I like the reverse psychology. Price should be nearer 55M.
Good work fella.
-
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...
Transfers Summer Transfer Thread 2023! - Closed (Maybe)
- Thread starter Fattynomates
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Good work fella.
***He will blame oil clubs for us not picking up trophies but will pretend this doesn't exist when it comes to making this point.
Airfixx
LeParisien
You have both brought up stadium costs as a mitigating factor which is fair... to an extent.
But does it really excuse the lowest net spend out of all teams who were in the PL then and now?
I don't think so..
(See above post).... If that circa-500m was spent on players instead... We'd be near the top (3rd?) of the 10 year net list instead.
(Also see above re: Dent.)
Because they haven't needed to spend due to being run like an actually successful football club by getting key sales right at the correct time (Ibe, Solanke etc) and absolutely rinsing a big club for Coutinho as well as getting key transfers correct and a managerial appointment spot on. And btw FSG ARE cheap!!! They're bastards for it. They're just cheap and competent instead of cheap & incompetent like our stooges.
Our net spend is lower than City's lately. IT MEANS NOTHING. Doesn't even look at underlying spending like agent fees etc.
We spend high net because we make next to nothing from sales (our net will plummet now we cash in on our only big asset) and had to basically replace a whole squad with no net money because we suck so fucking bad at transitioning from team to team. Most of them (Dele, Eriksen, Toby, Vertonghen, Rose, Lloris, Dembele, Wanyama, Dier ) we let go for free or pennies, despite having huge offers at the time for the likes of Dier & Rose.
So bored of the cheap vs incompetent debate.
No one's getting £80m for a 33/34 year old who isn't Ronaldo or Messi.
AND it doesn't mean he's defo coming back at all, I said first refusal when/if they decide to sell, just means they let us know first, doesn't mean we'll want him then but it's a nice thing to tell the fans.
I also think Kane would like to come back and have a crack at the records he's been chasing if he's still fit. He's still a Spurs fan unlike the Bales and Eriksens - he wouldn't be leaving if we'd won stuff of significance by now.
Last edited:
Of course it didn't help... We're all up against it.
However....
- Selling all their stars had no impact?
- The scum's pre stadium starting point was higher than ourm but we should be expected to challenging for titles 4 x quicker?
- City didn't even win the league for another 9 years after the scum's last EPL win.
Regardless; the point made was nothing to with whether of not we have a tougher hill to re-climb due to 'stadium austerity'; simply that there is one.
"Incompetence"
Yeh... Something I commonly cite (most recently in the last page or so) and yet you regularly post Xs against cos you're totally consumed by your troll-game.
They sold numerous players to City pre City being a behemoth & Chelsea already existing. But yeah, their 'stadium austerity' also went too far and was a stupid move. Austerity in any situation causes more damage than good, it knocked them down and the climb back up has been way harder.
Neither club should've embarked on years of basically zero net spend. Neither needed to either.
We're incompetent AND cheap. We spent because we absolutely had to after the squad was a rotted carcass with no net value when Poch left but we will always prefer to play the long game and/or cheap out whenever we can rather than doing what is best for the coach.
Our net spend will also look really poor next to Woolwich's when this window is over, if that's the bar we're using. But the real bar is that they had success and are going out and spending 230m+ to try and capitalise whilst we're in dire straits and haggling over 5-10m in VdV negotiations and getting turned down by Fulham centre backs.
These owners don't have a risky bone in them. Kroenke & co are far from geniuses but they're committed to this Arteta project and going all in - ENIC indicted co would never do this.
It didn't stop there...
Henry,
Fabregas
Song
Vermalen
Hleb
etc.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...sold-to-barcelona-on-their-impact-at-camp-nou
I don't know the answer to this, but which big clubs have built uber-stadiums without at least part kick-starting the project via the club coffers?
How do you think we should have funded ours? ......I assume 100% bank loan wasn't an option.
Last edited:
"at a meeting with the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust on Tuesday, Levy said "with a debt of £637m, subject to reasonable assumption on interest rates, the net spend on players would not be affected".
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy says stadium costs will not affect transfer spending
Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenhams new stadium will not impact on the clubs ability to operate in the transfer market.
"at a meeting with the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust on Tuesday, Levy said "with a debt of £637m, subject to reasonable assumption on interest rates, the net spend on players would not be affected".
