What Villa have done IS reckless...... 92% wagebill BEFORE Rashford!!!
They don't even have a fit senior striker now.
(Rashford says he doesn't want to play CF)
Yes but that isnt what I'm asking of us.
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...
What Villa have done IS reckless...... 92% wagebill BEFORE Rashford!!!
They don't even have a fit senior striker now.
(Rashford says he doesn't want to play CF)
"Wish our owners had their their levels of riskiness."
You literally did though... Hence my replies.
Not with running their level of wages, just their willingness to risk a bit of ambition.
It's all getting a bit mealy here mate......
You said the same "level"......................If not their spending, what other aspects of high level risk-taking are you alluding to then?
That depends on the specifics of the clause - the main point is that the selling club have no choice, if we trigger the option to buy then they have to accept at the pre-agreed price. Yes it is possible - in my opinion likely in this instance - that the player himself may have a clause whereby he can reject the permanent move in the summer, but that's completely different to what was being said by the poster I was quoting - he was saying that even with a buy option, the selling club can still refuse to sell - which is just obviously nonsense.I agree but isn’t it up to the player at the end of the day ?
I don’t know how it works but if we have an option to buy & the player doesn’t want to then what happens ?
Do you think we could operate in the transfer market a bit more freely, with a bit more risk given our PSR headroom?
Yes, is the answer, we could. But we chose not to.
You said you wanted to take the same "level" of risk as Villa.
"Wish our owners had their their levels of riskiness."
If you'd merely said "I'd like us to spend a bit more" you'd have had no arguments.... But you didn't.
Marmoush, 25 years old, established top class player from a top league, 80m. It happens.
Got you to help waste my time while I was waiting for my train though didnt it? Cheers
Maybe these guys will all develop and we have to eat our words. I dunno.
View: https://x.com/RisingStarXI/status/1886731544846586225
Haven't FIFA put a ruling in that wage to income ration has to be brought down to 70% by something like 2027?They've certainly been playing funny buggers with other clubs to all get round PSR but that wage bill... That's gonna sting at some point.
That depends on the specifics of the clause - the main point is that the selling club have no choice, if we trigger the option to buy then they have to accept at the pre-agreed price. Yes it is possible - in my opinion likely in this instance - that the player himself may have a clause whereby he can reject the permanent move in the summer, but that's completely different to what was being said by the poster I was quoting - he was saying that even with a buy option, the selling club can still refuse to sell - which is just obviously nonsense.
Not sure what you're having a go at me for, you asked me a question and I answered it as best I could. I agree with you - I have no idea what 'officially' happens if a 'buy' clause is executed and the player doesn't want to stay but has no clause to veto it, that would be a strange situation I agree, and presumably then the buying club would pull out, I agree they wouldn't want a player who didn't want to be there. I know it's 'pretty bloody obvious' that the selling club has to sell if the buy clause is exercised - that why I said the original poster's comments were nonsense. Absolutely no idea why you're having a go at me, but hey ho, takes all sorts I guess. :/I wasn’t asking about the selling club as it’s pretty bloody obvious if they allowed an option to buy then they’ve already agreed to it
If you’ve have read my reply toShadydan you’d know that I was saying at the end of the day it’s up to the player . No option to buy would be compulsory as you could end up with a player who simply wouldn’t play .
Not sure what you're having a go at me for, you asked me a question and I answered it as best I could. I agree with you - I have no idea what 'officially' happens if a 'buy' clause is executed and the player doesn't want to stay but has no clause to veto it, that would be a strange situation I agree, and presumably then the buying club would pull out, I agree they wouldn't want a player who didn't want to be there. I know it's 'pretty bloody obvious' that the selling club has to sell if the buy clause is exercised - that why I said the original poster's comments were nonsense. Absolutely no idea why you're having a go at me, but hey ho, takes all sorts I guess. :/

Djed is sooooooo much better than Porro & Udogie combined. If Ange leaves him on the bench again, he really is a clueless git and deserves to get fired...though to be fair we already know he is and does.Not a chance Spence is left out again. He has been one of our best players in the last month.