• 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!

Transfers January 2020 transfer thread

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
hrytn said:
We didn't spend £140m this summer. Locelso is on loan. Levy has net spend spreadsheet in his office trophy cabinet and back up copy in his bedroom. He sold number of players to maintain £40m or so net spend this summer.
2018/19 £0 spent, -£10 minus net spend.

Fulham and Villa wanted around £30m for Sess and Grealish summer 2018, Levy offered much less as per usual and was no deal, Grealish is very good player in a poor Villa team and Sess was signed a season late for £30m and injured. What sort a chairman would do such poor deals! To add, NJK, Njie, Vincent.... all sold for loss
Grealish wanted the move at the time but dl's offer was a disgrace, app £15m v £30m. There could have been a deal for aroudn £25m and we would have had a decent player in our starting XI, And no need to break transfer record on Ndonmbele and would have spent the £60 or even less on a decent centre half or a RB which we are desperate for.

It's naive to blame the stadium. Look at the profit for previous seasons and the money in the PL nowadays which is much more when woolwich built their stadium plus they already had decent squad winning trophies that managed a season or two without gsignings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unfortunately some sections of the supporter base will make excuses for the poor recruitment that has blighted us recently the club has known for a decade that a new stadium was planned so it didn't come as a surprise.
Levy himself said recently they could have spent more money but chose not to as there was no guarantee of any success ( see city or Liverpool for proof that success can happen when quality is brought in), so who at the club is making these bad executive decisions with player recruitment and why can't we find the recipe for success when others can.
 
hrytn said:
We didn't spend £140m this summer. Locelso is on loan. Levy has net spend spreadsheet in his office trophy cabinet and back up copy in his bedroom. He sold number of players to maintain £40m or so net spend this summer.
2018/19 £0 spent, -£10 minus net spend.

Fulham and Villa wanted around £30m for Sess and Grealish summer 2018, Levy offered much less as per usual and was no deal, Grealish is very good player in a poor Villa team and Sess was signed a season late for £30m and injured. What sort a chairman would do such poor deals! To add, NJK, Njie, Vincent.... all sold for loss
Grealish wanted the move at the time but dl's offer was a disgrace, app £15m v £30m. There could have been a deal for aroudn £25m and we would have had a decent player in our starting XI, And no need to break transfer record on Ndonmbele and would have spent the £60 or even less on a decent centre half or a RB which we are desperate for.

It's naive to blame the stadium. Look at the profit for previous seasons and the money in the PL nowadays which is much more when woolwich built their stadium plus they already had decent squad winning trophies that managed a season or two without signings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you read the Birmingham press about the Grealish affair, the story is that s deal had been agreed to buy Grealish with the then owner of Aston Villa, and indeed Grealish is quoted by Birmingham press as having said goodbye to his mates there.

Birmingham press all expected Grealish sale to Spurs to go through.

However the new owner of Aston Villa, completed the purchase of Aston Villa in probably half the time that anyone expected, took ownership about a week or so before TW deadline and stopped the Grealish sale.

His rationale was that Grealish was fundamental to Villa getting to PL and despite villa having recruited Grealish successor John McGinn, that the new owners bet was PL was worth £100m or so to Villa and despite possible FFP issues , Grealish must stay.

The new Villa owner made the right call as Villa now in PL - and despite missing out on Spurs £25m - 30m offer are clearly better off.

Nothing Spurs could have done differently to sign Grealish.
 
Spursidol said:
If you read the Birmingham press about the Grealish affair, the story is that s deal had been agreed to buy Grealish with the then owner of Aston Villa, and indeed Grealish is quoted by Birmingham press as having said goodbye to his mates there.

Birmingham press all expected Grealish sale to Spurs to go through.

However the new owner of Aston Villa, completed the purchase of Aston Villa in probably half the time that anyone expected, took ownership about a week or so before TW deadline and stopped the Grealish sale.

His rationale was that Grealish was fundamental to Villa getting to PL and despite villa having recruited Grealish successor John McGinn, that the new owners bet was PL was worth £100m or so to Villa and despite possible FFP issues , Grealish must stay.

The new Villa owner made the right call as Villa now in PL - and despite missing out on Spurs £25m - 30m offer are clearly better off.

Nothing Spurs could have done differently to sign Grealish.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Glad we didn't get Grealish. That said, I think we almost bored them to death with our haggling.
 
Spursidol said:
If you read the Birmingham press about the Grealish affair, the story is that s deal had been agreed to buy Grealish with the then owner of Aston Villa, and indeed Grealish is quoted by Birmingham press as having said goodbye to his mates there.

Birmingham press all expected Grealish sale to Spurs to go through.