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy says stadium costs will not affect transfer spending
Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenhams new stadium will not impact on the clubs ability to operate in the transfer market.www.skysports.com
"Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenham's new stadium will not impact on the club's ability to operate in the transfer market."
What is your point specifically?
£637m debt
1.2bn total cost.....
.........Remainder comes from?
Besides; article is dated Mar 2019..... 3 months later we started spending more again.
Feel like Vermaelen/Song left on frees to Barca and they wouldn't have been bothered by either ... Fabregas was a given, he was practically on their knees to Barca then. Getting a player to turn them down back then was next to impossible. But yeah, they were everyone's bitch and cashing in. Fans understandably not happy.
From what everyone tells me we negotiated very sustainable repayment deals on stadium. There was no immediate need to go full austerity. We had CL money coming through every single season (which I assume we'd not have had to do fire-sales without?!) and a wage bill which was closer to Burnley's than Woolwich.*
Those measures went too far because the board got too comfortable with the team being good. They were happy with no sales but pretty much no in's and staying at the same level. The reality being that certain players (Dier+Rose) were very sellable but we didn't recognize it at the time + allowing the squad to just slowly rot without change ended up being a huge issue.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...ham-player-wage-bill-closer-burnley-Woolwich*
Next week, at least a price will get agreed for a CB.
Hopefully one that they see as a top target, not one they can afford without selling players.
Chain of events.
1. So-called austerity 2014-19 + CL income = £500+ part funding for stadium. (Tho' you seem to be referencing the austerity like we're still in it?)
2. Stadium opens Mar 19.
3. Spending kicks into current level summer 19
4, Debt refinanced around the same time.
Whether or not we decided to sell Poch's faves and churn the squad in 17/18/19 is by far more of a matter of footballing strategy than financial policy.....
The much fabled version of Levy (Mr 'Buy; low sell high') would have been only too happy to cash in on some of those lads, but no; we gave them all - along with Poch - new deals instead.
Why? Partially to appease Poch and his increased influence around the club; and partially cos our financial circumstances - call it 'financial flow' in lazy terms (rather than cash flow) - at the time demanded that we squeeze a little more from that crop of players.
We were committed to the stadium... We had to get over the line..... And if we hadn't signed so many expensive duds before and after the zero spend summer 18/19, we would have rode out of the so-called 'austerity' period in relatively good shape..... In fact better shape than what would have been anticipated if you'd have looked at our situ in 2014.
Perhaps we sell Toby, Dier, Dele before 2019..... Would we have done a good job of replacing them? I suspect not. Would we have coped so well with Wembley if the team was in transition? Would we have still hit 3rd in 17/18 and the CL final the yer after? ...Not if their replacements were duds like Sanchez, Ndombele, GLC, Reg etc.
.......And our net spend STILL wouldn't have been higher. [joke]
Last edited:
It's purely to highlight that if the stadium has had an impact on transfers or meant that on field ambition had to be curtailed, this wasn't something that the ownership were transparent about.
I just want to make clear that the message from Levy was that transfer spending wouldn't be impacted.
In 2018/2019 season we had no incomings and lost dembele.
I think it was a disingenuous message, given that transfer spend clearly had already been impacted and this had a knock on effect.
It felt like typical propaganda to keep the fans calm about the idea that spurs were actively choosing to prioritise investment into the stadium over a squad that was within touching distance of winning something major for the first time in years.
Was it not feasible to delay the stadium by a year or two to place all focus on capitalising on poch's momentum?
Yep, honestly it's just a fucking joke now. Get Kane out of here and buy Tapsoba and VDV with the money.
I love Kane but will forget about him them moment he leaves. Life must go on.
The message was simple.... As at the time of the statement "We owe 650m.... We won't let it affect our spending"..... Aside from our annual repayments; we haven't.
Was it intended to calm fan any concerns? Sure... That doesn't make it untrue "propaganda" though.
That's a crazy abuse of the timelines you're indulging here...... When we started the stadium project there was no league title challenge in sight. Nor do you kick it to the side for a year or two once it's up and running.
Jesus. Spending the Kane money on Van de Ven is like if we spent £35m of the Bale money on Chiriches
I did say both Tapsoba and VDV.
And I didn't say all of the money but if we sell Kane and don't buy 2 CB's then what is the fucking point?