• 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.
bus-conductor said:
As destined for stardom as Sissoko, Aurier, Moura and Foyth are you mean?

Is there any room in your lexicon between super stars and utter failures? Because they really don’t have to have been super stars to be useful to this spurs team, as Mason, Bentaleb, Winks, Tanganga and in his limited time, Skipp, have already proved. Hell, we’ll probably make more profit from KWP & Townsend than we will from Sissoko and neither of them were super stars.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Question for you (possibly unfairly).

Sissoko cost £30m as a 27/28 year old and after 3 years or so at Spurs is mow about 30.

Any idea as to what hois transfer value is now - think we might struggle to get our money back ?

And that is after his first two tears at Spurs were, how can I put it, not very good.

Consider Winks, only player brought through under Poch, cost is minimal as an Academy Player yet value if sold £20m- £50m ? Is that a fair range ?

So isn't it sensible to try to bring through some Academy kids as well as buying stars as the rewards are decent - and bought in stars certainly have their failure rates whether considering Janssen (imo a decent punt) or any of the others.
 
Spursidol said:
So I'd suggest the Academy, historically, not only contributed to Spurs finances (and added to a transfer fund) but also added players to the first team.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You should write legislation. It's nice how you tacked that last part on with the first part. Yes, to the funds and though most of those made it to the first team 'added' implies they were not Champo quality. They were/are and that's where most are playing.

I understand the finances but that is not what you are arguing when you are complaining about Poch. You are not saying "Poch, develop these kids so that we can move them on for money from lower level teams" is it? That's a bad faith argument. You are implying these kids should be first teamers and that is what we missed out on. If you wanna argue get them ready to sell them on then you will have no problem from me nor I imagine anyone else that's tired of hearing how good these kids are only to be left disappointed time and again.

So yes to lower level money and no to helping the first team because they are not good enough and it wasn't Poch's fault.
 
bus-conductor said:
As destined for stardom as Sissoko, Aurier, Moura and Foyth are you mean?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's keep it to the germane BC and try to keep your Sissoko-tourettes in check.

bus-conductor said:
Is there any room in your lexicon between super stars and utter failures?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First off I wasn't the one that used the term 'world beaters' and I've never said 'utter failures'. You putting words in my mouth BC? What I did say is 'Champo' because that is their level. And though you constantly told us over at SC that Carroll was the metronome we needed settle things down he is now in the champo which is his level...which is a level below the aforementioned players in the first part.

edit: And 'Champo' is "between super stars and utter failures".:troll:
 
Last edited:
bus-conductor said:
Because they really don’t have to have been super stars to be useful to this spurs team, as Mason, Bentaleb, Winks, Tanganga and in his limited time, Skipp, have already proved. Hell, we’ll probably make more profit from KWP & Townsend than we will from Sissoko and neither of them were super stars.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, this is disingenuous BC because this is not what you are arguing when we keep hearing you 'youth watchers'. What we hear is how good they are and Poch is at fault because they could be helping the first team and not how much better they can make our finances. That money issue is just a bargaining chip/argumentation hook. And stop using Bentaleb. Using him is the same as using Rose or Walker...and beyond that if he were not a c*nt he would probably still be here. And Mason wasn't good enough/wasn't going to get any playing time and Skipp cannot be used as he has proven nothing.
 
BangkokSpud said:
Why? This year we've committed 230m on new players, and you're worried about not signing a second rate back-up striker ... are you sure that worries you?

We need a quality 2nd Striker and a top quality DM nobody is denying that, but was anyone unhappy with only spending 200m (150m net) this year? ... let's hope another 150m gets spent in the summer and that plans are already underway to make that happen ... but let's at least enjoy the moment, this is a huge step forward ... or don't you think so?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doubt we spent anywhere close to that amount, but it’s just not about how much is spent these days it’s about who you can pull with the money available no matter how much or how little you have, that’s where I feel let down.
I know we aren’t going to rebuild in one window, especially January, but c’mon a blind man could see we have no alternative to Kane, and with Kane missing since Jan 1st for the rest of the season we had the good fortune to have a full 31 days to at least paper the crack.....but we didn’t, even our manager said as much.
 
