• 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
harry7 said:
Kane was irreplaceable. Best striker in the World. No top strikers would consider joining Spurs, especially in a market where United, Chelsea, Woolwich, City, PSG are shopping for strikers. We were always left with slim pickings of journeymen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thats because the club choose to operate levels below the clubs you mention. Even though we have the location and resources to compete....While paying higher boardroom salaries than the lot.

At least people like yourself are now acknowledging we were blatantly lied to when the club told us the new arena was pivotal to allow us to compete for elite players and elite titles
 
Art Vandelay said:
Take out 100m of spending which is roughly what we got for him. Still the most backed Spurs manager in history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sort of. In pure transfer fees, sure.

In terms of quality? I'm not sure. It's also hard to compare now to the 90s or early 2000s. For example, Ossie Ardiles was backed with the signing of one of the best strikers in world football in 1994 on top of a couple of other exciting signings that summer. We'd never even attempt a transfer like that these days.

You could say AVB got the "magnificent seven" for £100m in one summer. £100m is much different to now, allowing for inflation we'll never do that again under Levy.

It's absolutely inarguable that the most backed manager in Spurs history is still tussling with a wage budget matching West Ham.

He is underpeforming the budget he's been given, absolutely. That budget is still not competitive for Top 4 or honours.
 
John Thomas said:
Should never have even made the interview stage if we're being serious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They are reactive. Always have been. They probably looked at Woolwich and thought Arteta had no managerial experience at all and they stuck with him and look at them. So in their minds they were in theory all in. Trouble is they appointed a complete bluffer, a bloke that travels around with no coaching team who comes across as an amateur and they dont have the first clue what to do. Its this decades version of Wenger/Gross. Thankfully Arteta isnt Wenger.

Its just another terrible appointment and terrible decision not to sack him earlier to add to the ever growing list of incompetence.
 
JimothyCF14 said:
That budget is still not competitive for Top 4 or honours.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've spent nearly 1bn euros in 6 years and our wages of 105m is only 20m less than what Liverpool lead the league with.
The wages argument is a red herring, no point increasing the wage bill if you're not attracting a higher standard of footballer.

Doing precisely that is what United are plagued with. Casemiro, Antony, Holjund, Martinez, Rashford. etc. etc.
This club is unlikely to convince a higher standard of footballer to pick us over Liverpool, Woolwich, Chelsea etc. Let alone the giant clubs on the continent.
 
Art Vandelay said:
We've spent nearly 1bn euros in 6 years and our wages of 105m is only 20m less than what Liverpool lead the league with.
The wages argument is a red herring, no point increasing the wage bill if you're not attracting a higher standard of footballer.

Doing precisely that is what United are plagued with. Casemiro, Antony, Holjund, Martinez, Rashford. etc. etc.
This club is unlikely to convince a higher standard of footballer to pick us over Liverpool, Woolwich, Chelsea etc. Let alone the giant clubs on the continent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Chicken and egg. We won't attract a higher standard of footballer without increasing the wage bill.

We've spent a lot of money poorly, but that's a problem which predates Ange. Lo Celso, N'dombele, most of the "magnificent 7", Gil, Royal, Richarlison (I love him but he's not lived up to his price), Sess. We continually cough up big money and get little to nothing back. This is systemic.

We've also spent a lot of money on teenagers who aren't going to peak for years. Let's face it, everyone including Ange knows that he won't be here when the likes of Gray and Bergvall peak a few years down the line. They're not signings for now they're signings for later. Is that really backing Ange? Unless Ange himself decided we should be prioristing the next generation for the next manager over what we need now then he's been shafted.

Look, I don't think Ange is performing all that well but I just do not accept he's been set up for anything but failure.
 
Art Vandelay said:
I understand that the one accusation that cannot be levelled at Levy is that he hasn't backed Ange.
That argument no matter how its presented I will not accept.

That we've spent our money extremely poorly. In full agreement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well we don't know what Ange wanted so saying that he was backed is a non starter argument.

All well and good pointing at money spent but that doesn't tell the whole story.

If you acknowledge that we've spent extremely poorly then I'm struggling to work out how you think he's been backed in that sense. For the record this isn't me saying that he has done well with the resources he's been given, I think he could have done better this season with what's he's had at his disposal however I think the backing thing definitely needs context and the money he has had to spend just ignores the whole Kane thing who happened to be holding our team together in the last few years.
 
