The final insult to the fans

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a Russian Billionaire to buy out Enic. This blog will self-destruct in 2o seconds.

Seriously though. Do you really want to go back to the days of Alan Sugar?

For me, it's about the team. IMHO the best football we have played over the past 40 years was when Scholar was running the show with Burkinshaw as manager. I can never forget that Scholar almost bankrupted us leading to us almost being sold to Robert Maxwell. Would I really have been happy to have won the league in that era only to see the club go bust?

There is something poignant about your calling for the return Sugar after admitting that you called for him to go. As they say, be careful what you wish for.

For all those people that think I am blindly following Levy, I have this to say, there must be many people who can do a better job than Levy, but as you can see, we have actually had people who have done a hell of a lot worse.

Has anybody ever stopped to consider the similarity between Prime Ministers and Chairmen? They both start out with a honeymoon period, and they usually both end up being despised.

 

Are you addicted to making a fool of yourself?

Putting words in my mouth does nothing to hide the paucity of your argument. I never said anything about them having the final say, and you know that. What I have said is that they "advise". The definition of an advisor is a person who gives advice in a particular field, but you new that didn't you. You also knew that being an advisor does not give them the final say over the owner too? You also knew that I never claimed it did.

Your pretence at being amused is really a spurious claim to try to hide your childishness.

I note you did not respond to my point about Fenway and the Glazers. I suppose you think they have something like Parkers Car Price Guide to help them out?

Pullis said it was a good offer. The fact that Peace ignored this advice is not relevant. What is relevant is that you claim it was a poor offer. You weren't there and neither was I, so who should I rely on? A man who earns part of his living be assessing the worth of a player, or a childish fool.

 

So if Pulis (the advisor with the final say over the owner) says it was a fair offer, surely the owner/chairman didnt over rule it did they?

Im suprisesd Levy and Peace were involved at all if your theory is correct. Pulis and Poch are obviously the power men?

 

Seriously Dublin your talking utter nonsense and you can try twist and turn all you want but at the end of the day the owner of anything has final say over the price it will be let go for and how and when that is paid, nothing to do with anyone else at all.

 

In fact looking deeper at this, you claim i put words in your mouth then say i said it was a poor offer, where did i say that?

And the best part is which is highly amusing, is that i said what Pulis thinks is a fair offer is irrelevent, you then argued that i was wrong and then you say-

Pullis said it was a good offer. The fact that Peace ignored this advice is not relevant.

What exactly is your stance on this ownership/advisor scenario?

Am i right the owner has the final say irrelevent of what the manager/advisor say?

Does the owner/seller of the valuable in demand asset have the cards and final say or not?

So if he says a player cost xyz, or that he'l sell only by a cut off point, and wants a lump not installments is he taking a liberty asking for the deal to be done his way?

Or is the buyer who is in need of the asset and aware of what is needed to secure the deal, coming in underbidding in the dying moments in the hope the player kicks up enough of a fuss that the current owner bows to your price your way ie trying to shaft you taking the liberty?

 

And again your childish efforts to put words in my mouth make you look foolish. You pay an advisor to advise. You are not compelled to accept that advice. But again, you knew that didn't you. The only person on here that is claiming that Pullis is the advisor with the final say over the owner is you. Does it really matter to you how stupid this makes you look repeating this after I have already exposed this lie by you?

As to your being "surprised" again you show the stupidity of your argument with this infantile comment: Are you really pretending that advisors act unilaterally in isolation of their employers quite apart from the fact that I never suggested that this could happen?

Again I have noticed that you have not answered my question about Fenway and the Glazers.

Your problem now is that you have so much invested in your stupidity that like a compulsive gambler, you cannot stop. But at least the gambler might win something. Do you really think that the people who are reading this can't see through you? Where is your dignity in that you don't care that people can see through you?

Dealing with you reminds me of a scene from the film "187" where the teacher is lambasting some ghetto kids about the stupidity of violence to which one of them replies, "Sometimes stupid is all we've got". I am sure that you believe having the last word, or that if you refuse to concede the point and then indulge in dishonesty and distortion, that wins the argument. Whoever told you that, lied to you.

By all means have the last word. You have paid for it with your credibility so you are entitled to it.

 

I clearly pointed out what YOU pulled me up on about Pulis trying your best to make me look 'foolish' but in following that up you have agreed as much as you dont want to concede that Pulis thoughts on the offer are totally irrelevent when it comes to the owners/chairs decision.

You came at me not the other way round, trying to pick me apart with a flawed argument youve now reworded to agree with me with out saying it.

Name calling, not conceding your point, back tracking and altering to try and save face. Childish? Foolish?

Brilliant and highly amusing, thanks for your time Dublin you have made my day

 

In your post of 6.16 yesterday, you mentioned "underbidding". You have used the same word in the post I am responding to. You know that underbidding means a poor offer. So your attempt to accuse me of your puerile tactics fails.

And why does the fact that Peace ignored Pullis become relevant? How does that invalidate Pullis's statement that it was good offer?

You know very well my stance on the advisor/ownership relationship, but lets pretend you don't. The adviser advises the owner who is free to reject that advice. It is no different from a Lawyer who advises his client that if he is probably found guilty, he will get a longer sentence than if he pleads guilty straight away. The client is always free to ignore the advice.

