Man Utd, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal: Who Will Win The Premier League First?

[Antisocial]

Chelsea I think - I’ve zero faith in Arsenal, though I acknowledge the narrative seems to have changed in regard to the objectives of the ownership; Spurs have a decent chance but I can see the argument that they might’ve peaked already; and feck-knows what will happen with United from one season to the next but driving forward towards a title-challenge seems unlikely under the current set-up. Chelsea I think would be the team most likely to have the drive to be take advantage of any down-turn in City and Liverpool to go and grab a title.

Liverpool’s title win this season might see Pep leave City at the end of the season for somewhere like Juventus or PSG as I don’t think he’ll respond well to having actual domestic competition, but Klopp will at least see out his current contract I think - only once he fecks-off might other teams have a chance again.

 

[Wilt]

Why not? Our income will soon exceed Arsenal's and will then be on course to exceed Chelsea's. The stadium is now built, our stadium-related debt is being converted into low-interest rate bonds, payable over the long-term so the impact on annual finances will be low, and we make profits.

What else is Levy going to spend our rising income on if not the squad?

Let’s be honest here, I reckon Levy would have a fecking heart attack if he had to match City and Utd’s spending power.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Isn't that kind of the point of being a tightwad though?

Is this a Jewish stereotype I see before me?

He's just spent around £1 billion on the stadium and training centre - far more than any other club globally has ever invested in their infrastructure.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Let’s be honest here, I reckon Levy would have a fecking heart attack if he had to match City and Utd’s spending power.

You don't have to match City and United's spending power to win the league, especially since we're in a hypothetical scenario where City have dropped off.

 

[Tom Cato]

Manchester United of course.

 

[JustABall]

I feel Spurs have gone as far as they can, they had their chance and blew it and I just don’t see Levy ever spending the cash needed to build a PL winning team. Arsenal, nah just can’t see them winning it.

Close call between Utd and Chelsea. I think both teams have exciting youngsters but Chelsea currently have the better manager (there I said it). Utd have the spending power and the history. However, if Chelsea’s transfer shackles are released then.... oh bollocks, I really can’t call it!

I agree about Spurs. They peaked during 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, for me.

Rose and Walker were a big part of their play back then. Fast, powerful full-backs who overlapped. Dier was showing promise. Wanyama was fit.

Dembélé was at his best. Dele Alli looked like he might go on to become another Lampard type goalscoring sensation from midfield. Son came alive for them.

A proper physical outfit that could also play some good football. They've regressed since then IMO, despite making The CL final. 20 defeats last season.

 

[diarm]

Us winning the league would hardly be a miracle or anything on the level of Leicester winning it. Leicester were promoted only the season beforehand and struggled to stay up.

We have one of the most valuable squads, a new stadium which will boost our income to even up the playing field with the rest of the top six, and we're up there in the top 4 season after season. People would never have been able to picture Spurs in a CL final before, but it happened, stuff changes in football.

Not that I think it's all that likely or anything, but it wouldn't be some groundbreaking shock if City/Liverpool dropped off.

We'll see.

I for one will be absolutely stunned if Spurs win a title in my lifetime.

You might get a season once every 100 years when absolutely none of the big clubs turn up. As the biggest fish in the minnow pool, Spurs had to take that opportunity if they wanted to make that step up to a big club but they let Leicester take it instead.

That chance isn't coming round again for a long time and by that stage, Spurs big players and coach will be long gone onto bigger and better things.

 

[NoPace]

Chelsea have young talent, they should have a bit of money saved from "only" buying Pulisic and Kovacic and I think this season could work out well for them in giving Mount, Abraham and James (who I've never seen but is apparently Cafu mixed with Johan Neeskens if you listen to Wigan fans) playing time to form the homegrown core along with the signings they'll surely make.

I'd have us second because we're rich and Rashford, Maguire and Wan-Bissaka should still be here in 3-4 years when we can hopefully compete, Spurs 3rd and then Arsenal 4th as I have no idea how they'll get anywhere near a title soon as much as I like Willock.

 

[Infordin]

I think Chelsea for reasons listed in this thread.

- Lampard has them playing good football
- They have a great crop of genuinely talented young players
- They are more willing to spend big money than Arsenal or Spurs

 

[Suedesi]

Chelsea

 

[Suedesi]

Is this a Jewish stereotype I see before me?

He's just spent around £1 billion on the stadium and training centre - far more than any other club globally has ever invested in their infrastructure.

