• 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 Summer Transfer Thread 2023! - Closed (Maybe)

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Rate this window out of 10

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

Results are only viewable after voting.
If Porro and Kulu are being added to this transfer window then that’s 70ish already gone. If they’re keen on Maddison, that would take us up to 115ish.

We ain’t spending much more than that, and have a goalie and CB to buy.

They’re not going to be big names.
 
Get in! said:
I was replying to the comments about wages and transfer fee spend and how that supposedly signifies ambition. According to those metrics Spurs are equally as, if not more, ambitious as Woolwich. But that really misses the important point, which is how well the money is spent. Yet, in spite of that, most of the anti-ENIC crowd are using spend to make their point and they'll lose that argument most days.

According to them, if we go for the 10-15m gem, rather than the 100m player, we're unambitious. But that's not where the problem is. The problem is that we are so lousy at identifying the 10-15m gems and equally as bad when we spend 50-60m. Now had that been their main argument, no one would disagree. But they're stuck in this "Levy cheap" loop. So the responses will be in kind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Changing the topic slightly but we weren't always this shit at transfers.
Dele, Eriksen, Toby, Jan, Dembele.

The biggest problem with Levy is when he consistently blames manager after manager for the transfer flops caused by not having a clue what he's trying to achieve.

The perception that he's cheap was almost created by him when he brought in expensive cheque book managers and didn't spend what it takes to get the specific type of players those managers need to win.

If we had stuck to the road we have just gone back to, the recent transfers wouldn't have been such a mess.
 
Richard Arlison said:
Meanwhile our 60m man Richarlison is on 90k per week….

This is another great example of why transfer fees are a misleading measurement
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Woolwich – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...ng-Woolwich-newcastle-man-utd-city-liverpool/
 
Starks said:
Would rather Adarabioyo for 15
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bring it on! Please!!

independence-day-1996.gif
 
Cranston said:
If Porro and Kulu are being added to this transfer window then that’s 70ish already gone. If they’re keen on Maddison, that would take us up to 115ish.

We ain’t spending much more than that, and have a goalie and CB to buy.

They’re not going to be big names.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, then ENIC are going to find it impossible to continue the revenue growth that has swelled the value of their asset and should seek the exit door while they still have a top club to market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top