Why borrow money? didn't you say and so adamant that stadium cost will have no impact on what Spurs can spend? Now why all of a sudden Spurs should borrow money to invest in the squad?
Spurs 2018/19
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
What's all the fuss about? When huge income starts pouring in, especially since they have a magnificent retractable roof, they'll start to buy players in 3 or 4 years time, maybe even 2 or 3 in the same transfer window!
Apparently last summer they didn't buy anyone cause their bid for Grealish was rejected...
Apparently last summer they didn't buy anyone cause their bid for Grealish was rejected...
Out of all of the potential opponents in the CL 1/4 finals, Spurs would be my preferred choice.
I dont think we'd beat them, but getting the use of "world class" training facilities would help us going forward.
I dont think we'd beat them, but getting the use of "world class" training facilities would help us going forward.
In that case I wonder why so many opposition fans in this thread are so keen to wade in with comments about the new stadium and its various features? Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Right now you are just coming off as someone who claims not to be interested - and also makes that claim on behalf of other posters - yet is keen jump in with various opinions and views about it.
Total up the extra cost over contract lifetimes of the improved contracts offered to - and agreed with - with Pochettino, Kane, Son and Alli.
Then add onto this whatever we might have bid for Grealish and Martial.
In sum: go figure.
And didn't pay. Because both bids were probably insulting and pathetic, and never going to be accepted.
Didn't you bid 25m for Martial? Also if you got one you wouldn't have got the other so its not a combined figure.
25m and a pack of wotsits.
And a tour around their training complex (according to Glaston) which is worth it's weight in gold in itself.
Why do you sum the extra cost of entire contract? That doesn't make any sense. You don't pay entire contract upfront, it's paid weekly/monthly and for annual reports 1 year contract is considered.
They had ManUtd by balls. Martial had one year contract and he was so impressed with their training center, he didn't want to sign extension and leave on free transfer to Spurs. We just can't match the pulling power of Spurs.
weight in cheese.
Sell all the trophies for a retractable surface.
I think we must have brainwashed Martial into thinking he never saw those training facilities. He would never sign a new contract if he remembered.
They shot themselves in the foot when dumped the plans for the cheese room. What sane french will move to a club without a cheese room?
I was quite literally putting a cup of tea to my mouth and scrolled by this, if I’d been a half second earlier I would’ve been wiping tea up from everywhere!
I agree, everyone’s off their collective trolley thinking investing in your squad rather than a retractable pitch for example, would’ve been a wiser move in the long term. That retractable pitch on its own will be around much longer than any of the current squad and will eventually pay for itself.
Seriously folks, let’s move on from the football part of spurs’ business model, because it looks like they are..
So, it's unique.
How will iot allow Spurs to invest tens of millions in the playing staff? Two NFL games a year won't do that, concerts etc are held at many other grounds so that won't make much, if any, difference.
So, exactly why is it so important?
Now there's an idea.
Do you know of any clubs who have gone years and years and years without a trophy that would maybe be interested in buying some?
Because they find it funny to wind you up about it.
How much more exactly do Spurs fans believe that an NFL match will pull in vs a Rugby League match.
Sure. They find the meaningless details about your club and the grand projections you make from them hilarious. They also like to call out BS (have a read of the last few pages).
You can have an interest in a phenomenon. Here the phenomenon is not the retractable pitch - it is you.
Last edited:
You regard a bid of £25m for Grealish as "insulting"? And you regard a bid for Martial that included Toby as part of the deal as "insulting"?
If so, it explains a lot about your views re. money and Spurs, especially coming on top of the 4 new contract deals that were signed and the continued spending on the stadium.
We'd expect a sell-out, namely just over 62k fans.
Seems to me that most of them are the ones who get wound up - hence their endless scratching around to find something to criticise or bitch about.
For example, there must be 200+ posts on here alone complaining about Spurs being allowed to play in our new stadium this season.
25m for Grealish is pretty insulting in 2019, yeah. He's Villa's biggest talent by far and vital to their hopes of promotion, it's not 2010 anymore. 40m or so for an English talent like that is pretty standard. I personally don't think we should have stuck with that though, and should have moved on to other targets if we felt he wasn't worth that kind of money.
Why would United get rid of one of their biggest young talents because they could get hold of a 30 year old CB who next season would be available for 25m? Not to mention that I doubt the extent to which Martial was actually interested in a move to Spurs.