Don’t forget the cheese room

 

[minh_loc_xoay]

This is very much what United are planning/working towards IMO.

We know we aren’t going to compete with them for the next couple of seasons so we are banking on getting a squad to peak as Pep and Klopp move on and their teams pass their peak.

It’s not easy but it’s a good strategy and our squad is a much better age and level of hunger right now.

That makes it sound like Pep and Klopp are bigger than the whole of Manchester United. We are so scared of them that we have to bide our time until the day they leave the Premier League to hope for a shot. That is really embarassing considering the legacy Sir Alex Ferguson built up through 2 decades...

Why can't we set our mentality to "Beat them BEFORE they leave the league to prove that we are better than them"? If they leave England before we beat them to the Title, we'd feel like we are inferior to them both for the rest of our lives. I wouldn't want that.

 

[RedDevilRoshi]

Chelsea or United. Leaning a little more towards Chelsea.

 

[Raw]

In terms of likeliness: Chelsea > Spurs > United > Arsenal

If they don't feck up the next few transfer windows, I'm going with Chelsea. Young, talented squad all getting minutes and experience together who are also playing exciting football. Add a few top signings here and there and I think they'll get right back up there. Plus their tendency to win titles during transition seasons for the other top teams puts them as most likely for me.

Spurs have pretty much been the best of the rest (mostly) and have been the most consistent out of the other teams. They're more willing to spend money now and are becoming more of an attractive prospect for players to join them. But they tend to feck it up when it matters most so I put them below Chelsea, who are more experienced in winning titles.

United are an unknown quantity at the moment. Depends on how Ole is going to do but it's going to take a while to properly build a cohesive unit with our transfer strategy. Or we could feck it all up by signing a manager with an opposite philosophy and put us back to square one. But at least our team is young, and we're slowly sorting out sections of our team (defence is looking very good now). Who knows at this point. But throw enough money at it and surely it's going to work out, right? Right?!

I put Arsenal last because it's Arsenal. Haven't really been much of a title challenging team for a long while (other than the year Leicester won it, and they couldn't even win it then). They seem to be starting to pay the money but I think it's going to take a long time to really sort the squad out and also find a manager who can take them back to their best, as it seems like Emery might not last that long.

 

[Bestietom]

Lampard has put his trust in the Young players now that they cannot bring anyone in for a couple of windows. They are playing really good football and when they are able to add more players to this team they will be one to watch.
They are not afraid to spend big, and they will as soon as the ban is lifted.
United have a lot of Youngsters coming through also, but will have to get their transfer strategy right and get a good spine to their side first. The next couple of windows will tell a bigger story but these 2 will be the teams to watch out for.

 

[charlenefan]

I rule Spurs out completely, 3 starting XI players out of contract next summer, a LB who's wanted to leave for years, a GK who could easily be improved upon, likewise the RB. Big rebuild job there and hard to imagine they'll be able to do it with a level of player they're now replacing. Also how long before the manager says he's had enough and wants a challenge elsewhere?

As for the other 3, none have a manager at present capable of winning a league title in my opinion so it's a case of who blinks first in terms of changing them. Because of this my pick will be Chelsea, if Lampard delivers UCL qualification for next season this then I expect they'll keep him around however as soon as it starts to go downwards for them they'll be brutal and the axe will fall. Make no mistake Lampard was brought in this summer as a stop gap due to the want to get Sarri gone and the transfer ban making it hard to attract a longer term replacement and unlike us and Arsenal I'd bet on Chelsea to make the right appointment when the time comes

The thing is though even when Pep and Klopp do leave they'll still be leaving behind sets of players who in all likelihood will still be far superior to the rest so it's not as simple as just the managers going, all 4 teams (Spurs, us, Arsenal and Chelsea) need to recruit correctly in the coming transfer windows to bridge that gap and from that perspective who do you give the advantage to there? Chelsea's recent transfer windows have been shambolic, as have ours and then you have other two who haven't really spent as much money in recent years to really judge their business

But yeah if I had to gamble on anyone I'd say Chelsea

 

[GlastonSpur]

I rule Spurs out completely, 3 starting XI players out of contract next summer, a LB who's wanted to leave for years, a GK who could easily be improved upon, likewise the RB. Big rebuild job there and hard to imagine they'll be able to do it with a level of player they're now replacing. Also how long before the manager says he's had enough and wants a challenge elsewhere?

