have been all over this NFL tie up and recommended against it. How can you deny that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for the money? That's literally the only reason to do it! Wealthier clubs haven't gone near shit like this because they don't need to, or they value their own club's brand enough that they wouldn't dilute it with an association to a dominant partner organisation.

Levy has next to zero to do with Spurs' recent league positions, having hired a string of shit managers and lucking out on one decent one, with what must have been his 10th appointment? You have a couple of coveted players in the same way Everton and Southampton do. But clubs exist to win trophies and you seem to do anything possible not to win them. You should've built this stadium years ago. And the succession of shit decisions Levy has made on managers has delayed your progress hugely. There are few clubs who have spent so much for so little gain in terms of trophies. None of that can be denied, as hard as you try.
Click to expand...

Lol ... it will have the 3rd largest seating capacity in UK club football (and the 2nd largest of football-dedicated stadiums) - if that's your definition of "mediocre", then words have no meaning.

You say "Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for the money". Well, yes, of course, talk about the bloody obvious ... where have I (as you claim) denied it?

Whether or not wealthier clubs haven't "gone near shit like this because they don't need to", the fact is that they haven't had - and don't have - the option, because their stadiums aren't suitable and can't be made suitable without pretty much rebuilding huge chunks of the stadium from scratch.

As for "brand dilution", that's pretty rich coming from a supporter of a club that has commercial tie-ups galore. But of course, in your silly view, the NFL tie-up will dilute the Spurs brand, whilst none of United's tie-ups do the same for United ... lol.

The rest of your post is a string of nonsense. For example, "we have couple of coveted players in the same way Everton and Southampton do" - lol .... I suppose, aside from Alli and Kane, no-one wants Alderweireld, or Eriksen, or Lloris or Rose or Walker or Dier or Dembele ... the list goes on.

And then you say "for a club that has spent so much" .... lol ... Spurs have the lowest net spend in the Prem over the last 5 years, not to mention a very low wage bill compared to at least 5 other clubs.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Lol ... it will have the 3rd largest seating capacity in UK club football (and the 2nd largest of football-dedicated stadiums) - if that's your definition of "mediocre", then words have no meaning.

You say "Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for the money". Well, yes, of course, talk about the bloody obvious ... where have I (as you claim) denied it?

Whether or not wealthier clubs haven't "gone near shit like this because they don't need to", the fact is that they haven't had - and don't have - the option, because their stadiums aren't suitable and can't be made suitable without pretty much rebuilding huge chunks of the stadium from scratch.

As for "brand dilution", that's pretty rich coming from a supporter of a club that has commercial tie-ups galore. But of course, in your silly view, the NFL tie-up will dilute the Spurs brand, whilst none of United's tie-ups do the same for United ... lol.

The rest of your post is a string of nonsense. For example, "we have couple of coveted players in the same way Everton and Southampton do" - lol .... I suppose, aside from Alli and Kane, no-one wants Alderweireld, or Eriksen, or Lloris or Rose or Walker or Dier or Dembele ... the list goes on.

And then you say "for a club that has spent so much" .... lol ... Spurs have the lowest net spend in the Prem over the last 5 years, not to mention a very low wage bill compared to at least 5 other clubs.
Click to expand...

It is pretty mediocre when you look at the context i.e. that you're spending £750m on it, and you're building it in 2017. So you're spending almost double what Arsenal did over 10 years ago, for 500 more seats than them. That lacks ambition.

So we're agreed that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for money, and under better financial circumstances the deal wouldn't have been a necessity. Good.

None of United's dealings are with a dominant partner. They are sponsorship deals from brands wanting to associate themselves with the club and in return they get their name on an advertising hoarding or on the sleeve of our training kit. The NFL seem to want to become part of Tottenham's make-up. Sharing a stadium and actually being a part of the club. Given the NFL is several light-years bigger than Tottenham Hotspur, there is a threat that the football club will not be front and centre by itself.

Do I really need to qualify everything I say so it doesn't bruise your fragile complex about Spurs. Re: covetable players. The point is not that you don't have them, it's that this has next to zero to do with Levy's handling of the club. Far greater is the number of dud players and managers binned during his tenure.

