This. fecking hell this.
How big of a club is Tottenham Hotspur?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
Right, so di Maria only came to United for the money, otherwise he didn't want to. Aren't you better off signing players who actually want to play for United rather than coming just for a payday?
As for Kane, and as much you might like to wishfully think otherwise, he wants to play for Spurs and not United, step up or not. He loves the club, would not want to swap playing under Pochettino for playing under Mourinho and is settled in London.
Kane is not coming to United, so best you just accept it rather than hoping for the unattainable.
I'll say this for Glaston, he gives as good as he gets and he always stands his ground. I can respect that even if he does appear slightly naive at times.
You must have expected a little banter aimed in your direction when you chose to sign up to a United forum. Stop being so thin-skinned ya soft lad!
It was said with my tongue firmly in my cheek don't worry.
The only reason Kane isn't coming to United is because it wouldn't be logical for him at this moment in his career. As soon as Real Madrid goes all in he is as good as gone. Has nothing to do with "being settled in London" or "playing under Pochettino".
Hang on - he's not coming to United because it's not currently logical, and later, when it will apparently be logical ... he's still not coming to United because he's going to RM instead
The only reason Kane isn't coming to United is because it wouldn't be logical for him at this moment in his career. As soon as Real Madrid goes all in he is as good as gone. Has nothing to do with "being settled in London" or "playing under Pochettino".
So either way you've sliced it, he's not coming to United ... glad we cleared that up.
Reading through the thread (before it because just a Glaston bash fest) made me have this thought...
What determines “size” when talking about a football club?
The "Big Five" that forced the formation of the Premier League was Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur. At the time, those were by far the five biggest, richest and most powerful clubs in the country and the threat they would break away is what forced the FA to make all the concessions they did.
A lot has changed since then - the dominance of SAF at United, Wenger remaking Arsenal, the rise of Chelsea and City through their new owners and the waning of 3 of the "traditional" clubs: Spurs, Everton and to a somewhat lesser extent Liverpool. Each of those has various reasons - in Spurs case it was disastrous ownership that nearly bankrupted the club in the early part of the PL era and effectively missed the boat on the explosion of money in the league. Spurs are now owned by a billionaire as well and actually well run, but those 15 years in the wilderness still hurt.
As of now, Spurs are the 12th richest club in the world, and pay the 12th highest wages (the idea that Spurs somehow don't pay a ton of money in wages is one of the strangest running news stories in the sport). What that means about "how big is X club" when measuring e-penises on random message boards, I don't know. Spurs are a strongly supported football club with a feckton of money, and that's about all anyone can say with any authority. The rest of it is just Glaston v. RedCafe dick comparisons, and that's frankly pretty boring.
A lot has changed since then - the dominance of SAF at United, Wenger remaking Arsenal, the rise of Chelsea and City through their new owners and the waning of 3 of the "traditional" clubs: Spurs, Everton and to a somewhat lesser extent Liverpool. Each of those has various reasons - in Spurs case it was disastrous ownership that nearly bankrupted the club in the early part of the PL era and effectively missed the boat on the explosion of money in the league. Spurs are now owned by a billionaire as well and actually well run, but those 15 years in the wilderness still hurt.
As of now, Spurs are the 12th richest club in the world, and pay the 12th highest wages (the idea that Spurs somehow don't pay a ton of money in wages is one of the strangest running news stories in the sport). What that means about "how big is X club" when measuring e-penises on random message boards, I don't know. Spurs are a strongly supported football club with a feckton of money, and that's about all anyone can say with any authority. The rest of it is just Glaston v. RedCafe dick comparisons, and that's frankly pretty boring.
Were no where near United in terms of stature, just cause one fan thinks it doesn't mean we all do. How are we rating what a big club is? Many factors come into play obviously the main one being silverware of course.
Arsenal fan here, pains me to admit it but I have a soft spot for them. A club that essentially reminds me of Arsenal of old. Finance a new stadium, whilst on the up-rise. Of course we haven't won any major trophies, and Tottenham will mostly not either. However my affection of a club is usually determined by how it's run and the manager behind it. At the moment they are a great team, and if the manager builds a long term project rather than jump ship, I can see him developing somewhat of a legacy there.
Big clubs win trophies, they win no trophies.
Utterly embarrassing thread for United fans really. Just full of pathetic cheap shots. To call Spurs a small club just shows a complete lack of footballing knowledge. Anyone who is anyone knows Spurs are and always have been one of England's traditional big clubs. Yes, Spurs aren't as big or successful as United, but Spurs are still one of the 6th biggest clubs in the country. Other clubs may have had great eras, but Spurs have always been there or thereabouts and along with Liverpool, United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton, the only clubs who have remained in the PL since it's inception.