As for the other 3, none have a manager at present capable of winning a league title in my opinion so it's a case of who blinks first in terms of changing them. Because of this my pick will be Chelsea, if Lampard delivers UCL qualification for next season this then I expect they'll keep him around however as soon as it starts to go downwards for them they'll be brutal and the axe will fall. Make no mistake Lampard was brought in this summer as a stop gap due to the want to get Sarri gone and the transfer ban making it hard to attract a longer term replacement and unlike us and Arsenal I'd bet on Chelsea to make the right appointment when the time comes

The thing is though even when Pep and Klopp do leave they'll still be leaving behind sets of players who in all likelihood will still be far superior to the rest so it's not as simple as just the managers going, all 4 teams (Spurs, us, Arsenal and Chelsea) need to recruit correctly in the coming transfer windows to bridge that gap and from that perspective who do you give the advantage to there? Chelsea's recent transfer windows have been shambolic, as have ours and then you have other two who haven't really spent as much money in recent years to really judge their business

But yeah if I had to gamble on anyone I'd say Chelsea

I like how you single out Spurs as needing a "big rebuild job" .... as if the squads of United, Chelsea and Arsenal are all in better shape, and as if Spurs hadn't signed Ndombele, Lo Celso and Sessegnon this summer.

I like even more how, mainly on the basis of this in-depth squad analysis, you "rule Spurs out completely".

 

[Scroto Baggins]

Chelsea.

Levy will spend enough money to keep CL football ticking over and ride that gravy train. To fund his frikken sharks with frikken lazer beams development complex being built in North London by TH construction and development pty ltd. Aka Spurs will turn into Arsenal of the latter Wenger era. Or a property investment company.

We will sit spinning our wheels with no clear strategy to buying players and building a squad. Just Woody throwing around money to acquire 'investments', rather than what we actually need.

Arsenal will spend more money on some attackers. Name the dud Xhaka cptn, retain Emery for far too long. And give Luiz an extended contract because he is a good attacking CB.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that other clubs have to wait for Klopp and Pep to leave to have a realistic chance to win the league. The EPL is the most competitive league in the world, imo and it's difficult to dominate for long periods of time even if you have lots of money, great squad and a top manager. This season it looks like it's going to be a two way battle for the title again, but I don't think other top top six sides are so far away from City and Pool.

Arsenal have a great attack but the rest of their team is not close to the required standard, unless they spend wisely, they're top four material at best, but nowhere near the contender.

Chelsea have a crop of some exciting young talent but they lack experience at this level, so this season we may even finish outside of top six, I really don't know what to expect. As long as the team keeps improving and Lampard keeps learning, we're going to be fine because come summer, we're going to spend big and in 2020/21 season it's going to be a different side, hopefully more mature and better equipped to deal with challenging for trophies.

United will keep spending and sooner or later will assemble a very powerful squad, they already have some pieces, like Chelsea, but not quite the whole picture, in fact they're probably closer to the fiished article than us, because they were able to buy in the summer.

Spurs, I feel, are in most trouble. For all their deserved praise over the last few years, they've won nothing. Their first eleven is quality, but their bench is short and the project is running out of steam, they're fast approaching the point where their best players will start looking elsewhere unless Levi decides to loosen purse strings and add quality. They're still a top side and when in form can beat any team, but I wonder how much they've got left in the tank.

Fair enough that you feel that way, i just beg to differ. I do think City and Liverpool are far ahead of anyone right now, and a lot to do with that is the managers and the stability of their squads, which is something the other teams mentioned haven't got. United and Chelsea do have some promising young players but there's still big question marks over their managers. I just think, realistically speaking, the best chance the other teams have is when those two managers leave.

As for the bold part, i wouldn't necessarily hold my breath on that. They've shown no indication over the past couple of years that spending big time after time is a sure fire way to assemble a powerful squad. Although, i am happier with the direction we seem to be going in.

 

[charlenefan]

I like how you single out Spurs as needing a "big rebuild job" .... as if the squads of United, Chelsea and Arsenal are all in better shape, and as if Spurs hadn't signed Ndombele, Lo Celso and Sessegnon this summer.

I like even more how, mainly on the basis of this in-depth squad analysis, you "rule Spurs out completely.