I'm not looking over 5 years I'm looking at Daniel Levy's tenure at the club. You've spent well over half a billion on player incomings, for the sum total of a League Cup. Some of that (but nowhere near all) has been balanced off with sales, which just shows the scattergun approach to transfers and the sheer number of players that have had to be churned out to fund this collasal waste of money on incomings.

3 simple questions:

Of Levy's managerial appointments how many would you say have been successful?

Please do the same for all the incoming players during his tenure. A percentage figure if it's easier.

Please rate Tottenham's 15+ years under Levy in terms of trophies? A score out of ten would be fine here.
 
Bwuk said:
Your far from a middle table side nowadays.

In terms of starting 11, I wonder who most would say is stronger. Ours or yours.
Click to expand...
Comfortably Spurs; If I had to combine the two DDG, Valencia, Alderweireld, Bailly, Rose, Pogba, Wanyama, Eriksen, Alli, Son, Kane. With a bench of Lloris, Walker, Verthongen, Dier, Herrera, Mkhi en Ibra. (Even though this isnt how football works).
 
Kraftwerker said:
It is pretty mediocre when you look at the context i.e. that you're spending £750m on it, and you're building it in 2017. So you're spending almost double what Arsenal did over 10 years ago, for 500 more seats than them. That lacks ambition.

So we're agreed that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for money, and under better financial circumstances the deal wouldn't have been a necessity. Good.

None of United's dealings are with a dominant partner. They are sponsorship deals from brands wanting to associate themselves with the club and in return they get their name on an advertising hoarding or on the sleeve of our training kit. The NFL seem to want to become part of Tottenham's make-up. Sharing a stadium and actually being a part of the club. Given the NFL is several light-years bigger than Tottenham Hotspur, there is a threat that the football club will not be front and centre by itself.

Do I really need to qualify everything I say so it doesn't bruise your fragile complex about Spurs. Re: covetable players. The point is not that you don't have them, it's that this has next to zero to do with Levy's handling of the club. Far greater is the number of dud players and managers binned during his tenure.

I'm not looking over 5 years I'm looking at Daniel Levy's tenure at the club. You've spent well over half a billion on player incomings, for the sum total of a League Cup. Some of that (but nowhere near all) has been balanced off with sales, which just shows the scattergun approach to transfers and the sheer number of players that have had to be churned out to fund this collasal waste of money on incomings.

3 simple questions:

Of Levy's managerial appointments how many would you say have been successful?

Please do the same for all the incoming players during his tenure. A percentage figure if it's easier.

Please rate Tottenham's 15+ years under Levy in terms of trophies? A score out of ten would be fine here.
Click to expand...

Eh? Is this an interview or something? Why not just go right back to 1962 and bring up the fact that everybody already knows that we have been rubbish for decades, is that better? None of this matters though, what matters is what is happening now.
 
balaks said:
Eh? Is this an interview or something? Why not just go right back to 1962 and bring up the fact that everybody already knows that we have been rubbish for decades, is that better? None of this matters though, what matters is what is happening now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have pin Glaston down with specific questions otherwise he'll just tangent onto something he's more comfortable addressing.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Unfortunately you have pin Glaston down with specific questions otherwise he'll just tangent onto something he's more comfortable addressing.
Click to expand...

You are asking questions with answers you already know, Glaston already knows and everybody who follows football already knows. We have been utterly crap for decades until roughly 5 years ago. There is no point to your questions other than to try and get Glaston to say something that would likely trigger further pointless and never ending circular posts about the same thing.
 
balaks said:
You are asking questions with answers you already know, Glaston already knows and everybody who follows football already knows. We have been utterly crap for decades until roughly 5 years ago. There is no point to your questions other than to try and get Glaston to say something that would likely trigger further pointless and never ending circular posts about the same thing.
Click to expand...
Half of what Glaston says is useless. Whatever fills the thread though...
 
balaks said:
You are asking questions with answers you already know, Glaston already knows and everybody who follows football already knows. We have been utterly crap for decades until roughly 5 years ago. There is no point to your questions other than to try and get Glaston to say something that would likely trigger further pointless and never ending circular posts about the same thing.
Click to expand...

He's just pissed off that Spurs have the better team now, despite spending a fraction of United's outlay, and are building a fantastic new stadium.