Being the 5th/6th biggest club in the country when you have 92 odd professional football clubs, means you are a huge club.
Being 13th wealthiest club in Europe with a bigger fan base than all but about 10 of them again makes you a huge club. Anything else is just slanderous nonsense.
Oh and the person who said Chelsea are one of the 4 big clubs in England. Are they feck! Pre-Abramovich they were a nothing club. They may have had a good decade or two thanks to the rich russian but they are not a traditional big club. never have been.
Being the 5th/6th biggest club in the country when you have 92 odd professional football clubs, means you are a huge club.
Being 13th wealthiest club in Europe with a bigger fan base than all but about 10 of them again makes you a huge club. Anything else is just slanderous nonsense.
Oh and the person who said Chelsea are one of the 4 big clubs in England. Are they feck! Pre-Abramovich they were a nothing club. They may have had a good decade or two thanks to the rich russian but they are not a traditional big club. never have been.
Genuinely you talk utter nonsense.
6th biggest club based on what?
Genuine question.
Not based on trohpies won that's for sure.... not top 6 in points earned alltime (1. Div / PL) either
Flicking through the thread in mood bemusement and only made it to this post, felt it needed to be called out.
You're effectively calling other posters delusional in claimimg Kane would go to United when he had shown no interest which is fair enough, until you then indulge your own delusions in making up a story of how Kane and Levy both turned down United last summer, because they must have innit.
Fans are great, forum needs more one-eyed shit like this
The fact that we are an established top 6 side in the PL and have been for a number of years, in addition to having one of the largest fanbases in the country, probably 6th largest fan base of all english clubs nationwide, we are also the 6th richest club in the country.
In addition to having won the FA Cup the third most times in history.
Arsenal 13
Manchester United 12
Tottenham 8
Liverpool 7
Chelsea 7
Come on guys, stop denying Spurs are a big club. We aren't the biggest, not even top 3 biggest, but we are big. You are embarrassing yourself saying otherwise.
If we aren't the 6th biggest, I look forward to other nominations for the current 6th biggest club, I fancy a good laugh.
PL finishes the past 8 seasons:
4th
5th
4th
5th
6th
5th
3rd
2nd
Easily the 6th highest turnover in the country.
Easily the 6th best supported team in the country world-wide.
You can stop pretending that Everton or Nottingham Forest are bigger than Spurs now.
There is a total of nine European Cups there . Chelsea have won one.
Is this a dig at Chelsea being seen as a bigger club than Liverpool?
We're talking about now, not in the 1970's. European Cups won 30/40 years ago are irrelevant.
Chelsea have had more recent domestic and European success, have more fans worldwide, greater commercial power, a bigger revenue and can compete for a different level of player.
The Leicester example is quite interesting actually. Since Glaston is so hung up on keeping quality players (which not an unfair metric, it just shouldn't be the defining feature), a lot of top clubs tried to sign Mahrez but to no avail. Are they a "big club"? They actually won the league recently though.
I also don't know why he's so quick to push away the "money" argument. Bigger fanbase does equate to more money, as does a better stadium, more generous owners, etc. But why is that worth dismissing and why is the the other a laudable and worthy criterion in considering the size of a club? Surely money and good management/transfer policy are not mutually exclusive. Man City are on their way to a historic season by accomplishing both. They have also struggled with signings several years ago despite their coffers with players like Craig Bellamy and Samir Nasri and Santa Cruz not working out. The difference is that because of their seemingly infinite funds, they can try and try again until they get it right.
I also don't know why he's so quick to push away the "money" argument. Bigger fanbase does equate to more money, as does a better stadium, more generous owners, etc. But why is that worth dismissing and why is the the other a laudable and worthy criterion in considering the size of a club? Surely money and good management/transfer policy are not mutually exclusive. Man City are on their way to a historic season by accomplishing both. They have also struggled with signings several years ago despite their coffers with players like Craig Bellamy and Samir Nasri and Santa Cruz not working out. The difference is that because of their seemingly infinite funds, they can try and try again until they get it right.
I don't know that United enquired after Kane last summer, I just think it's very likely that they did. The reasons are obvious:
* You were looking to sign a striker.
* Money is no particular object - witness your huge net spend since Fergie retired.
* Kane was by far the best "potentially available" striker on the market, having just won the 2nd straight Golden Boot.
* It weakens a rival.
You obviously didn't go for Lukaku or Morata as first choice in preference to Kane - so I reason that you went for them because you were told that Kane was a "no". After all, what other reasonable explanation can there be?
In historical terms I'd put them as kinda 3rd Tier in England. At the moment/last few years they're playing 2nd Tier.