I like how I knew you'd bite as you do every single time hook line and sinker

End of the day what will Spurs more than likely need next summer? New RB, 2 new CB's, possible new LB, possibly new GK, replacement number 10 - that's 6 players and not only is it 6 players it's 6 players better than those who they're replacing who were at such a high standard and yet still didn't come close to winning a league title (which is the subject of the thread less you forget)

Yes there's big rebuild jobs that are needed at the other clubs as well but in my picks case (Chelsea) they've shown they're capable of building multiple title winning sides, Spurs haven't built one let alone multiple

 

[tenpoless]

Boss Ole team

 

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

This is very much what United are planning/working towards IMO.

We know we aren’t going to compete with them for the next couple of seasons so we are banking on getting a squad to peak as Pep and Klopp move on and their teams pass their peak.

It’s not easy but it’s a good strategy and our squad is a much better age and level of hunger right now.

Assuming they don't build a dynasty like top teams do.
Assuming we will peak.
Assuming footballing elites will not move on.
Etc etc

 

[Pexbo]

Assuming they don't build a dynasty like top teams do.
Assuming we will peak.
Assuming footballing elites will not move on.
Etc etc

I'd love to hear the approach you think would propel us straight back to the top.

 

[blue blue]

A bit surprised quite a few going for Chelsea. This is a United forum after all. Its such a broad and subjective question that nothing other than a highly speculative response can follow.

Chelsea.

They are going to break the mold and build a Premier League wining team from largely academy players while spending a very large sum of money on one world class transfer target each summer. They will also maintain their management team for the foreseeable future.

 

[antihenry]

It really isn't. Since Sir Alex retired in 12/13, Chelsea have a net spend if 103m. They basically adopted a sell to buy strategy that's been going on for 7 years now. They had a few world class players over the years but with Hazard gone, they don't have that top potential anymore. They have very good young players just like we do, but there absolutely is not any question that United is both more willing to spend more than them as well as being a bigger more attractive side for players. Not to say they won't be able to sign players, but I said it during the summer, Chelsea IMO is going to have a transition period now with Hazard gone. Combined with the timing of the transfer ban, they want to give their youth chances, they want to change their culture, they want to do a patient rebuild and I do like that strategy, I just don't think they'll be more than top 4 competitors for the next 4-5 years.

What makes you think that? Just because Chelsea are trying to balance the books, doesn't mean we aren't willing to spend big anymore. We broke the world record for the most expensive goalkeeper only a year ago. We did spend some in the recent past, it was just poor value for money (Zappacosta, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Morata).

I'm not sure about United at the moment being more attractive to players, either. Perhaps for some British players, who grew up being MU fans, but for most foreigners there's little difference nowadays between playing for ether side. Both have money, ambition and winning history, and both are currently in a rebuilding mode. Still, Chelsea are located in London and their PL titles are more recent. I'd say, it's nowhere near as clear cut in United's favour as you put it.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Chelsea
United
Arsenal
Leicester City

 

[do.ob]

Chelsea > United > Arsenal >= Spurs

Chelsea always have a decent squad, this time around with a talented bunch of youngsters even, if they have the right coach in one of those summers where they spend big they can win a title.

United are a mess, but if a good DoF or a transforming coach like Klopp/Pep were appointed the club could be back at the top within 2-3 years, simply because of all the money.

Spurs and Arsenal I just don't see winning a league anytime soon, they just seem to be lacking any kind of ambition in that regard, I guess Arsenal at least have been spending consistently since they lost their top 4 status, so maybe there is some hope for them.

 

[GlastonSpur]

… End of the day what will Spurs more than likely need next summer? New RB, 2 new CB's, possible new LB, possibly new GK, replacement number 10 - that's 6 players and not only is it 6 players it's 6 players better than those who they're replacing who were at such a high standard and yet still didn't come close to winning a league title (which is the subject of the thread less you forget)

Yes there's big rebuild jobs that are needed at the other clubs as well but in my picks case (Chelsea) they've shown they're capable of building multiple title winning sides, Spurs haven't built one let alone multiple

Spurs won't need 6 new players next summer or anything close to it - the fact that you think we will just shows how little you actually know about Spurs and the players we have.

 

[Ban]

I see this will be another thread ruined by a certain poster cause you lot keep feeding the troll.

 

[Amerifan]

Chelsea may not be the same Chelsea we’ve come to know. Roman’s ambitions for the club may have changed. We can’t see whether that is true or not because of the transfer ban. But if reports he’s interested in selling are true, I expect spending to drop to make the books look better. Still a strong contender.

Spurs won’t keep the foot on the accelerator once CL is assured. Ambition seems to same as Arsenal’s with Wenger.

