That Liverpool 2nd XI contains 5 players who were 1st teamers last season (and in Firmino's case might be again but that would mean relegating Coutinho, Wijnaldum or Mane to the 2nd XI), so yes, I think our 2nd XI is clearly better in both defence and attack. Nothing in it in midfield. Of course that in itself is meaningless (even if interesting) .. unless of course injuries or fatigue begin to impact on the 'First XI' (I use that term very loosely knowing that nowadays it is a squad game).
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
@GlastonSpur - With all these £30m+ bids and deals flying around, are you still of the belief that £30m plus deals are still "not the norm?"
I think there will be at least 15-20x £30m deals involving PL teams alone.
A very standard fee in 2016.
I think there will be at least 15-20x £30m deals involving PL teams alone.
A very standard fee in 2016.
It's mental to suggest a 21 year old is a young player?
I never claimed they were an academy/youth signing though? I just said buying young players and helping them develop. Which we did. You're moving the goal posts here.
Our main problem last season was the squad depth. Specifically in the midfield and at striker which severely weakened the teams we were able to put out when we needed to rotate. We've addressed that already with the signings we've made.
Also the Dortmund game is a non analagous comparison. We rotated huge chunks of our starting 11 for those games because we decided to put full concentration on the league instead. We won't be rotating our entire 11 in the group stages of CL, just like we didn't in the EL group stages. Plus even when we do those backup options should now be better.
Bale was sold 3 years ago. Yet our net spend each window since then has continued to be very, very low, even in surplus on some occasions.
In reality, signing players like Alli for £5m or Dier for £4m (just two examples from several of that ilk) has played a more significant part. This is because we've gained two players that, if we had to buy two players just as good today, would cost us many, many tens of millions ... which means we've saved huge sums from what our net spend would very likely otherwise have needed to be to end up with a first XI of equal quality.
Bringing players up through the youth ranks has also played a more significant part than player sales. How much would Kane cost us to buy today? How much would Rose cost us today (he originally cost us £1m and joined our reserves and academy)? How much would Walker cost us today (he originally cost us around £4/5m and joined us aged 19)?
And yes, I realise that United "don't operate in that fashion" ... Ronaldo, Beckham and RvN aside. Instead, you've blown vast sums in net terms on additions to Fergie's title winning squad, yet the team/squad has gone backwards at a rate of knots.
Last edited:
15 - 20 deals @ £30m+ will still be a small percentage of the transfers from and to PL teams this window. A small percentage does not equate to "the norm".
Sigh. I've already explained the difference it makes it terms of having a more settled first XI, instead of one that is being continuously chopped and changed. If you think that continuity counts for nothing, then good luck to you.
The transfers before Poch arrived include seven of the current first XI (Kane makes the eighth, pre-Poch first XI player, but he wasn't a transfer). So this alleged 'scatter gun" approach somehow, miraculously, had this amazing result - seven first XI players of good-to-very-good quality. We just got lucky I guess.
.
Spurs have signed 19 players since the summer you sold Bale. About a quarter of them have done anything of note.
Well done on naming three players Utd sold. Ronaldo aside we got the best years of all those players. Because Utd prefer to keep their best players rather than selling at their peak where possible. Spurs don't.
How much would De Gea cost us now who we signed when he was 20? How much would Rashford cost us? How much would Martial have cost us if we hadn't signed him when we did? We can all play that game.
That's not really a good argument since Tottenham finished 5 places ahead of Liverpool.
There is no "game". I was told by you that our low net spend was mainly due to selling Bale. I showed why this wasn't the case. End of story.
Thus your mention of De Gea or Martial or Rashford is irrelevant ... except insofar as an attempt by you to switch onto new ground. Or maybe you want to show how much they've contributed to some imaginary low net spend on United's part?
However, your mention of De Gea is also unfortunate, because United had agreed to sell him last summer. Or perhaps he's just another exception, like Ronaldo.
Last edited:
Certainly going to be a fascinating season coming up.
If I were a Tottenham fan, i'd be cautiously optimistic, but a little wary at the end of season tail off, and poor tournament performance of Kane and Alli. In fairness though, it's England, so not many usually excel.
Can't wait, bring it all on!
If I were a Tottenham fan, i'd be cautiously optimistic, but a little wary at the end of season tail off, and poor tournament performance of Kane and Alli. In fairness though, it's England, so not many usually excel.
Can't wait, bring it all on!
The difference at the moment: 70 points and zero major trophies vs. 66 points and one major trophy.
An amazing result indeed. The continuity is really paying off hugely with those extra 4 points and minus one trophy.
You showed me that by telling me about two players you signed before you sold Bale? Good work.
My mention of De Gea and Rashford is just as relevant as your nonsensical arguments. I haven't claimed Utd have a low net spend. I've been consistent throughout in saying I don't care about net spend. Yes, Utd agreed to sell a player with one year on his contract. You may note we aren't selling him now.
United have outspent Spurs by a vast sum in net terms since Fergie left and yet despite this have only managed to finish above Spurs once in the last 3 seasons. Therefore I'd suggest that you might wish to appreciate the virtues of first XI continuity a little more highly.
