Summer 2022 Transfer Thread.

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score

Man Utd complete Eriksen signing​

Manchester United have announced the signing of Christian Eriksen on a three-year deal following a rigorous medical.
The 30-year-old has strengthened Erik ten Hag's midfield options at Old Trafford after opting against remaining at Brentford, where he enjoyed an impressive stint on loan last season.
Denmark international Eriksen will not join United's pre-season tour of Australia due to the long flight involved from the UK.
The move sees Eriksen reunite with Ten Hag, who helped facilitate the midfielder's return from the cardiac arrest he suffered at Euro 2020 inviting him to train with Ajax during his rehabilitation.
United were patient in their pursuit of Eriksen and put no pressure on the midfielder for a decision, as they understood his choice would be based on more than just football.
Eriksen was settled in London with his family at Brentford, but has been attracted by the prospect of working under Ten Hag and being part of United's new era under the Dutchman.
 
Matt1882 said:

Man Utd complete Eriksen signing​

Manchester United have announced the signing of Christian Eriksen on a three-year deal following a rigorous medical.
The 30-year-old has strengthened Erik ten Hag's midfield options at Old Trafford after opting against remaining at Brentford, where he enjoyed an impressive stint on loan last season.
Denmark international Eriksen will not join United's pre-season tour of Australia due to the long flight involved from the UK.
The move sees Eriksen reunite with Ten Hag, who helped facilitate the midfielder's return from the cardiac arrest he suffered at Euro 2020 inviting him to train with Ajax during his rehabilitation.
United were patient in their pursuit of Eriksen and put no pressure on the midfielder for a decision, as they understood his choice would be based on more than just football.
Eriksen was settled in London with his family at Brentford, but has been attracted by the prospect of working under Ten Hag and being part of United's new era under the Dutchman.
Click to expand...

Seems we never even made him an offer

Likely saw his wages and walked away

Great player for us but I'll never quite forgive him for downing tools last season, giving a no show in the CL final and saying he wants to leave next day
 
Matt1882 said:
Fact - Woolwich didn't move into their stadium until 2006 and once they did, were supposed to be crippled until it was paid for.
Fact - they compete in the same league as us. How did they bring in more money with a similar stadium pre 2006? By being in the champions league.
Fact - they got in the champions league by getting a good coach and consistently backing him. Every year. They gave him complete control and an open cheque book. This happened after they finished behind us (in the sugar era)
Fact - City didn't win the lotto until 2008 and didn't really really spend until 2009, hence why I said "the majority of the 00's" - 9 years out of 10 is factually "the majority"

There is no denying we have barely outspent, and in some cases have been outspent by, teams like West Ham, Newcastle, Villa, Everton. Over that 2 year period we're ahead of them but there are times when they have outspent us.

What is interesting is that none of them have won a fucking thing, so money isn't the only key.
Our 13 year baron run is nothing compared to those 4. Everton - 1995. Villa 96. West Ham and Newcastle last won in black and white.


People make a big song and dance about stadium revenue. Proportionately, how much of Spurs' total income comes from the stadium?
Vs TV, CL, sponsor, stadium name etc. I bet it's small. It might be bigger than other teams, but as a proportion of the overall income, what is it?
Click to expand...
We have managed the building and financing of our stadium much better than Woolwich. But they were a FAR bigger club than us moving in. It pains me to say that because I hate it but it’s true.

In the decade before they moved into the Emirates they won 4 fa cups and 3 league titles. We’ve only ever won 2 league titles in our history and even if you include the league cup you have to go back to 1982 for us to have won 4 cups.

Fuck Woolwich. We are a bigger club than them now and it feels great but we had a LONG way to come to get to where we are now.

You keep talking about money spent like TRANSFER fees are the only thing that matters. Comparison with Villa? In 2020 we spent 60m more on wages than they did. Having spent the previous decade building a billion pound stadium. That gap will have risen massively as we have signed people like Perisic on big wages for low or no fees.