Hence all his embittered rants, his harking backwards to donkey's years ago and his dumb posts about the new stadium.
 
GlastonSpur said:
He's just pissed off that Spurs have the better team now (who win nothing), despite spending a fraction of United's outlay, and are building a fantastic new stadium (a small stadium relative to our own).

Hence all his embittered rants, his harking backwards to donkey's years ago and his dumb posts about the new stadium.
Click to expand...

Truth hurts. Clearly.
 
GlastonSpur said:
He's just pissed off that Spurs have the better team now, despite spending a fraction of United's outlay, and are building a fantastic new stadium.

Hence all his embittered rants, his harking backwards to donkey's years ago and his dumb posts about the new stadium.
Click to expand...

What about the costs of the two stadiums?

Spurs is £800mil and rising by the week.
 
GlastonSpur said:
He's just pissed off that Spurs have the better team now, despite spending a fraction of United's outlay, and are building a fantastic new stadium.

Hence all his embittered rants, his harking backwards to donkey's years ago and his dumb posts about the new stadium.
Click to expand...
Where's Spurs trophies to show? Also, seeing as though Spurs don't like winning things, the league in particular, who has a better short and long term future; United or Spurs? I refuse to believe Spurs are going to keep dominating the English game and United will fade into oblivion.
 
Inter Yer Nan said:
Where's Spurs trophies to show? Also, seeing as though Spurs don't like winning things, the league in particular, who has a better short and long term future; United or Spurs? I refuse to believe Spurs are going to keep dominating the English game and United will fade into oblivion.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Kraftwerker said:
It is pretty mediocre when you look at the context i.e. that you're spending £750m on it, and you're building it in 2017. So you're spending almost double what Arsenal did over 10 years ago, for 500 more seats than them. That lacks ambition.

So now your definition of "mediocre" has changed (seeing as it's clearly not viable to define it based on capacity, as you did previously, since it will have the 2nd largest capacity in the UK for dedicated club-football stadiums) - now it's apparently "mediocre" because of the cost and the year 2017. :lol:

So we're agreed that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for money, and under better financial circumstances the deal wouldn't have been a necessity. Good.

No, we're not agreed. I've already told that you that the NFL capacity is greatly adding to the stadium cost - the exact opposite of improving the immediate financial circumstances. It's a long-term judgement by Levy that in the end the NFL tie-up will bring in a lot of money. Whether it does or not remains to be seen.

None of United's dealings are with a dominant partner. They are sponsorship deals from brands wanting to associate themselves with the club and in return they get their name on an advertising hoarding or on the sleeve of our training kit. The NFL seem to want to become part of Tottenham's make-up. Sharing a stadium and actually being a part of the club. Given the NFL is several light-years bigger than Tottenham Hotspur, there is a threat that the football club will not be front and centre by itself.

First you derided the 2 NFL games per year as paltry ("perhaps enough to pay about half of one of your in-demand player's wage demands"). Now you say the NFL are the dominant partner. :lol: You're all over the shop sunshine.

Do I really need to qualify everything I say so it doesn't bruise your fragile complex about Spurs. Re: covetable players. The point is not that you don't have them, it's that this has next to zero to do with Levy's handling of the club. Far greater is the number of dud players and managers binned during his tenure .... .

Really? Your earlier point was that we had only the same amount as S'hampton or Everton .... now you seem to have abandoned this claim. ...
Click to expand...
 
The NFL being the dominant partner and the deal you have with them being paltry are not mutually exclusive.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Your posts seem to basically boil down to "We're spending £750m to build a stadium with mediocre capacity, but it doesn't matter because NFL".

I just think you should show more ambition. It's a backhanded compliment if anything. It would actually be pretty exciting if Spurs were building a 90k or 100k capacity arena. Imagine Arsenal fans' reaction if Spurs were building a stadium 30k bigger than theirs. Instead you did the small-time Spurs thing and made sure to get 500 more seats than them (at vastly greater cost to you as a club). But it's all ok because NFL.

