I was trying to give Glaston's argument some credit, otherwise you end up with a very short list and two players who went to the club that overshadows everyone else, in 9 years while not winning a single trophy and not elevating the club's image among players or fans.
It's not just about transfer policy. It's about team-versus-individual, it's about wage structure and the bonus-payment system, it's about the youth and academy set-up, it's about team spirit and how to build it, it's about training facilities and more. And it's about aiming to build the best stadium in the Prem - not the biggest, but the best (whether or not people think it will be the best is a different question).
You think he would move for lesser wages? Answer that qtn. Trophies is a nice excuse because City have been behind Spurs the last two seasons.I am being ridiculous?
Are you suggesting that Man City isn't a step-up from Spurs? If yes, then you are deluded. Man City has won the league recently, have Spurs? There is a considerably higher probability of winning something at City than an Spurs. How is that so difficult to understand?
I'll agree with Glaston here. Spurs for years and years were run quick fix to quick fix. Buy Klinsmann! Fail to properly upgrade the stadium! Ad naseum. When ENIC / Levy took over the club, it had just faced down bankruptcy and was effectively about as stable as the Trump administration. Just a mess from front to back.
Oddschecker quotes 10/11 for Paddy Power and Bet fair.
Yet they are more likely to win a trophy next season than Spurs.
If i'm not going to be making at least 7 or 8 times my bet then there's no point. If I think it's a longshot i'd expect odds of at least 7/1, evens just shows that it's pretty much expected for them to win nothing. Unless i'm misunderstanding how odds work.
Players don't move for lesser wages anywhere unless your career is done. It's an irrelevant point. As good as Spurs are, City are clearly the easier choice if you hope to win something than Spurs. This can change if Spurs end up actually winning something but not now.
Ah in which case I completely agree with Glaston on this one. Spurs have yet to sell an invaluable player to a direct rival. I personally don't think Poch or Levy can be blamed for selling a 27 year old right back who isn't among our most important players for a world record fee for a defender. I 100% believe this would not have happened with a big number of current players including Eric Dier. But well, time will tell.
The fact that the odds are so low mark it as a sure thing meaning less money to be won, what is the point in making a bet when you won't even win much money from it.
I don't read anything into this sale, if you believe that Trippier is as good as Walker than that's a good move for Tottenham.
People bet fortunes at much lower odds than that if they're as sure as practically possible that they will win.
Because you're the one who thinks City will win something so the odds, in your eyes, should be long odds. You offering me even odds just shows you have as much belief in my opinion as I do.
Nobody in his prime moves for lesser wages. But there has to be a higher purpose. This is definitely not a pure money move if that's what you are suggesting.
Walker is better physically, and defensively. Trippier is better in the final third. Ultimately Walker is the better player, especially in close games. In my opinion it's ultimately not about Walker vs Trippier, but about whether or not Poch/Levy believes we can improve the overall team now by selling Walker, a player who is not essential.
City attracted top players even when they were new on the block. You think the players moved for trophies. Yaya Toure moved from Barca to City because of trophies allure?
City had players even when they were new on the block. You think Aguero and the likes moved for chance or trophies at that time?
That's a long time back. Answer this - Do you think Man City, for the next few seasons, given their squad, spending power and the manager have a higher chance of winning trophies?
City has won much more in last decade since they got the money pumped into them. Another thing is Poch hasn't won anything small or big while Pep carried with him a impressive CV. His first trophyless season, but with that pedigree & aggressive transfer dealings, it looks like Pep & City wants to game. The Pep's new to the league maybe over & misused sometimes, but in this case when comparing to Poch, it does hold a lot of weight given Poch has much more time in the league & much further in development with Tottenham; the difference between them is bare minimum.
Point is higher wages attract. The chance for winning trophies is a secondary thought. You talk about it being "long time back" as if it was a different era. It was less than a decade back. Times have not changed. Players still move for the same motive.