All academies primary role is financial, 95% of every clubs academy players will leave, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number off academy stars that make it with their parent club ... for us currently

Tanganga - let's hope so
Skipp - barely but I have hope
Winks - jury still out
Kane

Before that players who went on to have a decent career mostly with us aren't huge in number

Stephen Carr
Ian Walker
Ledkey King
Sol Campbell
Townsend
Howells

We invest 100m in our academy of course in the 'hope' of finding a world class star or two, however primarily it is managed to convert that investment into a steady income stream as we loan and sell good, but not quite good enough players, to other clubs. It's a key part of any top clubs business model.

Young players are seeing a massive increase in value, not long ago 16 years old Vinicius Junior cost £39m, 17 years old Sergio Aguero cost £15 million, 19 years old Anthony Martial cost £36 million and today we see 100m being quoted for 17 year olds ... kids are where the money is, Wenger lost the plot at Woolwich sticking with average kids he should have sold on, Poch made the same mistake at Spurs ... you can't afford to play nice with ten 'potentials' you send them on loan or sell them if they're not first team standard, only the very best do you hang on to ... sure you will lose the odd good one but that's better than having a bunch of 'nearly men' jamming up the production line.
 
BangkokSpud said:
No JT it's because you post like an idiot, if you made sound arguments then even if they were wrong people would take notice, but you just cunt off anyone who disagrees without often given any reasons as to why you disagree - arguing is one thing, even a good cunt off is fun, but trolling without support ... that just gets boring very quickly ..... it's why so many have you on ignore

Make the effort to 'disagree' with logical, thought out, comprehensible posts not just press the disagree button .... that would be a good start

On a good day your posts can be excellent - just not enough good days ....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bangkok. My.dog sends his best wishes.
 
BangkokSpud said:
All academies primary role is financial, 95% of every clubs academy players will leave, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number off academy stars that make it with their parent club ... for us currently

Tanganga - let's hope so
Skipp - barely but I have hope
Winks - jury still out
Kane

Before that players who went on to have a decent career mostly with us aren't huge in number

Stephen Carr
Ian Walker
Ledkey King
Sol Campbell
Townsend
Howells

We invest 100m in our academy of course in the 'hope' of finding a world class star or two, however primarily it is managed to convert that investment into a steady income stream as we loan and sell good, but not quite good enough players, to other clubs. It's a key part of any top clubs business model.

Young players are seeing a massive increase in value, not long ago 16 years old Vinicius Junior cost £39m, 17 years old Sergio Aguero cost £15 million, 19 years old Anthony Martial cost £36 million and today we see 100m being quoted for 17 year olds ... kids are where the money is, Wenger lost the plot at Woolwich sticking with average kids he should have sold on, Poch made the same mistake at Spurs ... you can't afford to play nice with ten 'potentials' you send them on loan or sell them if they're not first team standard, only the very best do you hang on to ... sure you will lose the odd good one but that's better than having a bunch of 'nearly men' jamming up the production line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree. Yes, Poch may have had too much faith in a few and I actually do believe they should have been loaned. But that last part is in retrospect. Why? Because of all the 'academy c*nts' yapping like yorkies about how X, Y, and Z is so good only to be let down time and again.

What you say makes sense to me because true talent will shine. But on the flipside if a coach wants to keep a truly talented kid around then I can see some logic in that. These folks are just looking for a stone for their axe.
 
todd1882 said:
Ok but I have not done the numbers but there was an article where Rashford had or did the math(s) and it came up with a 0.06% chance of an academy kid making to the first team. Not sticking with that number but putting it out there to display the infinitesimally small chance these kids have to make it. When you compare that chance to the constant din of youth watchers complaining about this and that as if the chance being lost was 90%.

Most of these kids ain't gonna make it and it has nothing to do with Poch's methods. They weren't going to make it before him, they didn't make it with him, and they won't make it after him. That's just science!

And here is my edit to my earlier post...but I got my eye on Luis Binks now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The chances of kids getting through the Academy system are poor - your number isn't unreasonable if you take kids at say age 10

Spurs (and other top academies) hand pick kids the kids so that by the age of say 15 when Academy Scholarships ae awarded the %'s should be closer to say 5% - 20% of kids getting to become a professional footballer in PL to League 2.

Whether kids get to be a top professional footballer or not depends not only on ability, perseverance and sheer hard work but also a big slice of luck - TAA at Liverpool was a decent but not world class midfielder at Liverpool (less highly rated than say KWP by England youth coaches) but due to injuries to Nathan Clyne, Joe Gomez etc was tried out at RB and flourished. Big slice of luck for TAA, whilst Clyne has never recovered

So opportunity is a big factor in making it - no loans and no first team playing time = no exposure = no chance that coaches will give you a chance. The Poch issue.