As to your question about the final say, has anybody told you different.

And regarding your XYZ question, you and I don't know what the terms of the deal were, but Pullis did. So again I will repeat my question which you don't seem to want to answerr: When it comes to deciding whether it was a good deal or not, Pullis was there. You were not. Whose opinion should I rely on?

And when are you going to answer my question about the Glazers and Fenway?

 

Still trying to pretend that you have an argument?

Pullis's thoughts on the matter are totally relevant. What is irrelevant is that Peace decided to ignore this. The value of the advice remains unaltered.

Remember my Lawyer analogy. What is relevant is that the Lawyer advised him. Whether the client accepts the advice is irrelevant. If it was a civil matter and the Lawyer failed to advise the client accordingly, he would be sued. If the Lawyer says, "I advised him about this, but he chose to ignore me", the only thing that matters to the court handling the case is "was the advice good"?

As for picking you apart, you fell apart from the beginning. That's why you avoid the questions like whether I should believe you or Pullis about it being a good offer, or who you think advises Fenway and the Glasers while at the same time making feeble efforts to put words in my mouth or introduce my supposed take on preposterous scenarios. And don't forget you comment about me following Levy blindly.

 

Under bidding and poor offer are 2 completely different things what a ridiculous statement.
Quite obviously the offers or final offer was evidently not enough for the owner to sell (not Pulis no matter what he advises) hence the deal not going through. Which further prooves his irrelevence.

As for Glaziers etc are they experts at the value of players? Who knows do you? One thing is for certain they are the Big cheeses who write the cheques so if they want to buy or sell players they set the amounts/conditions most certainly not the Manager or Advisor.

 

Well this has given me something interesting to read through in my spare time! As far as I can see, the players are all assets of the club. As the owner owns the club, the owner can choose which assets to sell and how much to sell them for - so the owner chooses the price. In the case the owner doesn't know, they may take advice from one or several advisors, whose advice he doesn't have to follow.

As far as I can see, the rest is an argument for arguing's sake.

 

So in essence Pulis's thoughts on a fair deal are totally irrelevent in this case as i stated from the beggining?

 

Thank you for enlightening me with that info about 80 years and Jimmy being the 1st i was completely unaware of that fact so thank you for educating me and that is being sincere and not sarcasm Can't believe only one this century! Got me guessing now who it is,i have to get back to you! lol

 

It was Ledley wasn't it? The testimonial?

 

Levy does NOT own the club.

 

Snap! Christ it was only last year! Surely that can't have been the only one this century?? But how fitting that the only player to achieve this accolade was the great man himself Mr King, a legend always. Coys!!

 

Tried reading most of this thread, im not sure if there is a clear winner between Dublin or Felon or if any of their differences have been resolved but one thing I am sure of is that they are well on their way to discovering a cure for insomnia.
But I did enjoy mentions of testimonials and with all the negativity in Spurs world it is a nice distraction and a change of pace so ive gone searching for my Pat Jennings testimonial match programme from 1976 and since someone else brought it up its too good an opportunity to not remember it as it is my favourite and most memorable game ever at the lane, brilliant game and 3-2 to the good guys with a magic goal to the one and only Jimmy Greaves who came back for this game, and the only time I ever saw the great man play ( by the way I was very young in 76 ) just to mention a few names in that team should stir a few memories, Jennings of course, Keith Osgood, Cyril Knowles, a very young Glenn Hoddle, Peter Taylor, Steve Perryman as well as the likes of Ralph Coates and Alfie Conn. The Arse had a strong line-up too. Best atmosphere I've ever experienced and its a great shame that we haven't seen a few more of these games that celebrate our long serving players and lets face it anyone that lasts ten years at Spurs truly deserves it.

 

As far as i know Matt , Levy + his family are the minority shareholders in Enic owning something like 30ish% , with lewis the majority shareholder owning 70ish% ... With Enic owning something like 85ish% of T.H.F.C , Mr Lewis is clearly the big cheese , but Mr Levy is at the very least a significant other when it comes to the ownership of our great club .. Thats my reading on it anyway ...

 

We can all write/say ANYTHING we want about ANY subject we choose without the required knowledge or understanding to support our comments. Forums such as this have reminded me of that lesson more times than I care to remember!

Your average fan is, notoriously, fickle, short-sighted, , over-opinionated, under-educated (in regards of the sport they follow) and carries a sense of sense of entitlement.

Every club around the world has 'supporters' such as this. And CLEARLY, judging by the comments you will find in forums like this, THFC is no different.

But, hey, this is NO bad thing - as it allows for the other users of this/similar platform/s to distinguish themselves as they see fit, using the different examples seen as a template to form their own posts.

So, with that said, further on from my previous posts about this summer transfer business, I have brought you all a gift that I believe you may find enlightening.

Enjoy.

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.u...saster___Daniel_Levy_appears_to_have_changed/

Oh,... and your welcome!

 

Ram-alama-ding-dong-amos

Interesting read, and basically tells us all what we already know- it was a fantastic window if you have no intention of challenging the big boys and for that Levy has played a blinder.