I say that I "would suggest" this, but actually I won't ... because I'd guess that that cheque-book management and "big names" interest you far more. Luckily you have the perfect manager to suit your tastes, so good luck with all that
No, I didn't say anything in this context about players signed "before Bale". I mentioned two players - for example - who came after Bale. I also said there are several more player instances that all go to show that the Bale money has not (contrary to your claim) been the main factor in our low net spend ... so if you wish to embarrass yourself even more in this thread then by all means ask away and I'll give you others. But frankly it's tedious having to spell out the obvious facts for you.
As for the rest, now you finally admit that Ronaldo is not the only player "not past his best" that United have agreed to sell. That's progress I guess.
Last edited:
Ahh, but I thought money didn't matter and it was just about continuity and some mythical youth academy (that's produced one decent player in a decade).
If it leads to 70 points and zero trophies. No thanks. The point of football at the top level is to win trophies, at least if you're ambitious.
I don't mind my club spending their money that they've earned. It's no good sitting in Glazer's pockets. If that bothers you to the point where your bitterness means you have to take pot shots at a club spending their own hard earned cash, then I'd say the problem lies firmly with you.
This is the second time I am going to congratulate you on a good post tonight.
Absolutely bang on money.
@GlastonSpur
If Utd sign Pogba, and it's looking extremely likely now, with the additions of Mkhitaryan and Ibrahimovich and also Mourinho as manager, do you think Spurs will finish above us next season?
I haven't said that money doesn't matter. But I don't believe it matters anywhere near as much as you clearly do. I'd also say there's something of a mismatch between the league table last season and your faith in cheque-book management.
By the way, it's not just about youth academies and the several current Spurs players - including two in our first XI - who've been part of the Spurs academy. It's also about developing young players generally (whether or not they've ever been part of the club's academy set-up) - players like Dier, Alli, Walker (when he arrived with us) and Lamela (when he arrived with us). And it's also about the next crop coming now coming through into the senior squad - Marcus Edwards, Carter-Vickers and more.
You may not think it bodes well for the future that Spurs fielded the youngest team season, but I do.
I'll wait until the windows has nearly closed and the season about to start before making any final predictions, but I don't think that Pogba is going to improve United much at all. He's just not the sort of player who takes games by the scruff of the neck and imposes himself. For the absurd sums of money involved I fear you'll have bought yourself a sheep in wolf's clothing.
I didn't make any comment one way or another about how important I think money is. I just think it smacks of bitterness to have a go at a club for spending their own hard earned cash. Where would you prefer we put our money if not on the pitch? Let it sit in Glazer's bank account gathering him interest? Maybe hand it out in a charitous payment to Spurs? (We metaphorically already do that one through the collective TV deal).
Most top clubs have young players they are developing. This is not some new approach Spurs are pioneering. United handed debuts to tonnes of academy players last season and seem to have struck gold with two or three. Bringing through one decent player from your academy, whilst beneficial, is hardly anything to rave about.
United fielded the second youngest team but I don't think that alone means we'll make a step forward. It's not a linear progression and whilst some players will kick on, others will stagnate and may not make it. And you need experience to get you over the line at the business end in cups and leagues, so it's a two sided coin.
Well Bale isn't the only example obviously. You sold Utd one of your best players three times before that. Throw Modric in too if you like. Spurs have a low net spend because they pay low prices and look to sell big to finance restructuring and it's kept you around the top 5. It's good for Spurs but it's not good enough for going much higher which is why your club has been trophyless for several years. Why can't you address the number of signings you've made in the last three years with your brilliant recruitment and scouting and how many have been any good? Tottenham have spent £200m in the last three years. If we're being generous and including Lamela in there then it's about £60m well spent.
I never claimed Utd didn't agree to sell De Gea. You're welcome to point out where I did.
Thanks for the reply.
We're buying a devil in zebra's clothing.
Five Liverpool players from a team that finished eighth last season, so please forgive me if I'm not in awe like yourself.
The 2nd XI there is very little to seperate in defence, it's certainly not clearly better. Liverpool have the stronger centre back partnership, whereas Spurs have better fullbacks and the keepers are fairly equal, though I'd have Mignolet slightly ahead of Vorm.
Liverpool's attack does look stronger, but if Janssen can translate his form from the Eredivisie over to te Premier League they have the better number nine for sure.
I haven't criticised United for spending money, I've criticised you for what you've spent it on ... the general waste of money. Let's take Pogba as just the latest example: United are about to spend on his transfer a sum equal to more than the combined transfer fees of the following Spurs players:
Lloris
Rose
Walker
Alderweireld
Vertonghen
Dier
Dembele
Alli
Eriksen
Lamela
Add in Kane, who cost nothing because he came through academy. This means that you're proposing to buy Pogba for a price that is more than the total cost of Spurs entire first XI.
Entire first X. 
Edit: oops just seen Kane. As you were.
Edit: oops just seen Kane. As you were.