I am not, and have never been, jealous of Villa, Leicester, Everton, West Ham etc etc. These are top half clubs (mostly) but we have been building world class facilities to become a big time team. These clubs are limited in revenue streams and will be limited in results.

Your point about stadium revenue being a small part of overall revenue is correct but what counts is the delta against our competitors. If we’re bringing in 60/70/80m more every year from the stadium then that is a Richarlison we can buy more than them every single year.
 
LeParisien said:
We have managed the building and financing of our stadium much better than Woolwich. But they were a FAR bigger club than us moving in. It pains me to say that because I hate it but it’s true.

In the decade before they moved into the Emirates they won 4 fa cups and 3 league titles. We’ve only ever won 2 league titles in our history and even if you include the league cup you have to go back to 1982 for us to have won 4 cups.

Fuck Woolwich. We are a bigger club than them now and it feels great but we had a LONG way to come to get to where we are now.

You keep talking about money spent like TRANSFER fees are the only thing that matters. Comparison with Villa? In 2020 we spent 60m more on wages than they did. Having spent the previous decade building a billion pound stadium. That gap will have risen massively as we have signed people like Perisic on big wages for low or no fees.

I am not, and have never been, jealous of Villa, Leicester, Everton, West Ham etc etc. These are top half clubs (mostly) but we have been building world class facilities to become a big time team. These clubs are limited in revenue streams and will be limited in results.

Your point about stadium revenue being a small part of overall revenue is correct but what counts is the delta against our competitors. If we’re bringing in 60/70/80m more every year from the stadium then that is a Richarlison we can buy more than them every single year.
Click to expand...

Excited Season 2 GIF by The Office
 
Matt1882 said:
Fact - Woolwich didn't move into their stadium until 2006 and once they did, were supposed to be crippled until it was paid for.
Fact - they compete in the same league as us. How did they bring in more money with a similar stadium pre 2006? By being in the champions league.
Fact - they got in the champions league by getting a good coach and consistently backing him. Every year. They gave him complete control and an open cheque book. This happened after they finished behind us (in the sugar era)
Fact - City didn't win the lotto until 2008 and didn't really really spend until 2009, hence why I said "the majority of the 00's" - 9 years out of 10 is factually "the majority"

There is no denying we have barely outspent, and in some cases have been outspent by, teams like West Ham, Newcastle, Villa, Everton. Over that 2 year period we're ahead of them but there are times when they have outspent us.

What is interesting is that none of them have won a fucking thing, so money isn't the only key.
Our 13 year baron run is nothing compared to those 4. Everton - 1995. Villa 96. West Ham and Newcastle last won in black and white.


People make a big song and dance about stadium revenue. Proportionately, how much of Spurs' total income comes from the stadium?
Vs TV, CL, sponsor, stadium name etc. I bet it's small. It might be bigger than other teams, but as a proportion of the overall income, what is it?
Click to expand...
Revenue from WHL was about £30-35 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. The new stadium revenue is easily going to be £100-120 million when the numbers are published. And that's not including NFL, concerts/etc, and naming rights. So we could see the stadium generating revenues of £150+ million and that's probably a conservative number. Subtract the financing expense, which is around £30 million annually and you're looking at a minimum £85-90 million increase. That is quite significant.

Additionally, the club has made other moves to expand the brand appeal of Spurs, which will result in increased commercial revenue. And the stadium does play into the brand appeal to a certain extent.

So yeah, post new stadium we are in a much better position to compete with the big boys.
 
LeParisien said:
Your entire platform is that we need to spend big on transfer fees and now you’re not happy that we can buy a 60m player more than the riff raff every single year ?

You joker.
Click to expand...

We don't spend a Richarlison more than our competitors every season. When all in's and outs are done I'll be surprised if we've spent more than 50 million net.

(Oh and Richarlison is a decent signing, but if he's the 'bar' for showing ambition then eeek)
 
Raumdeuterz said:
We don't spend a Richarlison more than our competitors every season. When all in's and outs are done I'll be surprised if we've spent more than 50 million net.

