Do you really believe United have higher ambitions?
You have more money, you have had more success in the past, we want to win just as much as you do. Don't confuse the feeling of being happy with improvement with being content not winning.
Eric Dier | Poch: “He is an important player for us and the idea is not to sell him."
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
Do you really believe United have higher ambitions?
You have more money, you have had more success in the past, we want to win just as much as you do. Don't confuse the feeling of being happy with improvement with being content not winning.
Bet it makes you feel proud that in those 4 years we have still won more than you poxy little club has done in 25 or so years. How does it feel that the glory days that you are going through consist of failing to win the league or anything else but wait you came second.
so i guess taking advice from serial losers is not the best idea.
Yes I truly do believe we have higher ambitions. I don't know who's content with not winning. Our ambitions are to win the league every year and challenge for the Champions League. As we have before and will do again. If Spurs have the same ambitions I'd be surprised, and consider that slightly unrealistic. We want to sign the best players on the market, break transfer records, and pay the best wages. I don't think Spurs can do that. Commercially we want to be the biggest brand in football, on that front we're doing well. The more I think of it, yes I'm certain United's ambitions are greater than Spurs.
I think you are confusing ambition with ability. If we could sign Messi do you think we would say 'naah, that's a little too ambitious, we might win the league'? Or that Levy would go 'calm down in South Korea boys, we don't want our brand becoming too big now'?
You have an advantage on the financial and commercial front for sure, but that doesn't mean that others don't also use what resources they have to try and compete.
He's not bad at playing simple passes but give him time on the ball and he looks lost quite often, especially when Spurs are chasing the game and he's expected to do something useful with it.
If we're considering 3 at the back as an option and Mourinho wants a limited DM then it's not a terrible idea, but Unites have never had a midfielder like him before and I'd personally prefer to keep it that way. Midfielders need to be able to drive the game forward in some way. He hasn't got the skillset for it.
Actually, I think it's you who is making that mistake, pretty much like the rest of the Spurs fans on this forum who seem to believe that finishing above United is a grandiose achievement. Your players will feel very differently on the matter, I assure you, Dier included.
Spurs are limited in their ambitions due to not having the means to compete with the bigger, richer clubs. I really don't see how this will ever change.
You've just shot down your own argument! "Others...use what resources they have to try and compete". Exactly. And Spurs resources are more modest than ours. And our ambitions are greater. What would be the point in Spurs setting targets that are not reasonably achievable?
I'm not aware that I've given you any advice, just some factual information in response to your earlier question about league table finishes.
However, judging by your above post you seem very upset by this.
Lol ... you confuse money solely with the means to compete. We've shown the latter by our title challenge for the last 2 seasons, which in turn shows that other competitive factors exist besides just money.
In any case, there are only 9 or 10 richer clubs than Spurs in the entire world ... and the gap between us and some of these is shrinking, and will continue to shrink when our new stadium complex is finished.
It's extremely insular to think that Spurs don't have ambitions to win the league and challenge for the CL.
But I'll agree that it's not our ambition to "break transfer records, and pay the best wages" ... because we don't confuse vast spending sprees and the appointment of cheque-book managers with the creation of a good football team playing good football. Instead, our ambitions in terms of team-building centre around a quite different set of values and approaches.
But you just had to comment on it. It was stronger than you.
Believe me, no Spurs fans believes finishing above United this season was a grandiose achievement, and I bet you won't find an Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or City fan who do either. You finished 6th. And if you listen to what the Spurs players feel, they all feel they can compete for the title next season, and rightly so, our squad is currently among the strongest in the league.
We still have more success than Spurs.
I didn't mean it as if we have overtaken you, but rather that the future remain uncertain.
United have bigger ambitions than Spurs because they can afford to and it is demanded. Player fees and wages are a big part of that. But simply spending money is not what brings success, you need a clever coach etc. for that. Simply, if United are not winning trophies then we are failing to meet our ambitions. If Spurs are not winning trophies then it is quite normal. For Spurs, finishing above United is considered success. For United, finishing below Spurs is not the norm. United are one of, if not the biggest club in the world. Spurs are not, so naturally our ambitions are higher. They have to be.
I would blooming well like to think so! Considering the mismatch in resources between the two clubs it's hardly surprising is it?
all this talk about money now? explain how LCFC have won the prem with less than you? seems its you glaston thats upset we have done 4 years of transition and continue to win trophys some thing spurs are unable to do.
You really don't. You have the same ambitions as Spurs and many other clubs - to win as many future league titles and other trophies as possible.
You can argue that United have more financial resources to help achieve those ambitions, but's that a different thing entirely.
Eh?
I am pleased you used the word "resources" rather than "financial resources".
Should have gone to Specsavers.
Thanks but I wear contacts.
I'm not confusing anything, I'm stating fact. Spurs cannot compete with the likes of United, City and Chelsea in the transfer market, this is evident in their transfer dealings over the years. Spurs simply do not chase targets that the aforementioned clubs are also in for. Why? Because they do not have the transfer funds or wage structure to compete on an even level. Instead they go bargain hunting in search of the next big thing which, if we're being honest, is an extremely risky approach, due in no small part to a young player more often than not failing to reach their potential. Alhough this approach has worked out rather well for Spurs in recent years, there is no guarantee that it will continue pay off due to the reason stated above.
