You’d think even Levy and the board would understand the opportunity of that 5th place
-
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...
Management ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Another PR beating.
In the context of a pre season friendly, relegated Leicester already won.
Really glad Levy and Cullen went on tour, they are doing such a great job
Hit Nail, In Coffin!!!
That spend figure is very much skewed, ours is only artificially very high because in the last 4 years we've had this inability to sell deadwood and the bad purchases either due to poor recruitment or players not suited for the speedy revolving door of managers. Thats the real crux of the matter, we are not the happy easy big spenders making it rain
like the infographic suggests.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last edited:
Hit Nail, On Coffin!!!
That spend figure is very much skewed, ours is only artificially really high because in the last 4 years we've got this inability to sell deadwood and bad purchases either due to poor recruitment or players not suited the speedy revolving door of managers. Thats the real crux of the matter, we are not the happy easy big spenders making it rain
>>>>
In a nutshell, this.
Other than the factors you mentioned, its also indicative of a shit academy. Chelsea are lower on the net spend list because they've been able to sell the likes of Tomori or Abraham. Now RLC and probably Gallagher. Liverpool fleeced teams for Ibe and Solanke etc etc.
Look at how close Newcastle are to us already. That's a direct example of a team with a shit academy and no money from sales because they have zero assets. We produce little talent & sign players who nobody wants. Oh and Levy is the most overrated 'master negotiator' in history, unless you're a Gareth Bale he has no idea how to maximise cash from sales. Massively overprices assets till eventually caving for next to nothing or cancelling a contract ala Doherty.
So yeah, high net spend. Because we're poorly ran as a football club. It's not something to boast about nor is it indicative of "ambition" or whatever. If Chelsea or City didn't have sellable assets their net spend would obviously fucking dwarf ours.
Posters trying to argue that our net spend is false because we can't sell players and not realising that that makes our spending even more impressive as we have no sales to compensate our spending.
The copium is nuts.
Our academy has been in free fall since John McDermot left and we all know Jose and Conte are not interested in the academy side of things really, that has not and never will be their focus but that is a known factor before hiring them so not a direct criticism.
Last edited:
Posters trying to argue that our net spend is false because we can't sell players and not realising that that makes our spending even more impressive as we have no sales to compensate our spending.
Yeh OK .... hmmmmm golden rule is
Posters trying to argue that our net spend is false because we can't sell players and not realising that that makes our spending even more impressive as we have no sales to compensate our spending.
What part of having to spend because we’re so incompetently ran that we produce/sign zero sellable assets is impressive? It’s the exact opposite.
Our total spend will be much lower down the list as other top clubs are ran properly so sign less crap and produce more talent. Our net spend is high because..
Levy is incompetent. Watch us lose Kane for free because of his planetary sized ego. Meanwhile Chelsea got circa 120m for Hazard in his last year.
Most overrated ‘negotiator’ in world football. We regularly have our pants pulled down for signings and almost never get good fees for our players.
Our spend is a reflection of incompetence, NOT AMBITION.
Solanke came through the Chelsea academy. But your point stands, our academy is shite. Really think we should be hiring the best quality senior manager to run our academy sides. And he should be paid pretty much on a par with AP too.
There’s a few in there now who seem promising. But we seem to manage them poorly when they hit the point when they’re too big for academy football so we’ll see if that changes.
That & signing rubbish who we then can’t offload basically mean our hand is forced in terms of net spend.
Yep. Doesn’t come down to spending as we spend plenty. Just spend it in the wrong places.
It shows our spending power but also highlights the fractured operational aspect of the football operation. Levy and his megalomaniacal approach have cost us tens of millions every window - we can’t sell players due to him (directly or indirectly). If we had moved on players sooner for realistic fees, we may have had more funds to buy better rather than the second tierPosters trying to argue that our net spend is false because we can't sell players and not realising that that makes our spending even more impressive as we have no sales to compensate our spending.
I mean the thing is, in the new FFP era, that swollen net spend resulting from the total collapse of outgoing sale value is a problem and a product of the same incompetence that the negative net spend of the prior five year period reflected.
Sorry that sounds like a convenient "Levy sucks when X happens, then Levy sucks when the opposite happens", but it's the truth.
We need to be much better at selling players. A bit of promise on that front this summer, get those deals done.
That's a completely different argument as
DeadlyDefoe
is obviously too thick to understand.Saying that we are badly run and spend money on shite players isn't the issue.
The issue was that our net spend is artificially high due to lack of sales.
Net spend is net spend, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
Example;
Nobody will say (quite rightly) that our net spend is artificially low if we were to sell Kane for £150m.
It's bollocks.
I agree with that but that wasn't what was being put forward.
See my post above.
Posters trying to argue that our net spend is false because we can't sell players and not realising that that makes our spending even more impressive as we have no sales to compensate our spending.
Net spend is high because we are shit at transfers in and out.
If we bought better players we’d be better able to sell players because clubs would want them and the Net spend would go down.
Net spend doesn’t show ambition in terms of buying players.
Liverpool had a very low. net spend but still had the ambition to go after Virgil, Allison, then won things.
Was t there transfer dealings more or less ambitious than Levy?
It’s impressive really. How far you can go along intentionally losing an argument.
