Hadn’t really thought about their lack of spending. It’s kind of remarkable and it probably means you’re right in that cost will have no say in regards to getting Pogba or not. Puts you in a nice position to fleece them, too, if he wants out.I doubt that's a concern. Florentino was never one to penny pinch when it came to signing Galacticos and he's got money to burn.
The most expensive transfer Real have made since signing Rodriguez in 2014 for €75m, was signing Vinicius for €45m last summer. They really haven't spent any money in a long while. Their net spend the last 3 seasons is -€125m. That means they received €140m from outgoing players than they spent on incoming ones. Negative spend every single season while they won the CL. And they also got Ronaldo off the books, with Bale and Modric soon to follow. They could spunk €300m this summer and that would be them barely playing catchup. It would average at €40m net spend per season over the last 4 years.
There's also the subject of what Zidane wants. Flo will want to keep him happy as finding a good manager that works and is respected by both the fans and the players is very tricky as he found out.
Could be waiting to see if Spurs qualify for CL again, although I still think he is inclined to leave, it's not just RM and Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern are also bigger than Spurs. With a better chance at trophies and higher wages. Spurs are definitely not a terrible club to be at though, London based, seem relatively settled which is a rare thing in football. Pay alright wages now they have the new stadium and are willing to pay 200k/week.I'm not so sure he will go to RM. If we get past Ajax and into the CL final, and when coupled with the prospect of a whole season in our new stadium, Eriksen might start to figure that Spurs are a pretty good club to stick with.
Also, I don't think Pochettino would say "I think Christian and us we are so open to talk …" if there wasn't something tangible behind it.
I think he would be great and make a big difference, classy player. But tbh we have bigger problems that need addressing first before luxury buys.I would avoid Eriksen. Don't think he is a player that will make a difference given the price and effort required to get him.
Well for one he isn't, C.Ronaldo has been undoubtedly the better striker for quite a long time now. Secondly, Kane is not paid anywhere near what the arguably best in their position are paid. He's on less than half of Ronaldo's money per se. He's earning less than L.Suarez, Aguero, Sanchez and a few others. So why would Eriksen be happy to get paid less than an already underpaid player? For Eriksen, Kane could well be an example to avoid rather than emulate if he's money oriented. Like I said, Ramsey's about to make more than Kane ffs.Because Kane is arguably the best in the world in his position, goals are priceless and Kane scores them by the bucket-load. Moreover, Kane is 'one of our own' and so deserves to get an extra loyalty bonus.
Eriksen is not quite in the same elite bracket as Kane.
Sure, if Eriksen gets a higher wage offer from outside the Prem and wants to go, then good luck to him. But there's an awful lot to be said for staying at Spurs, staying with Pochettino and more than doubling your wages.
And Sanchez is around 350-400k as well. There is no way Eriksen renews at Spurs for 200k, that market is long, long gone. He and his agent will be looking for 300-400k a week and a nice sign-on fee on top of that. There is no way that Spurs can afford that. He is gone.Isn't Kane on 200k pw? Then at the very least.
KDB is on £250k pw, Ozil is on £350k pw and Pogba is somewhere between these two. He arguably deserves to be on that bracket and will surely be offered £250k and upwards if he's put on the market or runs his contract down.
He's also couple of years older than Kane so this is really his last chance for a big contract or potentially a big move. Kane was 24 when he renewed so he knew he'd have time for another big deal or move anyway.
Nobody is paying Eriksen £300k a week unless he was on a free.And Sanchez is around 350-400k as well. There is no way Eriksen renews at Spurs for 200k, that market is long, long gone. He and his agent will be looking for 300-400k a week and a nice sign-on fee on top of that. There is no way that Spurs can afford that. He is gone.
How convenient he's entering the last year of his contract then.Nobody is paying Eriksen £300k a week unless he was on a free.
We would pay it at once. He is six months from being in the same situation that Sanchez was. Even Levy will not be able to squeeze a major transfer fee from this situation. We have the same situation with De Gea btw.Nobody is paying Eriksen £300k a week unless he was on a free.
There's one player in the premier league currently earning over £300k a week so you're certainly misguided.We would pay it at once. He is six months from being in the same situation that Sanchez was. Even Levy will not be able to squeeze a major transfer fee from this situation. We have the same situation with De Gea btw.