In 2 words: pretty big
In 2 words: pretty big
That common sense would tell you he’s not currently available, so you go to actually available options?
They are a big club but obviously not the level of United, Pool, Madrid, Milan etc
If that makes a 6th big club in the country then fair play.
Forest has 2 European cups so historically is a bigger club imo. Right now of course not.
Calm down. As I said it was a genuine question, not a dig.
Ok.
Well I don't know that Kane would definitely go to United if offered the chance, i.e. making the massive leap that the clubs had agreed terms on a deal and its only down to Kane, I just think it's very likely he would.
The reasons are obvious:
* He's a very good striker entering his prime.
* He's playing at a club that have won feck all for years, certainly for his lifetime.
* One would assume that he'd like to win something sometime, preferably league or CL.
* He's paid feck all in modern day terms when compared to his worth.
* United won two trophies last year, and loads over Kane's lifetime, and are a much better bet to continue that way than to all of a sudden be overtaken by Spurs.
* United would pay the going rate for a top striker, much more than Spurs.
* Kane's profile personally would be much higher at United than at Spurs.
We obviously don't get a chance to ask Kane directly as Spurs are not selling, so it's not Kane's choice. If it was his choice, and again assuming it's a straight choice between United and Spurs with no one else in for him, he'd go to United for the reasons I've outlined above. After all, what other reasonable explanation can there be?
Edit - I should add before you reply, the point of my post above is not that I believe any of it, but it's the same point as my post last night even if I was drunk then. You can't dismiss one narrative that Kane would join United if he had the chance as bullshit while also creating a separate hypothetical that you did saying that Kane and Levy told United to feck off in the summer. Both are hypothetical, there are sound reasons supporting both but zero evidence of either. You could be completely right, but don't dismiss the other posts with a Trump-esque "show me the evidence!" argument while also creating your own fantasy narrative too. It adds nothing.
Last edited:
With all due respect, utter nonsense.
Since you mention silverware.
Spurs won the first division twice.
Forest once.
Spurs won the FA Cup 7 times.
Forest twice.
Spurs won the league cup 4 times
Forrest 4 times.
Spurs have won 3 major european trophies. Once, the old style CL. Twice the UEFA Cup
Forest have won the old style CL twice, and one UEFA Super Cup.
Tottenham are a bigger club than Forest in every single way, unless you value two CL's trophies to Spurs one, as the ultimate over riding stat which makes every other comparable metric obsolete. If that is what you think, that's your prerogative, but it would be ridiculous.
Spurs were the first English club to win the European cup. First English club to do the double etc etc No one with a straight face would say Forest are a bigger club than Spurs. They had a great era, but that's about it. Where are they now? They've been a nothing club for years.
I can't believe I'm coming out in favour of a Spurs fan here but I think Glaston has a point. When you see Kane interviewed he comes across as a down to earth guy who is enjoying his career. He doesn't seem to be motivated play at another club because of money. It is possible for a player to play for playing's sake. Look at Shearer. He played at Newcastle for years when Utd would have been the "bigger" option.
Kane seems to have his feet on the ground and long may that continue. It's a welcome breath of fresh air to see a player of his like choosing football over money.
Choose a job, choose your future, choose life.......... Choose football.
It begs the question like others have said. First we must define big . And for one minute I do not believe they have more fans world wide . I dont give a shit if they have anyway.
Surely you mean a European trophy ?
the quoted poster was talking about A-T achievments, dismissed Chelsea's recent success
currently they are obviously top 6, they aren't among the 6 most successful clubs historically though like the poster suggested
spurs have not won the old style CL
they won the cup winners cup and 2 uefa cups (not EL)
baffling how a supporter could make such a major error
keep on calling others out for posting nonsense
Fully agree with you (and Glaston).
And besides - it's not like we're at our best anymore (when Fergie was around it may have been different).
Well said. A pretty strange thread when all is said and done (which it never will be).
Sorry, I got confused about the old names for the CL. Error admitted, my overall point still stands. Spurs are a bigger club in every single way, bar Two European Cups to Spurs 0. If that is the only trophy that makes someone larger than Spurs, then I guess, Red Star Belgrade, Feyenoord, Marseille, Steau Bucharest, Hamburg are all bigger than Spurs.
I'm slightly confused by this comment.
By any measure, we are either the 5th or 6th most successful club historically in terms of total trophies won?
Right I'm not denying that Chelsea won more trophies. I'm just not quite as impressed with the cup winners cup and super cup as others may be or think that a difference of 3 (even including those) is the chasm you were saying.
That's your opinion. I disagree and think it probably best we just leave it there as this conversation isn't going anywhere and just seems incredibly pointless.