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...
Which is why you shouldn't always back the manager, but also make the occasional club signing. Provided you're making astute club signings and not Rodons or Clarkes (who actually turned out quite decent, but we didn't persist with him).Depends what the manager at the time wanted - I can't imagine Mourhino, Nuno or Conte would have wanted Eze or Maddison. Hence we've just bought Maddison
I'd have certainly backed buying Eze from QPR - think he was only sold for £20m ish.
If manager's don't play these young players that are club signings they just whither and die, losing value. Really Jose and Conte were disasters in terms of developing the squad.Which is why you shouldn't always back the manager, but also make the occasional club signing. Provided you're making astute club signings and not Rodons or Clarkes (who actually turned out quite decent, but we didn't persist with him).
Havertz and Mount aren't spread over years. They're booked immediately. Hence Chelsea making a profit on paper. But they'll need to continue making Havertz and Mount sales every year to stay afloat.Not in real terms they aren't, they have bought for huge sums which are spread out over a number of years, fine, but the money for Havertz and Mount will also be spread over a number of years too, which he doesn't mention at all.
Spreading transfer fees out over an agreed period isn't some new trick that only Chelsea have cottoned on to, everyone does it.
If there's someway that it slips through FFP by fancy bookwork then fine, bit in absolute terms they are not in profit
Then we're back to the question of, how are Chelsea doing it to the extent they are when nobody else is? Most obvious answer to me is that it's just an absolutely terrible idea.
Yep. He's on 100k a week. So with him, Lenglet and Harry gone, that's £445k a week off the books. Add PEH and that will be £545k a week.Must be a decent chunk of wages off the books even if we don't get a transfer fee, got to be on north of £100k/week considering how many extensions we've given him, surely?
Yep. He's on 100k a week. So with him, Lenglet and Harry gone, that's £445k a week off the books. Add PEH and that will be £545k a week.
£28.3m a year!
£745,000 a week saved if his reported salary of £200,000 is correct. Although I can't see us not having to pay towards it wherever he goes.
If we want rid of Tanguy I think we have to supplement 50% and forego a transfer fee. I feel like Ange was probably asked to see if he can salvage something there this season hence his early involvement in training sessions, noted his complete lack of application and told Danny "sorry mate, but this fat fuck is a lost cause."£745,000 a week saved if his reported salary of £200,000 is correct. Although I can't see us not having to pay towards it wherever he goes.
All valid points but you're not including the fact that Olise is about to go to Chelsea...
Eze is just a bridge too far this summer, I think.
![]()
can you see palace losing Zaha, Olise and Eze in one window?Re-read the tweet...... it just says the it will affect the price; not that he isn't for sale.
They need the money? Hardly brought anyone in
Havertz and Mount aren't spread over years. They're booked immediately. Hence Chelsea making a profit on paper. But they'll need to continue making Havertz and Mount sales every year to stay afloat.
Wonder if he was quite selective in where he wanted to go? Would've thought that many clubs would've wanted him on a free