Arsenal should be better than they are at this point. I think Emery is not the man to take them to the top.

I like our prospects. Much remains to be done, but our potential is greater than any other club’s.

United > Chelsea > Spurs > Arsenal

 

[GlastonSpur]

… Spurs, I feel, are in most trouble. For all their deserved praise over the last few years, they've won nothing. Their first eleven is quality, but their bench is short and the project is running out of steam, they're fast approaching the point where their best players will start looking elsewhere unless Levi decides to loosen purse strings and add quality. They're still a top side and when in form can beat any team, but I wonder how much they've got left in the tank.

Of the four teams under discussion, Spurs have the best squad and the best manager. Moreover, we're now much more able, after years and years of austerity, to spend a lot more on the squad … as this summer past has started to show.

To say that Spurs "are in the most trouble" simply does not stack up to reality.

And your claim about our best players leaving is the same old stuff that's been said on here about Spurs literally every summer for the last 5 years … and mostly proven to be wrong.

 

[Infra-red]

Don't think any of us will win it in the near future, but Chelsea are probably the most likely candidate longer term.

 

[FrankDrebin]

And all they've got to show for it is...the Audi Cup.

 

[charlenefan]

Spurs won't need 6 new players next summer or anything close to it - the fact that you think we will just shows how little you actually know about Spurs and the players we have.

Well I said they'd possibly need 6 not that they would but lets say for arguments sake I did say Spurs need 6 replacements tell me then who replaces Lloris, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Rose, Eriksen and whoever the RB is these days (Foyth, Walker-Peters, Aurier) in what will make Spurs a title winning team (because again this thread is about winning the league)

 

[GlastonSpur]

Well I said they'd possibly need 6 not that they would but lets say for arguments sake I did say Spurs need 6 replacements tell me then who replaces Lloris, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Rose, Eriksen and whoever the RB is these days (Foyth, Walker-Peters, Aurier) in what will make Spurs a title winning team (because again this thread is about winning the league)

* We don't need to replace Lloris: he's a top keeper and captain of the team that recently won the World Cup.
* Why are you so sure that we need to replace Vertonghen? It's not unlikely that he'll sign a new contract.
* Alderweireld? We have both Sanchez and Foyth.
* Why do we need a LB? We both have Rose and Davies, with Ryan Sessegnon signed in the summer.
* Why do we necessarily need a RB? Aurier was one of the best players in our last match. And Walker-Peters will improve further with experience.
* Eriksen? If he leaves - which is not yet certain - we've signed Lo Celso and might well go back for Dybala.

So your claim is based on speculation about things which either haven't actually happened yet (e.g. Vertonghen leaving), or things that don't need to happen (e.g. replacing Lloris), or things which ignore the new players we've signed in the summer, or things that we've planned for long ago (e.g. Alderweireld leaving).

In truth, Spurs squad is (and will be) no more in need of rebuilding than that of United, Arsenal or Chelsea - and probably less in need of rebuilding than any of those.

 

[Amerifan]

Of the four teams under discussion, Spurs have the best squad and the best manager. Moreover, we're now much more able, after years and years of austerity, to spend a lot more on the squad … as this summer past has started to show.

To say that Spurs "are in the most trouble" simply does not stack up to reality.

And your claim about our best players leaving is the same old stuff that's been said on here about Spurs literally every summer for the last 5 years … and mostly proven to be wrong.

At this point winning the league is an expensive proposition. That investment is a lot easier to justify for a state or billionaire who views the club as a plaything than it is for a club run as a business. I see Levy as a shrewd businessman first and foremost. I’m unclear if the business benefits that accrue from winning the league are worth it once CL football is assured. So while I think Spurs certainly could win it, today they are the best positioned to do so, I have to question if sufficient sustained investment will be made to win it. Time will tell.

 

[antihenry]

* We don't need to replace Lloris: he's a top keeper and captain of the team that recently won the World Cup.
* Why are you so sure that we need to replace Vertonghen? It's not unlikely that he'll sign a new contract.
* Alderweireld? We have both Sanchez and Foyth.
* Why do we need a LB? We both have Rose and Davies, with Ryan Sessegnon signed in the summer.
* Why do we necessarily need a RB? Aurier was one of the best players in our last match. And Walker-Peters will improve further with experience.
* Eriksen? If he leaves - which is not yet certain - we've signed Lo Celso and might well go back for Dybala.