However the new owner of Aston Villa, completed the purchase of Aston Villa in probably half the time that anyone expected, took ownership about a week or so before TW deadline and stopped the Grealish sale.

His rationale was that Grealish was fundamental to Villa getting to PL and despite villa having recruited Grealish successor John McGinn, that the new owners bet was PL was worth £100m or so to Villa and despite possible FFP issues , Grealish must stay.

The new Villa owner made the right call as Villa now in PL - and despite missing out on Spurs £25m - 30m offer are clearly better off.

Nothing Spurs could have done differently to sign Grealish.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No.
Grealish was available for £30m or so and a deal could have been snatched if dl made a reasonable offer, dithering and haggling is taking us no where. The deal was there to be done well before the take over. I just said above, it took us over s season to sign Sess, what's the point of delaying and dithering then paying same money and the player is not ready to start games! We missed on many good players by doing so and ended up with the likes of Njie, Nkoudo and Vincent.
Look at man city, liverpool and other clubs, they sign players and they are in the starting XI with weeks. Why can't we do the same!
 
hrytn said:
We didn't spend £140m this summer. Locelso is on loan. Levy has net spend spreadsheet in his office trophy cabinet and back up copy in his bedroom. He sold number of players to maintain £40m or so net spend this summer.
2018/19 £0 spent, -£10 minus net spend.

Fulham and Villa wanted around £30m for Sess and Grealish summer 2018, Levy offered much less as per usual and was no deal, Grealish is very good player in a poor Villa team and Sess was signed a season late for £30m and injured. What sort a chairman would do such poor deals! To add, NJK, Njie, Vincent.... all sold for loss
Grealish wanted the move at the time but dl's offer was a disgrace, app £15m v £30m. There could have been a deal for aroudn £25m and we would have had a decent player in our starting XI, And no need to break transfer record on Ndonmbele and would have spent the £60 or even less on a decent centre half or a RB which we are desperate for.

It's naive to blame the stadium. Look at the profit for previous seasons and the money in the PL nowadays which is much more when woolwich built their stadium plus they already had decent squad winning trophies that managed a season or two without signings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't say we spent £140m mate, I just said that we've had over £140m worth of players coming in. Grealish the summer before they wanted £45m after the takeover, that ain't happening it isn't worth doing for a championship player. Even though I like him we can't go spending that kind of dough.

We've actually paid off around £500m for the stadium and the training ground already, we have been balancing money for a fair old while, probably around a decade before we actually moved in. If people like it or not we have a huge debt that needs paying back an drew this will affect our spending, it's niajve to think it won't. Like any debt in any walk of life it will need paying off and money doesn't grow on trees mate. It cost over £1.2bn, indo care how much money is in football these days that is a mega amount which when you look at the cost of players these days needs balancing.

When did you ever think you'd see Spurs play £62m for a player? We did that this season under Poch an drew with Levy at the helm. That is a huge step and one I didn't expect to see for a while but it's however we all look at it pal. I think at a time where clubs are chucking money at players for huge amounts which leaves them with bloated squads with players they can't move on, ours doesnt look as bad as if we had been loose. For every Grealish wanted Poch also has a Berahino or a Schneiderlin that we were wise to not move for. Swings and roundabouts and all of that etc.
 
Last edited:
Spursidol said:
If you read the Birmingham press about the Grealish affair, the story is that s deal had been agreed to buy Grealish with the then owner of Aston Villa, and indeed Grealish is quoted by Birmingham press as having said goodbye to his mates there.

Birmingham press all expected Grealish sale to Spurs to go through.

However the new owner of Aston Villa, completed the purchase of Aston Villa in probably half the time that anyone expected, took ownership about a week or so before TW deadline and stopped the Grealish sale.

His rationale was that Grealish was fundamental to Villa getting to PL and despite villa having recruited Grealish successor John McGinn, that the new owners bet was PL was worth £100m or so to Villa and despite possible FFP issues , Grealish must stay.

The new Villa owner made the right call as Villa now in PL - and despite missing out on Spurs £25m - 30m offer are clearly better off.

Nothing Spurs could have done differently to sign Grealish.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We offered a deal they were willing to accept until new ownership took over, it happens. We could have offered £40m instead of the £25m for Grealish but who's to say it would have got things moving faster? For me £25m was a fair deal, it was the summer the likes of Maddison signed for Leicester for what was it £22m and that's without Norwich being on the brink like Villa were. We did everything right, it was just pig luck that something that doesn't usually happen when a team is in financial crisis like Villa were, a multi million takeover with people who have serious dough and then it was shot.

Sometimes you can make all the correct moves and something just doesn't allow it to be.
 
