Spurs show you can become competitive without money.
What they havenít yet shown either by winning, or how they cope without the manager and loss of 2/3/4 stars (itís easier to replace a RB than Kane/ Eriksen etc.) is that they can better the money teams when it really counts.
At the moment itís still clubs with massive money who win.
Atlťtico are a better example but the comparison isnít so straight forward as although they are way behind Madrid and BarÁa theyíre still 3rd in a big league which gives them better access to players than maybe even Arsenal, say.
The winners are increasingly those with most money.
As a sustainable strategy over 15-20 years we need to find a niche which is self sustaining, even if itís ceiling is limited.
Given the barriers to entry of the top 5 (excluding spurs moneywise) here even with a richer billionaire thereís no guarantee of breaking through to the top of that group.
Weíre yet to see the exit of a mega benefactor and itís impact but it might not be pretty.
So we need a model that enables consistent performance at a reasonably high level that isnít reliant on individuals.
Youíd assume that would be with development of younger players attracted through the possibility of first team minutes at a good level.
I'd imagine most would take a niche that means we may not be winning all that much, if anything, but are at least relevant/competitive/in the conversation. Much like Spurs. At least for a while.
In terms of Spurs and Atletico the litmus test will be when/if lose their managers. When clubs are built up to revolve around their managers to such a degree, as we were with Moyes or Man Utd did with Ferguson when the lynchpin is still in place then the plate spinning act can work and look good but after they go it's not hard to see why it can quickly become a mess.
Not to say that'll happen to Spurs, but it will be a test of their current model.