Shadydan said:
Well we don't know what Ange wanted so saying that he was backed is a non starter argument.

All well and good pointing at money spent but that doesn't tell the whole story.

If you acknowledge that we've spent extremely poorly then I'm struggling to work out how you think he's been backed in that sense. For the record this isn't me saying that he has done well with the resources he's been given, I think he could have done better this season with what's he's had at his disposal however I think the backing thing definitely needs context and the money he has had to spend just ignores the whole Kane thing who happened to be holding our team together in the last few years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're talking about a business where trading players at the top flight level is almost exclusively a 7 digit or higher transaction.

Value is something that is judged afterwards, but outlay is something judged in real time. So circa 2015 there'd have been people stating we didn't back Poch and using the 4m spent on Dier and 5m on Alli as evidence that we went the cheap option. But both were good servants of the club. While at a later point we spent a fortune on Ndombele.

So you can't IMO discredit the amount of money spent in relation to whether we're 'backing a manager' after finding out what those players are like. That doesn't make some of the money come back to us. It's spent. It's gone.

Lots of things in football are subjective and open to opinion. Objectively and factually we have the highest net spend in the premier league during Ange's tenure, and are the 4th biggest spenders in net terms since our first window in the new stadium (19-20). Chelsea, Woolwich and United having spent more.
 
JimothyCF14 said:
But all that says he greenlit Gray and Bergvall (and Solanke) He can still have greenlit those players without expecting that to be it.

Our problems with poor recruitment do predate Ange and they'll still exist when the next poor sod has the job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't disagree on the last sentence. We seem to have some of the worst recruiting in the whole division.

I just cannot justify the rhetoric that its not enough when a manager has received over 400m in signings in 3 windows. If what's needed to get to the top is significantly more than this, then football is broken. In many ways it is broken far beyond the narrow context of THFC.

But the reality is that we are where we are because we're not spending money every summer to build on the last. Like Liverpool have been doing under Klopp/Slot and Woolwich under Arteta. We pivot and sack a manager and then spend 100-150m buying players to replace the players the new manager doesn't like. Then sack that manager within 18 months and repeat the process. We have to break the cycle somehow.

And after 5 years we've spent a shitload, not fixed many of the holes in the squad and just repeatedly recycled players depending on what manager we have. IF we picked a manager and stuck with him, and spent the money year on year finding players they want, then slowly building a squad that has fewer holes each window we'd start progressing.

But we'll sack Ange soon and will be repeating this process again when ______ doesn't like some of Ange's players.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Objectively and factually we have the highest net spend in the premier league during Ange's tenure, and are the 4th biggest spenders in net terms since our first window in the new stadium (19-20). Chelsea, Woolwich and United having spent more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But we don't pay the wages to attract the best players. And when we do get someone decent such as Berbatov, Modric, Bale, they want to leave.
 
Art Vandelay said:
We're talking about a business where trading players at the top flight level is almost exclusively a 7 digit or higher transaction.

Value is something that is judged afterwards, but outlay is something judged in real time. So circa 2015 there'd have been people stating we didn't back Poch and using the 4m spent on Dier and 5m on Alli as evidence that we went the cheap option. But both were good servants of the club. While at a later point we spent a fortune on Ndombele.

So you can't IMO discredit the amount of money spent in relation to whether we're 'backing a manager' after finding out what those players are like. That doesn't make some of the money come back to us. It's spent. It's gone.

Lots of things in football are subjective and open to opinion. Objectively and factually we have the highest net spend in the premier league during Ange's tenure, and are the 4th biggest spenders in net terms since our first window in the new stadium (19-20). Chelsea, Woolwich and United having spent more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Since Ange has been around Summer 2023 this club have spent more than Woolwich have in that time but you wouldn't say that Ange has been backed more than Arteta in that time would you?

This is my point really, I'm not discrediting numbers, I'm merely adding context, you just need to be careful with this argument that's all i'm saying.
 
McCOYS said:
But we don't pay the wages to attract the best players. And when we do get someone decent such as Berbatov, Modric, Bale, they want to leave.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's say Ange is hellbent on Kimmich as an example. Contract winding down etc.
We offer a massive sign on bonus and Levy agrees to 300k p/w basic wages. Anyone here think he'd come here?

You can substitute his name with many other top line players and ask the same question if you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top