I'm just dealing in the reality of the situation which you don't seem to like. Accountants have been all over this NFL tie up and recommended against it. How can you deny that Spurs are only getting into bed with the NFL for the money? That's literally the only reason to do it! Wealthier clubs haven't gone near shit like this because they don't need to, or they value their own club's brand enough that they wouldn't dilute it with an association to a dominant partner organisation.

Levy has next to zero to do with Spurs' recent league positions, having hired a string of shit managers and lucking out on one decent one, with what must have been his 10th appointment? You have a couple of coveted players in the same way Everton and Southampton do. But clubs exist to win trophies and you seem to do anything possible not to win them. You should've built this stadium years ago. And the succession of shit decisions Levy has made on managers has delayed your progress hugely. There are few clubs who have spent so much for so little gain in terms of trophies. None of that can be denied, as hard as you try.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by dominant partner? What makes them dominant and detrimental to the brand? I'm confused.
 
Bluh blah stadium bleugh 2nd in league blih net spend blah Pochettino bluch Levy blech. Trophies or it didn't happen.
 
Hats off to @Kraftwerker and @GlastonSpur for always engaging in pointless debates. You guys deserve a dedicated sub forum, then you can discuss everything from Levy, number of trophies won by spurs, United's spending, Spurs youth team etc to your heart's content. Also the rest of us won't have to suffer through your sniping.
 
sincher said:
Bluh blah stadium bleugh 2nd in league blih net spend blah Pochettino bluch Levy blech. Trophies or it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's mental that during Spurs golden era they have exactly 0 trophies and in our dark ages we have two in the bag and are about to play a European final. All competitions they had chances in and failed.
 
GlastonSpur said:
...
Click to expand...

Glaston, I just think if you're spending three quarters of a billion on a stadium and have access to a great deal of land as well as modern building techniques, you should've shown the ambition to build straight up the biggest ground in the country with a 90k plus capacity. Instead you built one marginally bigger than Arsenal. As I said, it would be exciting if Spurs were building an arena of such scale, and I think they're one of the few clubs who could actually fill it (see the recent capacity games at Wembley).

I know the NFL facilities are greatly adding to the cost. I already stated that your accountants recommended against it based on a cost/benefit analysis. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately you've only got involved with them for money.

The guarantees at present are pretty minimal. This is entirely exclusive from the NFL being the dominant partner. The NFL are the dominant partner in terms of scale. Ultimately what this means is you could end up dancing to their tune, rather than vice versa.

Re: coveted players. You have two or three players that I would say all top clubs would be all over. Of course you also have better players around the fringe. I'm not so sure they're as coveted as the others though. Again, the point wasn't about how many coveted players you have, it was an assessment of Levy's tenure.

And of course you avoided the assessment of Levy's reign. Predictable and tells us all we need to know.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Glaston, I just think if you're spending three quarters of a billion on a stadium and have access to a great deal of land as well as modern building techniques, you should've shown the ambition to build straight up the biggest ground in the country with a 90k plus capacity. Instead you built one marginally bigger than Arsenal. As I said, it would be exciting if Spurs were building an arena of such scale, and I think they're one of the few clubs who could actually fill it (see the recent capacity games at Wembley).

I know the NFL facilities are greatly adding to the cost. I already stated that your accountants recommended against it based on a cost/benefit analysis. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately you've only got involved with them for money.

The guarantees at present are pretty minimal. This is entirely exclusive from the NFL being the dominant partner. The NFL are the dominant partner in terms of scale. Ultimately what this means is you could end up dancing to their tune, rather than vice versa.

Re: coveted players. You have two or three players that I would say all top clubs would be all over. Of course you also have better players around the fringe. I'm not so sure they're as coveted as the others though. Again, the point wasn't about how many coveted players you have, it was an assessment of Levy's tenure.

And of course you avoided the assessment of Levy's reign. Predictable and tells us all we need to know.
Click to expand...

Imagine a football club doing something only for money... shock horror.

I'm incredibly happy with Levy's reign overall from where he picked us up he has transformed the club, obviously silverware needs to arrive but considering the wealth of 4-5 other clubs in the league I'm happy.