(Oh and Richarlison is a decent signing, but if he's the 'bar' for showing ambition then eeek)
Click to expand...
He’s not. Read what’s written.

The additional revenue generated by the stadium allows us to compete against other PL clubs because unlike other revenue streams, the stadium represents a big delta.

The player is irrelevant. The relevant part is the benefit of having more money from the stadium which was being questioned by Matt.

These streams are only just starting to come in, remember.
 
LeParisien said:
He’s not. Read what’s written.

The additional revenue generated by the stadium allows us to compete against other PL clubs because unlike other revenue streams, the stadium represents a big delta.

The player is irrelevant. The relevant part is the benefit of having more money from the stadium which was being questioned by Matt.

These streams are only just starting to come in, remember.
Click to expand...

Yeah, believe it when I see it.
 
LeParisien said:
He’s not. Read what’s written.

The additional revenue generated by the stadium allows us to compete against other PL clubs because unlike other revenue streams, the stadium represents a big delta.

The player is irrelevant. The relevant part is the benefit of having more money from the stadium which was being questioned by Matt.

These streams are only just starting to come in, remember.
Click to expand...

Another winning post
 
LeParisien said:
We have managed the building and financing of our stadium much better than Woolwich. But they were a FAR bigger club than us moving in. It pains me to say that because I hate it but it’s true.

In the decade before they moved into the Emirates they won 4 fa cups and 3 league titles. We’ve only ever won 2 league titles in our history and even if you include the league cup you have to go back to 1982 for us to have won 4 cups.

Fuck Woolwich. We are a bigger club than them now and it feels great but we had a LONG way to come to get to where we are now.

You keep talking about money spent like TRANSFER fees are the only thing that matters. Comparison with Villa? In 2020 we spent 60m more on wages than they did. Having spent the previous decade building a billion pound stadium. That gap will have risen massively as we have signed people like Perisic on big wages for low or no fees.

I am not, and have never been, jealous of Villa, Leicester, Everton, West Ham etc etc. These are top half clubs (mostly) but we have been building world class facilities to become a big time team. These clubs are limited in revenue streams and will be limited in results.

Your point about stadium revenue being a small part of overall revenue is correct but what counts is the delta against our competitors. If we’re bringing in 60/70/80m more every year from the stadium then that is a Richarlison we can buy more than them every single year.
Click to expand...

I think Spurs and Arse were on a par in 1996. Woolwich had their hey day. Graham was sacked for fiddles. They occupied a similarly old, small stadium. They pushed on when they hired Wenger. He transformed the club and did it because he was allowed to. Until now, no coach has ever been allowed to do what they want. Let's hope this is our (hate to say this) Wenger moment. We we have our hands on a truly world class coach and we let him change the club forever.

Get in! said:
Revenue from WHL was about £30-35 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. The new stadium revenue is easily going to be £100-120 million when the numbers are published. And that's not including NFL, concerts/etc, and naming rights. So we could see the stadium generating revenues of £150+ million and that's probably a conservative number. Subtract the financing expense, which is around £30 million annually and you're looking at a minimum £85-90 million increase. That is quite significant.

Additionally, the club has made other moves to expand the brand appeal of Spurs, which will result in increased commercial revenue. And the stadium does play into the brand appeal to a certain extent.

So yeah, post new stadium we are in a much better position to compete with the big boys.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no dispute the stadium makes a difference. Not just financially, top players will be turned on by it. Something that was unlikely in the old ground when given the choices available at the time.
I reckon it'll make some money this season because we're all gonna drink the place dry celebrating our quadruple.
 
Eriksen to UTD hurts.

I get the arguments against and, as appears to be the case, his wage demands might be too much, but he’s an excellent football player who was one of the main reasons we were such a good team under Poch.

I also worry that he’s just the sort of intelligent, hardworking midfielder that will help the idiots control football games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom