 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
This season:
Spurs 1 - 0 Newcastle
Newcastle 0 - 1 Spurs
*back o' the net*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
The manager costs money too, so, money. Whether Mourinho couldve had the same, or similar success with the players Chelsea had before the money, impossible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
The last 15 years at Newcastle are a good example of how it's possible to have a rich chairman pouring cash into a club, and still not win anything. |
That's where you're wrong. The team had money pumped in by John Hall in the mid 90s, but since then the Shepherd and Hall families have basically looted the club. Still, they were better than the old Seymour/McKeagist regime. Newcastle's league, cup and European runs over the last 7 or 8 years have brought them a great deal of cash, less than Liverpool during the same time, but not far off. During that time Liverpool have spent over twice what Newcastle have on players IIRC.
If Newcastle actually spent the money they earn on players instead of the Shepherds and Halls paying themselves off and doing dodgy deals, we'd be in the position we were in in 94-6.
That's why there is increasing pressure from supporters to oust the Shepherds and Halls and force them to sell up. It should be an interesting couple of years.
Spurs are OK, but they'll never have the fan base to sustain continued good performance. The money just isn't there, even with good ownership.
And Chelsea would not be in the position they are in if they did not have the two best players in England: Frank Lampard and John Terry. Despite all the talk about foreign players, those two are the core of the team and Lampard is player of the year in my book.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Laertes
|
 |
London
Jul 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Spurs are OK, but they'll never have the fan base to sustain continued good performance. The money just isn't there, even with good ownership.
|
In the Deloitte Money league, a recognised report on the income of football teams across the world, Newcastle were 11th for 03/04. They were down 2 places, with income of £90.5m, approx 137 million Euro, down from £96.7m the year before.
This was despite a Champions League / UEFA cup semi-final run.
For the same year, Tottenham were the highest place team in Europe that did not have any European matches, in 14th place with £66m, practically unchanged on the year before.
The difference in the incomes was matchday (14m) and broadcasting (£9m). Commercial incomes were even. Next year, as Newcastle will have a hole in their match incomes with no European fixtures (say 5 home games at 50k attendance at £30 a ticket = £7.5m) plus less broadcasting and less spin-offs.
So there may not be that much of a gap after all. If Spurs get a UEFA cup place and win a round or two, positions would be reversed despite Newcastle's bigger crowds
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2005 03:05
Spurs aren't even the second club in London. I guess they're London's equivalent of Sunderland.
|