Also can you explain how the NFL franchise would take over a stadium owned by THFC? Really curious.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Glaston, I just think if you're spending three quarters of a billion on a stadium and have access to a great deal of land as well as modern building techniques, you should've shown the ambition to build straight up the biggest ground in the country with a 90k plus capacity. Instead you built one marginally bigger than Arsenal. As I said, it would be exciting if Spurs were building an arena of such scale, and I think they're one of the few clubs who could actually fill it (see the recent capacity games at Wembley).

I know the NFL facilities are greatly adding to the cost. I already stated that your accountants recommended against it based on a cost/benefit analysis. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately you've only got involved with them for money.

The guarantees at present are pretty minimal. This is entirely exclusive from the NFL being the dominant partner. The NFL are the dominant partner in terms of scale. Ultimately what this means is you could end up dancing to their tune, rather than vice versa.

Re: coveted players. You have two or three players that I would say all top clubs would be all over. Of course you also have better players around the fringe. I'm not so sure they're as coveted as the others though. Again, the point wasn't about how many coveted players you have, it was an assessment of Levy's tenure.

And of course you avoided the assessment of Levy's reign. Predictable and tells us all we need to know.
Click to expand...

The aim is to build the best stadium in the UK, not the biggest: you seem unable to distinguish between the two. Quality is not the same as quantity.

Of course we're tying up with the NFL for commercial reasons - what else do you (or anybody else) imagine would be the reason? The point is so obvious I don't know why you keep endlessly repeating it ... it's not as if anyone disputes it.

The NFL is bigger than Spurs, but your conclusion doesn't follow: the only "tune" on offer from Spurs is that our stadium hosts a minimum of 2 games per year, and later perhaps an NFL franchise. If the latter happens then nothing changes except we would get a bucket-load of money: the stadium won't change because it will already be ready for NFL games. Spurs will continue to play all their games at the stadium and will continue as independent football club. What else are you imagining will happen from this "domination"?

Spurs were in a mess when Levy took over - now we aren't and the future looks bright. That's the bottom line as far as his tenure is concerned.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The aim is to build the best stadium in the UK, not the biggest: you seem unable to distinguish between the two. Quality is not the same as quantity.

Of course we're tying up with the NFL for commercial reasons - what else do you (or anybody else) imagine would be the reason? The point is so obvious I don't know why you keep endlessly repeating it ... it's not as if anyone disputes it.

The NFL is bigger than Spurs, but your conclusion doesn't follow: the only "tune" on offer from Spurs is that our stadium hosts a minimum of 2 games per year, and later perhaps an NFL franchise. If the latter happens then nothing changes except we would get a bucket-load of money: the stadium won't change because it will already be ready for NFL games. Spurs will continue to play all their games at the stadium and will continue as independent football club. What else are you imagining will happen from this "domination"?

Spurs were in a mess when Levy took over - now we aren't and the future looks bright. That's the bottom line as far as his tenure is concerned.
Click to expand...

Going round in circles here. You had a golden opportunity to build the biggest stadium in the country, but didn't. Fine. You think this is great. I wouldn't be happy if it was my club. We'll clearly not agree. That's fine.

Getting into bed with the NFL may or may not pay off for the club. Accountants reckoned not and the ST deal seems fairly paltry. Still not clear if the franchise will happen and the impact it would have on the football club. Ultimately the unknowns here are greater than the current knowns.

Given the money spent and turnover of managers, it's fair to say Levy's got a lot more wrong than right during his tenure. The club looks to be in a healthier situation right now, but a succession of poor appointments and delaying the stadium has basically meant a generation of Spurs fans seeing no success at their club.
 
I had to check if I'd pressed the correct thread, could have sworn I pressed the Dele Alli one:wenger:
 
Alli's Finger
DI6B3uVW4AAip6I.jpg
 
He was fecking dreadful tonight as he has been almost every game he's played for England.

If he's suspended for his middle finger tonight the authorities will be doing us a favour.
 
Sammyjunn said:
Comfortably Spurs; If I had to combine the two DDG, Valencia, Alderweireld, Bailly, Rose, Pogba, Wanyama, Eriksen, Alli, Son, Kane. With a bench of Lloris, Walker, Verthongen, Dier, Herrera, Mkhi en Ibra. (Even though this isnt how football works).
Click to expand...

No Lukaku? And Wanyama over Matic? :wenger:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.