Why the obsession with paying huge fees? It is no guarantee at all.
I think Madders for £40m was a better deal than Rice for £100m. Not even close?
-
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
Why the obsession with paying huge fees? It is no guarantee at all.
I think Madders for £40m was a better deal than Rice for £100m. Not even close?
Indeed he has, but he's well past his use by date.
He'll only get game time in the direst (pun intended) circumstances.
Ashley Philips will get minutes before Dier will. A lot more.
It's honestly maddening isn't it.
Even in this market 100M starts to approach the limit of what any one player is worth, even the very best.
So it's hard to "win" those transfers and extremely easy to lose them.
In no world was Mount more valuable than Maddison, we just played the market well and were lucky Newcastle preferred Tonali to a bidding war.
Deleted member 15314
Guest
Oh I agree 100%. Our cheap players have almost always been our best players.
Just feels like an aritifical upper limit on who we buy. Our record signing is £60m Richarlison (sigh), while every other big six club has signed a player for £100m, some more than one.
I sometimes wish that we could be credible destinations for players like Kvaraskhelia, Osihmen, Rice etc., instead we always have to hope that we can sneak in and grab the likes of Bissouma and Maddison, who thankfully are every bit as good as any signing the other big clubs have made recently.
Deleted member 15314
Guest
I'm not really talking about who's worth what, or whether it's right to spend £100m on a player. More that we still shop in a different market to our big 6 rivals.
I'd like us to not spend some arbitrary amount for the sake of it, but have the financial capability and willingness to spend what the others do if and when needed.
E.g. We'd never spend the £100m+ needed for Kvaratashkelia, but all of our big 6 rivals would. That automatically excludes us from buying certain class of players.
Who gives a fuck as long as we make smart choices and focus on winning?
It also seemed like we were stuck psychologically in the old prices of transfers: £30m not what it used to be, etc etc.
Actually coughing up the £45m for Brennan Johnson makes me optimistic that we've turned a corner on that one. It's a premium to pay, even though he's homegrown.
Edit: to add to that, there's definitely a balance to be had between accepting that prices have gone up and doing a current Chelsea and paying eye watering amounts over the real value of a player. Man City, despite their wealth, have only cracked £100m with the Grealish transfer and seem willing to walk away from deals they feel are bad.
Would love to see their ‘welcome to Galatasaray’ videos
Possibly its wise not to buy £100m players - really not sure Woolwich will do well with Havertz at that price and they hsave had to offload several other expensive purchases too (Auba, Ozil et al)
ATM I'd like to keep our purchases in the £30m - £70m range - just as good as more expensive players often but less risky if things don't work out
Easy to put the video together - film it inside a McDonalds
Deleted member 15314
Guest
Yeah, we do pay a premium from time to time, but so long as it's still well below the top tier of transfer prices.
Oddly we seem to do less scouting into these £expensive players than the cheap ones.
Exclusive clip of Dav on set for his welcome video when Tanguy rocks up to film his afterwards.........
I want to agree with you in spirit and principle.
But does spending 100M for Kvaradona actually make that much sense in an expected value per pound sense?
Man City built the Death Star without a single transfer record approaching purchase for an established star. Their practices are changing somewhat, but still stand generally for the proposition that spreading your money around a well-scouted, well-fitting deep team of players entering their prime beats breaking transfer records for players who already hit peak levels elsewhere.
Man City won a treble by breaking the british transfer record and let's be honest, Haaland was a 100m+ signing that just happened to be largely agent fees due to a clause. He was extremely expensive.
85m on a CB this season as well.
Yeah, they've taken things to a higher level both in spending and success. And Grealish was very much an established star and kind of an exception in a lot of ways (during a summer in which they were also looking to make an exception for Kane).
And they've always spent very large money for players.
But I think the City story is less about one giant signing being "the guy" and more about maintaining a high level of investment in the completeness, fit for system, and prime-age of the squad. And they have been more committed to squad rotation than any other top PL club.
That's the winning attitude, for me, more than being willing to win the Declan Rice sweepstakes.
Deleted member 15314
Guest
I agree that the first priority should be good scouting.
Even though City may not spend quite as much on a single player, but they do spend a fair amount per player. IIRC, we dithered on Ruben Dias, and City just came in and paid €70m for him. Not a record transfer fee, but certainly out of our price range.
I think we're again reaching a point where (fingers crossed) we've put together a great squad with good scouting and coaching, but it needs a finishing touch. That may mean having to splash out for one of those superstars like Kvaratskhelia. Unfortunately, we're just flat out not in the conversation for such players.
Absolutely, you are doomed if it is ever otherwise.