And stop living in the past: 300k is the new 150k. We are going to see an extreme bump in salaries this summer and the next because of what has happened on the transfer market over the last two years.
Utter nonsense.We would pay it at once. He is six months from being in the same situation that Sanchez was. Even Levy will not be able to squeeze a major transfer fee from this situation. We have the same situation with De Gea btw.
And stop living in the past: 300k is the new 150k. We are going to see an extreme bump in salaries this summer and the next because of what has happened on the transfer market over the last two years.
Load of balaksUtter nonsense.
Teams will be wary of whats happened to United and Sanchez. Its great getting a player on the cheap but you then bump up his wages to reflect that and next thing you know there's anarchy at the club as the top pro's want more money. Signing Sanchez has turned into a huge mistake and not just because of his performances on the pitch.How convenient he's entering the last year of his contract then.
Based on a sample size of one? He even scored a screamer to win the game. I mean, you could go watch Messi once and see an unimpressive performance. Eriksen has been one of the very best players in the league for at least a couple of years. He's very reminiscent of Michael Laudrup, maybe half a level below. I'd love to have him here. Nordic players tend to be less trouble anyway, and less prone to wanting away after one or two seasons. English culture is virtually identical to Scandinavian, and they never want to go home because Scandinavian leagues are shit. I for one am frankly tired of the wantaway drama that tends to come with French, Spanish and South American players.Saw him yesterday live, wasn't massively impressed and the spurs fans around me didn't seem to be either until the goal. Bit of a highlights player methinks.
Correct.Load of balaks
Its really not. Its basic economic theory.Utter nonsense.
How many players in world football are on £300k plus then?Its really not. Its basic economic theory.
The transfer market in Europe has doubled its turnover over the last three years. Much of this came from oil money but also from the PL TV-deals. And from clubs like Barca overestemating their future income possibillities leading to desperate measures like playing in the US or advocating for an European superleague to keep up with the PL-TVmoney.
Transfers like Coutinho/Neymar/Dembele and Pogba are good examples. A club like Everton paid 50m for Richarlison.
Its inevitable that it will affect the wage bill of the clubs in the same way/percentage. It will lag a couple of years behind because players are sitting on old contracts signed before the "boom" but it is going to correlate sooner or later. It is just how it is.
This is not exactly complicated science and definetaly not "balaks".
You get a different sense of a player when you see them live. His touch isn't brilliant, that's something you can tell very quickly. Fantastic ball striker, but without a brilliant touch you won't be an elite level player in his position or slightly deeper.Based on a sample size of one? He even scored a screamer to win the game. I mean, you could go watch Messi once and see an unimpressive performance. Eriksen has been one of the very best players in the league for at least a couple of years. He's very reminiscent of Michael Laudrup, maybe half a level below. I'd love to have him here. Nordic players tend to be less trouble anyway, and less prone to wanting away after one or two seasons. English culture is virtually identical to Scandinavian, and they never want to go home because Scandinavian leagues are shit. I for one am frankly tired of the wantaway drama that tends to come with French, Spanish and South American players.
That's a very weird comparison to be honest.He's very reminiscent of Michael Laudrup, maybe half a level below.
The relevant question is how many it will be this summer. Eriksen, Hazard and De Gea will be three of them. You cannot have an asset worth 100m like Eriksen and pay him 200k a week. It just does not compute financially for the player and there is a reason that he is seeing out his contract.How many players in world football are on £300k plus then?
Ok so you watched him live in one match - in a match when he didn't play particularly well. I wouldn't try and make statements about his touch or anything else other than to say in that particular game it wasnt great. I have watched every single game he has played for Spurs and he has got a good touch.You get a different sense of a player when you see them live. His touch isn't brilliant, that's something you can tell very quickly. Fantastic ball striker, but without a brilliant touch you won't be an elite level player in his position or slightly deeper.
