Quality is subjective but when you’re talking about 20-70m signings then I think we can say we’re talking about quality. So far we’re being linked with 50m+ signings
Being
linked with doesn't mean shit. There are countless experiences with us being linked with top players only to end up with dross, discounted alternatives. We are a club that consistently ends up signing players that do not match the quality of what we are linked with nor need. I can give you tens of examples.
The milk went sour with talk of us building a new stadium to finance ambitious signings long ago. If you're the kind to think prioritising three 18 year olds and panic buying Solanke in August is that, then good luck, drink it in - according to sky news as of writing this, official talks haven't even begun contrary to a lot of what has been posted on here.
since that transfer window (as the stadium was nearing completion), we have spent very well. In the past five transfer windows we have been too 4 for net spend and we are likely to be again this summer.
Do you think a became a spurs fan in 2018, fell into a coma and then woke up last week? You're still arguing with a ghost. Because you dodged my original question you continue to assume I'm talking about whether we spend on principle as opposed to
what we spend on. I'll quote you for a 3rd time on the sole point I have been trying to make: you questioned concern that we'll get "
couple of quality" signings. I only used 2018 as an example that this club is more than capable of incompetence with signing quality to the comedic extreme of not buying anyone at all but you were too triggered by a four digit number to allow that to transpire and immediately went into "net spend" mode. To entertain your 2018 obsession, no, you'll not have me believe that Spurs are the only club to build a new stadium in the history of football so that justifies not spending a penny on the squad. You seem to love mentioning "evidence" so I think you'll find we actually set a precedent (at least in the EPL). It's poor financial planning at best. Regardless, I not trying to get bogged down in a financial debate about something that happened 6 years ago.
For someone who thinks I'm caught up on 2018, you haven't moved your argument past this date even after repeatedly being told that that wasn't even the original point.