My views regarding money are that we're working in a football market where fees seem absurd nearly all the time. We as a club need to adjust to the new reality, or accept not competing in which case we will inevitably drop down the table, other teams aren't going to play by our rules. You can keep talking about new contracts (which duh, our board secured their biggest assets, am I meant to be really thankful?) and the new stadium is fantastic, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the footballing side of things, which we did in the summer. It was an unacceptable window.
Sssh … you're not suppose to admit that on here - it doesn't sit well with "the pack".
But to answer your question: the long-term aim is to attract an NFL franchise. Whether that aim succeeds or not remains to be seen, but if it does it would be hugely lucrative for Spurs. In the meantime, even two NFL games per year makes the stadium that little bit more attractive to various sponsors.
As for the rest, a retractable pitch will allow us to hold many more major events at the ground than do other clubs, because the football pitch will not be damaged in anyway.
Do you want me to list all the excellent players we've signed for less than £25m since 2010?
I imagine you'd have applauded - as a sign of club ambition - if we'd spunked £53m on Fred, like United did.
As I've said, you want more money for everything, but such desires are not located in the real world until the extra income starts to roll in from the new stadium.
Well OK, but the money still ends up being paid unless the players concerned are sold and the manager leaves or is fired. And even over one year, I'd guess those 4 improved contracts will cost around £20m extra.
So you think penny pinching and finding only 'unpolished gems' would make your team win big trophies in coming years? I don't see Barcelona, Madrid or any successful clubs for that matter do it the way Spurs do honestly.
In Fred, United got a player who put in a shift against one of the biggest games of the season of his team. He has had an underwhelming season, but the quality is still there. He was quality for Shakhtar and apparently city also wanted him so maybe he is not a bad player after all.
Regardless, if one of you first team player is sold, you have to replace him with similar/better quality players and in the same window. Either its the academy or the transfer window, its for the club to decide. Dembele was never replaced by any academy graduate or any other signing. Spurs got neither - no player of that quality and no player with the experience of what Dembele had possessed.
Who cares what we've done since 2010? How about all the trash we've signed, N'jie, Nkoudou, Janssen, Aurier, Llorente? Our strategy has hardly been flawless, and the market has changed. 25m no longer gets you a decent player, it gets you at best a 'maybe', and eventually some of those maybes will stop paying off. Southampton had a similar strategy, we can do it at a higher level but the result will be the same, if we continue to replace the likes of Eriksen, Walker, Toby with <25m players, we will get worse as a team.
So you're mentioning one failed signing? No, not every big signing is good, but that doesn't mean you just refuse to engage with players rated highly. It's not a sign of fecking ambition to replace leaving players like Dembele, it's common bloody sense. We needed a solid signing in that area with Wanyama injured and Dembele out the door, how is that remotely debatable? It wasn't a case of 'oh if we can bring someone in we will', it was a case of we NEEDED signings and didn't get them.
Surely the club can plan for the next 5 years or so, and the money 'rolling in' from the stadium? If we're so guaranteed to get it, a replacement midfielder shouldn't be so hard to bring in. By the time we start spending we'll be fighting from a losing position which is far harder to come back from, we need to invest while we have a good team and add to it, rather than wait till we have to replace our stars.
@SquishyMcSquish is the cool Spurs fan on here
Quite honestly, it's ridiculous to accuse Spurs of "penny pinching" when we have invested far more in infrastructure than any Prem club during the last decade.
It's quite simply not possible for us to have done that and at the same time to have gone out and spent lots of money on new players. Those who say otherwise are not living in the real world.
Spending comparisons on players with Barca and RM are even more ridiculous, especially when they are not building a new stadium and more.
The rest of your comments would make more sense if they didn't ignore said reality of vast spending on stadium complex and training centre. Besides, Winks (ex-academy) has had a lot more game time since Dembele left .. and the latter was semi-crocked half the time anyway.
Last edited:
Honestly I can't imagine any other club losing their star midfielder (Dembele honestly was, under Poch he was immense and even last season when he was waning he was the key man in most of our big game victories, we miss his presence so badly this season) and deciding to promote a player like Skipp to replace him. It's so fecking stupid. Most of our players when interviewed said Dembele was our most underrated player and the most talented at the club, but no, let's flog him to China in January and ignore the fact he's gone, that'll work out fine.
Then you have some of our fans thinking that's ok and that we'd need to borrow to replace him (if we need to borrow to replace one central midfielder, we're up shit creek), it's honestly completely baffling. We can build the best stadium going, but nobody is going to come to it if we lose the likes of Dembele, Walker and Eriksen and replace them with bargain basement options (or not at all) and that's the simple truth. Watch us sell Toby this summer and play a clearly not ready Foyth rather than actually spending money.