It depends on what you value in terms of titles - is winning the league with Juve or PSG, for example, really that much of an accomplishment? They are inferior leagues, with one dominant team, compared to the Prem.Well for one he isn't, C.Ronaldo has been undoubtedly the better striker for quite a long time now. Secondly, Kane is not paid anywhere near what the arguably best in their position are paid. He's on less than half of Ronaldo's money per se. He's earning less than L.Suarez, Aguero, Sanchez and a few others. So why would Eriksen be happy to get paid less than an already underpaid player? For Eriksen, Kane could well be an example to avoid rather than emulate if he's money oriented. Like I said, Ramsey's about to make more than Kane ffs.
Also, "Kane is 'one of our own' and so deserves to get an extra loyalty bonus." is the exact opposite of how salary markets work. A loyal worker/player/whatever gets paid less than what he would make if he was more adventurous and chased his fortune elsewhere. It's called loyalty cost. Kane is a prime example of that. He didn't get anything "extra", he got less than the market rate for a world class CF.
There's a lot to be said about Spurs and Pochettino, sure, but you also can't deny that a) Spurs underpay and b) You're not close to challenging for a title either. Really the most compelling argument is that you offer him a settled environment where he feels valued and working with a manager with whom they have mutual trust. A club that is consistently near the top and featuring in the CL. In other words, stability.
But if his ambition is to earn the best money he can get or win a title or two before his star starts to decline, then he's best off elsewhere.
Two. Ozil's on 350k as well.There's one player in the premier league currently earning over £300k a week so you're certainly misguided.
108 goals / assists in 203 PL games. Ultimate ‘highlights’ player.Saw him yesterday live, wasn't massively impressed and the spurs fans around me didn't seem to be either until the goal. Bit of a highlights player methinks.
Total hyperbolic bollocks.And Sanchez is around 350-400k as well. There is no way Eriksen renews at Spurs for 200k, that market is long, long gone. He and his agent will be looking for 300-400k a week and a nice sign-on fee on top of that. There is no way that Spurs can afford that. He is gone.
My mistake, how Arsenal are regretting that.Two. Ozil's on 350k as well.
There is a Man Utd tax for transfer fee and wages however. Martial is on same wages as Mo Salah for example, and Fred cost £52m. It is the reality.Total hyperbolic bollocks.
Some posters mistake extreme outliers for the "new norm". Just as they claim you can't now sign any decent players for less than £50m (or whatever the latest in-vogue figure is) - and then they wonder how Spurs can go out and sign Moura for half that amount.
To be fair though that is Utd's choice to pay those fees and wages. It may be the reality but Utd aren't forced to pay it if they don't want to.There is a Man Utd tax for transfer fee and wages however. Martial is on same wages as Mo Salah for example, and Fred cost £52m. It is the reality.
Why should I care about whatever ridiculous wages or transfer fees that United choose to shell out? Just because one club is daft enough to pay out silly money does not mean that every club is forced into doing so.There is a Man Utd tax for transfer fee and wages however. Martial is on same wages as Mo Salah for example, and Fred cost £52m. It is the reality.
Zero chance of Levy sanctioning Eriksen going anywhere in the Premiership.I dont think anyone on caf will mind having him in the squad. But cant see it happening sadly, Levy wont sell him to us and Ericksen would probably prefer to move abroad given the state we're in.
That i do agree. If you offer Eriksen Sanchez kind of money he may be tempted too. This will be his last big contract.Show Levy the money and he’ll sell. Especially with their new stadium debt.
As big? No. But it's a bigger accomplishment than not winning the league at all I'd argue.It depends on what you value in terms of titles - is winning the league with Juve or PSG, for example, really that much of an accomplishment? They are inferior leagues, with one dominant team, compared to the Prem.
How did you work out that Sterling's basic rate is £180k? The only leaked information is his potential salary including all bonuses, which is £300k. I'd expect his basic rate to be well above £200k to match the higher earners at City.It's all very well listing a few very high wage-earners, but they don't represent the norm or "the going rate". If Spurs were to offer Eriksen what Sterling is paid at City - £180k per week - I don't see why that would be under-paying him.
Is another club outside the Prem going to offer Eriksen significantly more in wages than we will? I have my doubts.
Not to anybody in the Premiership.Show Levy the money and he’ll sell. Especially with their new stadium debt.
Just like when he did not sell Berbetov or Carrick to anyone in the premiership?Not to anybody in the Premiership.
Very different times.Just like when he did not sell Berbetov or Carrick to anyone in the premiership?
Walker?Very different times.