Do you understand now why Poch's methods failed to get Academy Youngsters through ti the first team or indeed elsewhere ?

Once kids have 'failed' to be recognised at one club, its a big effort to make it elsewhere. A decent example is Adam Smith stand out player with Daniel Sturridge in the same side, star at Spurs preseason at aged 17 but passed over when Spurs bought Walker (very fast but technically probably worse than Smith) and Naughton (older more experienced but less good than Smith). I watched Smith have Wright Philips for breakfast in a game of MK Doms (Smith on loam) v Man City (Wright Phillips then an England player) so he certainly was a decent level, However Smith left Spurs on bad terms as he felt he'd had his place taken by bought in players (true but that is football) and toom time to get over it - joined Championship Bournemouth and has been a decent level PL full back since. Was he ever a Spurs level full back - possibly, we will never know as his moment at Spurs never came and was never as good as he was.

Point is that developing players is not straightforward - put a player into the first team at the right time and the player may flourish. Leave it a year and the moment may be lost - and the player may wilt on the vine and not recover to the same standard.

There's a book to be written on the subject !
 
COckneY Spurs said:
I know we aren’t going to rebuild in one window, especially January, but c’mon a blind man could see we have no alternative to Kane, and with Kane missing since Jan 1st for the rest of the season we had the good fortune to have a full 31 days to at least paper the crack.....but we didn’t, even our manager said as much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But that's simply not true ... we have more attacking midfield players than probably any club in the EPL ... we have at least six good options for Kane and probably another four or five bad ones ... of course a second striker would be better nobody is arguing about that, but who worth a toss was available?

Frankly playing Toby as a striker would probably be better than some of the dross we were linked with, at least he can put his head/foot through the ball and knows his teammates, it's only for two months anyway, imagine if we'd signed a second rate striker and he got injured after 20 minutes ... some heads on here would explode.

We all wanted a quality back-up striker, didn't happen ... I'd would have liked Haaland or Piatek but not in the least fussed about missing out on Barbosa, Tosun or Ighalo
 
Ighalo, who has just under two years left on his contract with Chinese Super League outfit Shanghai Shenhua, is currently earning an astronomical £300,000-a-week. United will also pay Shanghai Shenhua a loan fee of between £2 million and £4 million


No Thanks - ManU can keep him. Don't think we were ever in for him for those outrageous $$
 
todd1882 said:
You should write legislation. It's nice how you tacked that last part on with the first part. Yes, to the funds and though most of those made it to the first team 'added' implies they were not Champo quality. They were/are and that's where most are playing.

I understand the finances but that is not what you are arguing when you are complaining about Poch. You are not saying "Poch, develop these kids so that we can move them on for money from lower level teams" is it? That's a bad faith argument. You are implying these kids should be first teamers and that is what we missed out on. If you wanna argue get them ready to sell them on then you will have no problem from me nor I imagine anyone else that's tired of hearing how good these kids are only to be left disappointed time and again.

So yes to lower level money and no to helping the first team because they are not good enough and it wasn't Poch's fault.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You misunderstand.

Players are developed, some you hope/expect to be first team candidates, others should make a decent living in the game. Coaches produce a number and one of them has the ability, perseverance and luck to catch the eye of the coach at the right time and gets a chance in PL

If the coach ignores them its the player not being good enough, nothing to do with the coach .

Cough - Tanganga showed in preseason 2019 he was very good in the 4 games - but Poch never really tried him in PL despite our defensive problems.

And Poch had ignored Tanganga in preseason 2017 and preseason 2018 preferring other defenders, - obviously the players fault. Although surprisingly Tanganga was England youth coaches choice in England youth squads and Poch favourites were not.

Must be Tanganga's fault that Poch didn't use him in defence in the first half of the season when we were leaking goals.

And Mouhino( who has a bad reputation for developing youth) for spotting Tanganga's was ready for first team football and potential to get better and using him in defence.

So was Poch right to ignore Tanganga for 3 years when other coaches were picking him for England youth and Mourhino for Spurs ?
 
Imagine putting a LW as striker when playing sensible soccer. You just wouldn’t do it, so why do it in real life. Just can’t believe we didn’t even go for Stan Collymore. He bagged 75 in 28 games for me, meaning he could do it in real life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top