Park Lane Mark Twain said:
I didn't say we spent £140m mate, I just said that we've had over £140m worth of players coming in. Grealish the summer before they wanted £45m after the takeover, that ain't happening it isn't worth doing for a championship player. Even though I like him we can't go spending that kind of dough.

We e actually paid off around £500m for the stadium an drew training ground already, we have been balancing money for a fair old while, probably around a decade before we actually moved in. If people like it or not we have a huge debt that needs paying back an drew this will affect our spending, it's niajve to think it won't. Like any debt in any walk of life it will need paying off and money doesn't grow on trees mate. It cost over £1.2bn, indo care how much money is in football these days that is a mega amount which when you look at the cost of players these days needs balancing.

When did you ever think you'd see Spurs play £62m for a player? We did that this season under Poch an drew with Levy at the helm. That is a huge step and one I didn't expect to see for a while but it's however we all look at it pal. I think at a time where clubs are chucking money at players for huge amounts which leaves them with bloated squads with players they can't move on, ours doesnt look as bad as if we had been loose. For every Grealish wanted Poch also has a Berahino or a Schneiderlin that we were wise to not move for. Swings and roundabouts and all of that etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have different opinions but we share empty trophy cabinet.
 
hrytn said:
No.
Grealish was available for £30m or so and a deal could have been snatched if dl made a reasonable offer, dithering and haggling is taking us no where. The deal was there to be done well before the take over. I just said above, it took us over s season to sign Sess, what's the point of delaying and dithering then paying same money and the player is not ready to start games! We missed on many good players by doing so and ended up with the likes of Njie, Nkoudo and Vincent.
Look at man city, liverpool and other clubs, they sign players and they are in the starting XI with weeks. Why can't we do the same!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Please read the Birmingham Mail extensive coverage of the transfer, they have the inside track of everything going on at Vilka

Villa had made a deal with Spurs, but the new owner would not let Grealish leave.

Villa took a rsk to get to the PL to gain £100m+ rather than aceept money for Grealish.

Re Sessegnon ,nobody was going to pay the £50m demanded, That's why Sessegnon was not bought a year ago. Very unfortunate Sess injured with E u21' in June but Spurs decided to buy him still - he loses 3 months of the start of this season but he's here for 5 years.

Liverpool are no different - they signed Keira and let him out on loan for a year. Hasn't pulled up tress for them. They beat us to the signature of Danny Ings - he's hardly played for them so loaned out. Only difference is they have bought better than us over last 5 years - we have signed 2 excellent players in Son and Dele but been unlucky with the likes of Wanyama, Alderweireld (attitude/contract re signing) etc, whereas Liverpool have had more hits than us.They've had the rub of the green, we haven't. Nothing to do with delays in signing.
 
Park Lane Mark Twain said:
We offered a deal they were willing to accept until new ownership took over, it happens. We could have offered £40m instead of the £25m for Grealish but who's to say it would have got things moving faster? For me £25m was a fair deal, it was the summer the likes of Maddison signed for Leicester for what was it £22m and that's without Norwich being on the brink like Villa were. We did everything right, it was just pig luck that something that doesn't usually happen when a team is in financial crisis like Villa were, a multi million takeover with people who have serious dough and then it was shot.

Sometimes you can make all the correct moves and something just doesn't allow it to be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Original deal for Grealish agreed with old owner, but in order to sell club old owner agreed with new owner as part of negotiations not to complete on any deal ifnew owner completed before TW.

New owner, instead of taking a couple of months to complete as expected took a couple of weeks to complete, and said Grealish no longer for sale, I want him to lead us to PL.'

Big gamble which has paid off for new owner. Nothing Spurs could do - new owners simply completed many weeks before it was expected they could do
 
Spursidol said:
Original deal for Grealish agreed with old owner, but in order to sell club old owner agreed with new owner as part of negotiations not to complete on any deal ifnew owner completed before TW.

New owner, instead of taking a couple of months to complete as expected took a couple of weeks to complete, and said Grealish no longer for sale, I want him to lead us to PL.'

Big gamble which has paid off for new owner. Nothing Spurs could do - new owners simply completed many weeks before it was expected they could do
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're right. It took us a long time to agree a price of £25m. We thought we had them over a barrel because of their financial problems, so we lowballed the hell out of them.
 
Five said:
You're right. It took us a long time to agree a price of £25m. We thought we had them over a barrel because of their financial problems, so we lowballed the hell out of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That wasn't our problem.

It's very standard when a business is being sold for The offer to buy to include a clause saying no asset (player) will be sold during negotiations.

Spurs expectation (as indeed with everyone else) was that the deal would take several months to complete instead it was completed in weeks, and then the new owner shocked everyone by saying Grealish wasnt leaving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top