• 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.
Kane you believe it said:
Understand your valid point. I think the main issue is the level of ambition being shown and this is currently coming across as an opportunistic buy rather than brennan being a player that can transform our attack and take it to another level.

Lose kane, get brennan is a substantial weakening of the front line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not sure how this is considered opportunist. Forest don’t want to sell. It’s not like Spurs are getting a discount price.

In todays market if you’re trying to “replace Kane” apples to apple I doubt you’ll find a transfer that looks good on paper.

The market has been set for players like Johnson. If you look at Harvey Barnes and Anthony Gordon, similar profiles, Forest can get £45-£50 mil
 
Carl Johnson said:
There is only one Forest player worth spending 50m on, that player is not Brennan Johnson.

I have seen enough of him last season to know he will never be a top player CL/EL level club.

There are lot of rapid, hardworking players like him in lower leagues, he's really nothing special.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He’s exactly that. Championship full of them. If we pay a stupid fee like £50 million for him then we deserve all we get. You look at players when they play against you and he’s done nothing against us and never stands out in any other game I’ve seen. Just find him a bit soft and flakey. Not for me. If we did sign him I’d support him but we need to be looking at better.
 
Kane you believe it said:
Understand your valid point. I think the main issue is the level of ambition being shown and this is currently coming across as an opportunistic buy rather than brennan being a player that can transform our attack and take it to another level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Explain "opportunism".....?

50m on a player they don't really fancy?

Mate; think about what you're actually saying and what chairman(*) you're actually saying it about?

(*I don't even buy into half the crap spouted about him, but he's a damn sight more reserved with our money than that!)

Kane you believe it said:
Lose kane, get brennan is a substantial weakening of the front line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Man for man; Kane vs. virtually anyone = weaker.
 
Last edited:
Macch said:
Not sure how this is considered opportunist. Forest don’t want to sell. It’s not like Spurs are getting a discount price.

In todays market if you’re trying to “replace Kane” apples to apple I doubt you’ll find a transfer that looks good on paper.

The market has been set for players like Johnson. If you look at Harvey Barnes and Anthony Gordon, similar profiles, Forest can get £45-£50 mil
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Harvey Barnes is a much better player than Johnson
 
Jenny Talia said:
We have a new strategy in defence - hope the others miss from 6 yards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bill Madrid said:
¡¡¡WARCHEST!!!

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As mythical as the statement 'this stadium will be a game changer'
 
Assuming part of the reason why Forest will consider selling Brennan Johnson is the chav agenda of "let's sell our Academy players to get 100% profit in our accounts for FFP purposes", how is this affected by our allegedly offering players like Davinson as part of the deal?

If, purely hypothetically, our offer is £23m cash and Davinson valued at £12m, would Forest be able to claim £35 million profit on their books?
 
bonaspur23 said:
Man you’re such a shit poster these days.

Might as well join SC with your made up crap that you’ve guaranteed is right because you either want it to be right or want the attention.

Please add me to that list if I’m not already!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He's always been shit......

Same guy that came up with such gems as:

"We should close our academy" (having just generated north of 100m in sales + Kane, Skipp & Winks!)

"Chelsea are well run" (despite accumulating 1.6bn of debt and being punished for numerous rule breaches and ending up subject to war-related government sanctions.)
 
Last edited:
dudu said:
Find this an interesting comment.

I feel we need many guys to score goals.

Hate to say it but Woolwich had 4 players scoring 10+ goals last season. They aren't relying on a goal scorer, they are relying on a system that allows their players - whoever they are, to score goals.

I feel the system we are building at Spurs requires the same thing. Goals from all over the place and how much better will it be to have a system that allows us to score goals when anyone is on the pitch as opposed to last season where we relied on one player?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
57% of our league goals were scored by players other than Kane last season.
To put that in context, I believe City were 35% Haaland 65% others

I think Arse were more the exception to the rule than anything last season where they spread the goals very evenly. And that is probably a symptom of not having a reliable scorer in their squad than by design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top