• 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!

Management ENIC

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

ENIC In or ENIC Out

  • Total voters
    209
stevee said:
That's a completely different argument as DeadlyDefoe 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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey 💩 for brains, you just fucking repeated what i said and you're denigrating me out for something else which is not from me you twunt

this is what i said 👇..

" 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 "

Shea Whigham Starz GIF by Gaslit
 
Last edited:
Richard Arlison said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Superb mental gymnastics here, top notch stuff.

You know when some people have been on the internet a little too long when you read nonsense like this
 
DeadlyDefoe said:
Hey 💩 for brains, you just fucking repeated what i said and you're denigrating me out for something else which is not from me you twunt

this is what i said 👇..

" 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 "

Shea Whigham Starz GIF by Gaslit
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You;

"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

Me in reply to someone else;

"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."


And I'm supposed to be the one with 💩 for brains.

:harrylol: :harrylol: :harrylol:
Comprehension obviously isn't for everyone.
 
stevee said:
You;

"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

Me in reply to someone else;

"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."


And I'm supposed to be the one with 💩 for brains.

:harrylol: :harrylol: :harrylol:
Comprehension obviously isn't for everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I ended up having to put that thicko on ignore. Really is a waste of time engaging with him.
 
Richard Arlison said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not always true. Many would have been up in arms if we tried to cash in on assets such as Son and Eriksen at their peak value.

Liverpool managed to get Virgil and Allison by selling their asset, coutinho at his peak value.

Would you have been happy to sell Eriksen earlier in his career for a huge fee?
 
dudu said:
Not always true. Many would have been up in arms if we tried to cash in on assets such as Son and Eriksen at their peak value.

Liverpool managed to get Virgil and Allison by selling their asset, coutinho at his peak value.

Would you have been happy to sell Eriksen earlier in his career for a huge fee?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Would you agree that L’pool ( who imo got lucky with how much money they got for Coutinho) did so much better with the proceeds than Levy would have done?

It wasn’t an automatic result of selling a top asset that they ended up with Allison & Virgil, instead the owners showed ambition and paid top money for them.
IMO Levy doesn’t do that and our poor recruitment, our repeated strategy has cost us. Eg we waited until the end of the transfer window (probably trying to find a bargain) and then overpaid for Sissoko £30m whereas Liverpool signed Mane for £32m & higher wages. After x number of years we sold him to Watford for £3m. Similar sad story with Walker, Man City paid us £50m and gained a fantastic player, with the money we bought Aurier for circa £25m who was patchy at best and then left on a free 4 years later.

Btw, had we signed Mane I am convinced we would have won the league title.
 
FightingIllini said:
I swear to god all of these guys are just LeParisien LeParisien alts

It's the EXACT same arguments in the EXACT same terms every single time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry if it bores you. In my few weeks on here I haven't seen anyone talk about this.

I'm sure I could trawl through your past posts and find repetitive arguments that match other posters on the forum too.

Seems as I don't know the answer, maybe you could actually respond to the post I made rather than dismissing it and being condescending.
 
MiddxSpur said:
Would you agree that L’pool ( who imo got lucky with how much money they got for Coutinho) did so much better with the proceeds than Levy would have done?

It wasn’t an automatic result of selling a top asset that they ended up with Allison & Virgil, instead the owners showed ambition and paid top money for them.
IMO Levy doesn’t do that and our poor recruitment, our repeated strategy has cost us. Eg we waited until the end of the transfer window (probably trying to find a bargain) and then overpaid for Sissoko £30m whereas Liverpool signed Mane for £32m & higher wages. After x number of years we sold him to Watford for £3m. Similar sad story with Walker, Man City paid us £50m and gained a fantastic player, with the money we bought Aurier for circa £25m who was patchy at best and then left on a free 4 years later.

Btw, had we signed Mane I am convinced we would have won the league title.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Great question. One that is hard to answer. Obviously he has gotten some purchases wrong in the past but I also think has spent money well, more often than not on players that didn't have the same kind of value as VVD and Allison.

The Bale money was spent better than many give credit for but the transfers you mentioned are obviously stand out poor buys. So were Sanchez and Ndombele but you also can't argue that those purchases weren't expensive and also decisive.

If we had sold Eriksen at his peak, it's unlikely we would have, based on our track record at that time, spent it wisely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top