We're headed straight back below Arsenal the way we're acting (you know, a club who built a mega stadium and shock horror it didn't transform them as a club) and we'll deserve it with some of the attitude from our fans. Just total acceptance of being a champions league side who were the first premier league team to sign nobody, because investing in football players is a luxury for a football club, and it's far more worthy to spend hundreds of millions on some fancy apartment blocks. We can afford that but a 40m midfielder will lead to heavy borrowing.
Give me a break.
Then you have some of our fans thinking that's ok and that we'd need to borrow to replace him (if we need to borrow to replace one central midfielder, we're up shit creek), it's honestly completely baffling. We can build the best stadium going, but nobody is going to come to it if we lose the likes of Dembele, Walker and Eriksen and replace them with bargain basement options (or not at all) and that's the simple truth. Watch us sell Toby this summer and play a clearly not ready Foyth rather than actually spending money.
We're headed straight back below Arsenal the way we're acting (you know, a club who built a mega stadium and shock horror it didn't transform them as a club) and we'll deserve it with some of the attitude from our fans. Just total acceptance of being a champions league side who were the first premier league team to sign nobody, because investing in football players is a luxury for a football club, and it's far more worthy to spend hundreds of millions on some fancy apartment blocks. We can afford that but a 40m midfielder will lead to heavy borrowing.
Give me a break.
Excuse me? You were the one who mentioned 2010 and said that a bid of £25m would not have been an "insult" only if it had been made back then.
And when I point out the many excellent players we've signed for less since 2010, you come back with a list of N'Jie etc
But no-one has said that our transfer strategy has been "flawless". It's simply been, overall, pretty good and better than most.But now that we've gone 2 windows (including a January window) without signing anyone, you play Chicken Little and start running around shouting that the sky is falling in. Well, actually the sky hasn't fallen in.
You say "£25m no longer gets you a decent player", but we signed Moura for that sum just over a year ago - that's 8 years after your 2010 benchmark.
I fear you've been sucked into the hype about transfer fees, as have so many clubs. Yes, we need to invest more in the squad, as I've already said, but we don't need to spunk money up against a wall like so many other clubs have.
Retractable roof? Really?
Pitch. Poteto potato.
Excuse me? You were the one who mentioned 2010 and said that a bid of £25m would not have been an "insult" only if it had been made back then.
And when I point out the many excellent players we've signed for less since 2010, you come back with a list of N'Jie etc
But now that we've gone 2 windows (including a January window) without signing anyone, you play Chicken Little and start running around shouting that the sky is falling in. Well, actually the sky hasn't fallen in.
You say "£25m no longer gets you a decent player", but we signed Moura for that sum just over a year ago - that's 8 years after your 2010 benchmark.
I fear you've been sucked into the hype about transfer fees, as have so many clubs. Yes, we need to invest more in the squad, as I've already said, but we don't need to spunk money up against a wall like so many other clubs have.
I said it wasn't 2010 anymore. I.e you can't sign great players for 25m, unless you strike incredibly lucky.
Our transfers have actually been really hit and miss, if we're being honest. Lots of misses and a few hits, probably significantly more misses than hits overall. Toby and Alli are the pick of the bunch, but otherwise we've mostly failed to replace leaving players adequately and have relied on a core of players signed ages ago, or the fact the best striker in the league came from our academy.
You act like this is nothing, we're the first to ever do it for a reason, and we not only didn't sign players, we actually sold them. For a club in the CL aiming to improve and go to the next level (which our manager has begged us to do over and over again) this is really strange. No, the sky hasn't fallen in, but yes we will continue to decline if we don't spend good money on players. Clubs have already closen the gap or overtaken us through spending, are you seriously so blind you can't see that?
Moura scored a few earlier in the season and has done sweet feck all since. He's in the 'bit better than Aurier' category, i.e fine, maybe a 5/10 signing. He's all pace and no end product whatsoever and is barely trusted as a squad player in some games. If he's your example of a good player we can get for 25m, we're utterly fecked. Christ, our future transfer strategy is going to be PSG castoffs, 2 of which have already looked average to poor for us.
Ah yes, all those silly hype clubs who are going about winning trophies and actually replacing sold players, those fools. Stop talking about spunking money up the wall, we're talking about signing nobody when we have the thinnest squad in the top six and a midfield crisis ongoing, as well as fullbacks who barely look competent. It's not spunking it if you're replacing shite players.