We all know the number of expensive flops and duds you’ve had to churn through before getting to that point, so it’s a fairly moot point.
And even then, so what?
United make £500m a year. Pogba’s price is a drop in the ocean in that context (albeit a rather big drop).
I would put his market value at about £60m, being a 23 year old hot property midfielder who’s won numerous club honours and individual awards.
Add £20m because his club don’t want or need to sell. Add £20m because he’s going to a major PL team with lots of money. And there’s your price.
The transfer is rectifying an expensive mistake that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. Getting Pogba back goes beyond the average big money transfer. It’s a similar situation to the one Barcelona have found themselves in a few times, forking out over the odds for players that left for free because it’s not right that they don’t spend their peak years at the club.
Again, I ask, where would you prefer we put our money if not on player investment?
If Spurs hadn’t been so criminally mismanaged over the last 20 years and you were in a similar position to buy players then I’d suspect you’d be singing a different tune. It’s just the green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head.
That's wrong on so many level Glaston.
Let's talk about wasting money then should we?
Spurs sold Bale for 86m pounds. With the money they spent 110m pounds on the following players:
Erik Lamela - good buy, first team player.
Roberto Soldado - flop
Paulinho - flop
Christian Eriksen - excellent buy probably your best player
Etienne Capoue - flop
Vlad Chiriches - flop
Nacer Chadli - flop
so you guys spent 110m pounds - about the same as what we're buying Pogba for and essentially with that money you brought in 2 first team players. Pogba has the highest ceiling as well from all of the above.
It's good to bring all the success stories, it kinda proves your point, but let's not forget the amount of crap you brought in at the same time shall we?
I see. I'm supposed to be jealous of a United transfer and youth development system that is spending more on Pogba - a player they let go in the first place - than the entire cost of Spurs first XI? Bloody hell, I've heard it all now.
Last edited:
Are we supposed to be jealous of a transfer policy that gets the job done one time in 4?
I see. I'm supposed to be jealous of a United transfer and youth development system that is spending more on than Pogba - a player they let go in the first place - than the entire cost of Spurs first XI? Bloody hell, I've heard it all now.
I see. I'm supposed to be jealous of a United transfer and youth development system that is spending more on than Pogba - a player they let go in the first place - than the entire cost of Spurs first XI? Bloody hell, I've heard it all now.
Well you clearly are. The laughing smilies can't hide your bitterness.
Why does it matter how much Spurs first 11 cost? It's not like you have any silverware to show for it.
Leicester's starting 11 cost less than you wasted on Roberto Soldado.
At least they've actually got a title to show for it.
Crowing about frugality whilst winning nothing is tragic.
Essentially you are spot on with the probable Pogba's market value of 60m. He's not worth more than that probably. He's not the best midfielder in the world either, but given those who are better than him are not available we're after our best option on the market.
A player at the right age that would improve us immensely. It's a non brainer. With the amount of money coming in we can afford to spend 200m per season on transfers easily. Essentially you have to spend to get back on top. If you are already there like Barca and Bayern you can spend a summer without major incoming players, but we are still quite off quality wise. It's nice to see United having the desire to get back to its rightful place.
Well if there are 20 deals of that magnitude it'll mean that's the going rate for a good player for PL teams. Obviously some will find bargain and some will overpay for average players but for PL clubs £30m is the new £15m.
I see. I'm supposed to be jealous of a United transfer and youth development system that is spending more on than Pogba - a player they let go in the first place - than the entire cost of Spurs first XI? Bloody hell, I've heard it all now.
What's your obssession with club's finance? Do you work for Deloitte and have to keep tabs on that or is it just your fetish?
Don't mention Soldado. Glaston has managed to convince himself they paid £13m for him because of one Twitter post from unknown journo, and he is convinced they had made a profit on that transfer.
Perfectly said. Clubs with a mentality to survive at the top talk like that. Clubs with the burning need to win at all costs will do anything to get back to the top. You know why? Because winning has been instilled in our DNA. We must win. If that means £100m for Pogba, so be it. We have the money. We are in no danger of losing the income at least for the foreseeable future. So feck frugality. The history books will only remember winners and not 3rd placed scrooges.
Ha ha. As a United fan do you really want to go there ? I wouldn't (and yes I know we've wasted a gazillion too, but then that's not the debate).
Let me put it this way. United makes about 2.5 times more than Spurs on an yearly basis, so we can afford to waste 2.5 times money more
It looks like Glaston is concerned about United spending money. Sure we've squandered a lot but that's the price you have to pay to keep with the rest.
Or the price you pay for bad scouting.Let me put it this way. United makes about 2.5 times more than Spurs on an yearly basis, so we can afford to waste 2.5 times money more
It looks like Glaston is concerned about United spending money. Sure we've squandered a lot but that's the price you have to pay to keep with the rest.
In Pogba's case not really. You have to play the young players to develop them. However you have more experienced and proven players that get in the way especially if you have to be successful in the same time. A club like Spurs can spend years without titles and cups, United cannot. Especially when they bring a top manager where the expectations are for immediate success.
- Status