So your claim is based on speculation about things which either haven't actually happened yet (e.g. Vertonghen leaving), or things that don't need to happen (e.g. replacing Lloris), or things which ignore the new players we've signed in the summer, or things that we've planned for long ago (e.g. Alderweireld leaving).

In truth, Spurs squad is (and will be) no more in need of rebuilding than that of United, Arsenal or Chelsea - and probably less in need of rebuilding than any of those.

With all due respect, I don't think Lloris was the key element in their WC win. Giroud was their starting striker. They probably could have replaced those two with mannequinns and would still have won the tournament.
Verthonghen is 32 and will turn 33 before the season's over. Alderweireld will be 31 next March. I don't think it's a question of them staying but rather replacing them with someone equally good, but younger. You couldn't win anything with Verthonghen/Alderweireld in their prime, but Sanchez and Foyt are somehow going to turn you a title contender?
I thought Rose wanted to leave. In any case, he'll also have turned 30 by the time next season comes.
Aurier is a mental case. Davies is solid at best, and Sessegnon is yet to prove himself.
Depending on whether Eriksen stays and how well Lo Selso and Ndombele take to PL, your midfield may turn out great or become your Achilles heel.
Up front you're still very potent, wth Kane, Son, Dele Alli and Moura, but your aging backline may start struggling faster than you think.

 

[charlenefan]

* We don't need to replace Lloris: he's a top keeper and captain of the team that recently won the World Cup.
* Why are you so sure that we need to replace Vertonghen? It's not unlikely that he'll sign a new contract.
* Alderweireld? We have both Sanchez and Foyth.
* Why do we need a LB? We both have Rose and Davies, with Ryan Sessegnon signed in the summer.
* Why do we necessarily need a RB? Aurier was one of the best players in our last match. And Walker-Peters will improve further with experience.
* Eriksen? If he leaves - which is not yet certain - we've signed Lo Celso and might well go back for Dybala.

So your claim is based on speculation about things which either haven't actually happened yet (e.g. Vertonghen leaving), or things that don't need to happen (e.g. replacing Lloris), or things which ignore the new players we've signed in the summer, or things that we've planned for long ago (e.g. Alderweireld leaving).

In truth, Spurs squad is (and will be) no more in need of rebuilding than that of United, Arsenal or Chelsea - and probably less in need of rebuilding than any of those.

Ok so none of the players I mentioned are going to leave when their contracts are up, none of the players who want to leave will and none of the players that need upgrading (imo) are going to be everything stays as it is and that Spurs side are going to win the league....

 

[billybee99]

* We don't need to replace Lloris: he's a top keeper and captain of the team that recently won the World Cup.
* Why are you so sure that we need to replace Vertonghen? It's not unlikely that he'll sign a new contract.
* Alderweireld? We have both Sanchez and Foyth.
* Why do we need a LB? We both have Rose and Davies, with Ryan Sessegnon signed in the summer.
* Why do we necessarily need a RB? Aurier was one of the best players in our last match. And Walker-Peters will improve further with experience.
* Eriksen? If he leaves - which is not yet certain - we've signed Lo Celso and might well go back for Dybala.

So your claim is based on speculation about things which either haven't actually happened yet (e.g. Vertonghen leaving), or things that don't need to happen (e.g. replacing Lloris), or things which ignore the new players we've signed in the summer, or things that we've planned for long ago (e.g. Alderweireld leaving).

In truth, Spurs squad is (and will be) no more in need of rebuilding than that of United, Arsenal or Chelsea - and probably less in need of rebuilding than any of those.

Lloris is garbage. He is the King Of Howlers. For you to call him a "top keeper" shows how delusional and biased you are. There is not a person outside of Tottenham fans that still think that this guy is class.

 

[RooneyLegend]

It's not about "writing off a few seasons", it's about being realistic about where we (and those other teams mentioned) are at the moment compared to City and Liverpool. Pep and Klopp have obviously had a huge impact and as long as they are there they will probably continue to be the standout teams.

And yes, of course they could hire the next manager who slots right in, but they could also quite easily get it wrong. When those two managers leave their respective clubs it's going to have a huge impact on them, and the teams behind them. Realistically speaking, that's our best chance of getting back to where we need to be. Obviously it's still going to be difficult, as i already said.

That strategy is ridiculous. Pep left Barca after missing out in the title, they won the very next title with a record points total, more than Pep had ever achieved. We have to step up to the plate, Liverpool did and now its our turn to do the same. I have no doubt that Chelsea after the ban is over will try to do the same.