I challenge you to go 10 posts without mentioning Spurs' new super stadium that is set to rock the very foundations of the premier league upon completion
I'm not confusing anything, I'm stating fact. Spurs cannot compete with the likes of United, City and Chelsea in the transfer market, this is evident in their transfer dealings over the years. Spurs simply do not chase targets that the aforementioned clubs are also in for. Why? Because they do not have the transfer funds or wage structure to compete on an even level. Instead they go bargain hunting in search of the next big thing which, if we're being honest, is an extremely risky approach, due in no small part to a young player more often than not failing to reach their potential. Alhough this approach has worked out rather well for Spurs in recent years, there is no guarantee that it will continue pay off due to the reason stated above.
I challenge you to go 10 posts without mentioning Spurs' new super stadium that is set to rock the very foundations of the premier league upon completion
Still not sure why you think we lack ambition as a club when you say yourself that we can't buy the bigger names that other clubs can. We go for the best players we can realistically get and afford. Is that unambitious?
Except it's not a different thing at all. The two are universally conjoined. One and the same entity. In the modern football world, it's your bankroll that dictates your ambitions, not the feelings in your heart, you would be naive to think otherwise. How else do you explain Chelsea and City's metoric rise in the world of football? They would both still be suffering midtable mediocrity were it not for Roman and the Sheik granting them vast sums on money.
No, it isn't. But I never said Spurs lack ambition, I just question their level of ambition in comparison to the likes of United and the other rich clubs out there.
You can still be ambitious within a budget surely. Ambition is about where you want to be not about where you are now. We are aiming to become a much bigger club than we are now and we aim to win the league and other cups. Spending vast wads of cash is not the be all and end all of ambition. Is it?
The football fan in me would love to say no, but we have to be realistic. Unless Spurs get bankrolled by the next Roman/Shiek to come along - which is not beyond the realms of possibility - I don't see how it would be possible for Spurs to become any bigger than they are, certainly not financially speaking in any case.
Ambitions? Pretty vague term in itself.
I imagine Levy's ambition is to secure Tottenham's place within a small circle of “elite” English clubs between whom there won't be all that much – long term. Arsenal, United, Chelsea, City and Liverpool.
Given the immense wealth of the league and Tottenham's current status (one of the bigger teams traditionally, one of the bigger fan bases, recently done well enough to be highly relevant), that doesn't seem like an outlandish ambition.
It's much harder now for both United and the sugardaddy duo to simply outmuscle the other “big” clubs financially compared to only a few years ago. In theory Tottenham should've been ransacked and cleaned out, but they've held on to their best players (who seem fairly settled).
You could argue that United's ambitions are on the absolute world domination scale, though – i.e. we're trying to overtake Real Madrid, not simply to do well within said “elite” group of teams. But that ambition has looked pretty feckin' unrealistic in recent seasons, in spite of our resources.
I imagine Levy's ambition is to secure Tottenham's place within a small circle of “elite” English clubs between whom there won't be all that much – long term. Arsenal, United, Chelsea, City and Liverpool.
Given the immense wealth of the league and Tottenham's current status (one of the bigger teams traditionally, one of the bigger fan bases, recently done well enough to be highly relevant), that doesn't seem like an outlandish ambition.
It's much harder now for both United and the sugardaddy duo to simply outmuscle the other “big” clubs financially compared to only a few years ago. In theory Tottenham should've been ransacked and cleaned out, but they've held on to their best players (who seem fairly settled).
You could argue that United's ambitions are on the absolute world domination scale, though – i.e. we're trying to overtake Real Madrid, not simply to do well within said “elite” group of teams. But that ambition has looked pretty feckin' unrealistic in recent seasons, in spite of our resources.
Last edited:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...r-united-told-eric-dier-will-cost-50-million/
Manchester United told Eric Dier will cost £50 million
Manchester United told Eric Dier will cost £50 million
If he's who Mourinho wants them get him.
Couldn't give a shit about the £50m price tag. Transfer market is so distorted by the money being pumped into football that £50m is the new £30m.
Couldn't give a shit about the £50m price tag. Transfer market is so distorted by the money being pumped into football that £50m is the new £30m.
Spurs are the best they've been for a very long time and yet they still haven't won feck all. A third and second place finish in 3 years is wank.
United have been at a 20 year low yet still managed 3 major cups in the same time, it's a completely different world we're in to Spurs.
50m is actually cheap given the fact thats its Levy and Spurs.
If Utd buy Dier then i think Utd should give up on scouting players.
Could this thread die already?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...r-united-told-eric-dier-will-cost-50-million/
Manchester United told Eric Dier will cost £50 million
So, if the Telegraph are correct, it looks like Dier is the CM we want rather than Fabinho / Matic / etc
He's better than he's made out to be here. Would do a very good job for us and will help release Pogba.
£50m is too much
£50m is too much
It's a reasonably fair price in this day and age. I was against this at the start and even now it's not exactly exciting but I can see why Mourinho would want him. We can offer him a place in his favoured midfield position plus a higher salary, whilst Spurs are pretty sorted in that department and can use the money elsewhere.
If we've been quoted a price by Levy then this could well happen.
If we've been quoted a price by Levy then this could well happen.