The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

Will Spurs finish in top 4 in the upcoming season?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
GlastonSpur said:
Incorrect. The proposal from Spurs was to knock down the Olympic Stadium and build a new stadium - one actually fit for football - in its place.
Click to expand...
And how much that first proposal would cost? 250M - both knocking down the Olympic Stadium and building a new on. The current project would cost at least 3 times more and that's why Spurs have to make a five-year loans worth a total of 350M. That means the club will have to averagely pay 70M annually for the following 5 years excluding interest. Clearly the current project was never the first choice.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Our last trophy was 9 years ago. However, going through a period of trophy drought - particularly in an era of sugar-daddies and in the most competitive league in the world - does not change the fact that Spurs are (and have long been) a big club.
Click to expand...

Spurs are indeed a big club. There just happen to be a huge number of clubs that are bigger.

Exactly the same way that I can regard myself as tall at 5ft 8in. Sadly there are many many people that are.... Taller.

In England alone you comfortably sit behind 5 clubs. 6 if we include Everton. (I would). In a European or World list you're probably in the top 50 but that list would have a very clear divide on it.

Irrespective of that, it's quite juvenile of me to debate what 'big' means so I'll quit. I like what's going on with Spurs. Us as United fans are being a bit hypocritical. We deride Chelsea and City for 'cheating' their way to the top. Spurs are building a pretty strong foundation, have a great team and they should be commended for managing to do this without a billionaire sugar daddy.

Bit of a bipolar post.
 
Claude Makélélé said:
And how much that first proposal would cost? 250M - both knocking down the Olympic Stadium and building a new on. The current project would cost at least 3 times more and that's why Spurs have to make a five-year loans worth a total of 350M. That means the club will have to averagely pay 70M annually for the following 5 years excluding interest. Clearly the current project was never the first choice.
Click to expand...

You originally said (incorrectly) that a new stadium was not our first choice. Now you fall back on a 2nd line of attack.

At the time, the option to build over WHL didn't exist, but things changed. And with that change, it was preferable - for obvious reasons - for the club to stay in its current and historic location, where its roots lie. I imagine that would have been the choice originally, had the option then existed.

You claim to know about the relative costs of the two options, but I doubt that you actually do ... especially when taking into account today's prices rather than looking back several years.

It's also the case the new stadium complex has many design features that were not part of the plan for the Olympic Stadium - the capacity to stage NFL games for instance (with dedicated NFL facilities, including an entirely separate pitch, that create the future possibility of an NFL franchise taking up residence). I also wonder if your £250m figure included the hotel, apartments, extreme sports centre, housing and many other features that are part of the current project and which, whilst pushing up the cost, also push up the potential financial returns.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Spurs are indeed a big club. There just happen to be a huge number of clubs that are bigger.

Exactly the same way that I can regard myself as tall at 5ft 8in. Sadly there are many many people that are.... Taller.

In England alone you comfortably sit behind 5 clubs. 6 if we include Everton. (I would). In a European or World list you're probably in the top 50 but that list would have a very clear divide on it.

Irrespective of that, it's quite juvenile of me to debate what 'big' means so I'll quit. I like what's going on with Spurs. Us as United fans are being a bit hypocritical. We deride Chelsea and City for 'cheating' their way to the top. Spurs are building a pretty strong foundation, have a great team and they should be commended for managing to do this without a billionaire sugar daddy.

Bit of a bipolar post.
Click to expand...

A huge number ... lol. That's certainly not true.
 
GlastonSpur said:
A huge number ... lol. That's certainly not true.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Did you feel my qualifier was true?

"In England alone you comfortably sit behind 5 clubs. 6 if we include Everton. (I would). In a European or World list you're probably in the top 50 but that list would have a very clear divide on it"

6th out of over 100 suggests 'Big' but only compared to what's below you, not in comparison to who's above you.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Of course it is. Did you feel my qualifier was true?

"In England alone you comfortably sit behind 5 clubs. 6 if we include Everton. (I would). In a European or World list you're probably in the top 50 but that list would have a very clear divide on it"

6th out of over 100 suggests 'Big' but only compared to what's below you, not in comparison to who's above you.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be strange if they were bigger than the ones above them, wouldn't it?
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Of course it is. Did you feel my qualifier was true?

"In England alone you comfortably sit behind 5 clubs. 6 if we include Everton. (I would). In a European or World list you're probably in the top 50 but that list would have a very clear divide on it"

6th out of over 100 suggests 'Big' but only compared to what's below you, not in comparison to who's above you.
Click to expand...

Are there bigger clubs? Of course, but not a "huge number" as you claim.

Beyond that I can't be bothered to engage in the ranking exercise that you clearly seek.
 
Moonwalker said:
Yes, it would be strange if they were bigger than the ones above them, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Not speaking in absolute terms.

Liverpool fans could argue they're a bigger club than United. The debate could run and run.

Yet no Spurs fan on the planet is going to have eyes on clubs above them and have an intelligent honest discussion about being a bigger club. They're clearly a tier below the countries biggest clubs.

Spurs are a cup side and always have been. They have periods of success where they win a cup or two. That's it. They've been the best side in their country twice in their entire history.

Again, I'll just point out that I like Spurs. My jump off post in this chain acknowledged that I admire what they're doing on all fronts. I'm not running them down.
 
Moonwalker said:
Yes, it would be strange if they were bigger than the ones above them, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
I think you missed his point...or maybe I did

@UnrelatedPsuedo You might put them behind Everton but I'm sure if a decent player becomes available they would pick Spurs above them. Spurs are well on their way to being a big club with the new stadium, poch etc
 
Attila said:
I think you missed his point...or maybe I did

@UnrelatedPsuedo You might put them behind Everton but I'm sure if a decent player becomes available they would pick Spurs above them. Spurs are well on their way to being a big club with the new stadium, poch etc
Click to expand...

As said previously: I like Spurs.

They're currently every bit as good an option for a player as Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Arsenal & United. (Assuming we ignore the reality of salary). Nobody is choosing Everton over Spurs.

Yet this has also been true of Newcastle, Leeds and Blackburn in recent memory.

You can get wrapped up in the concept of 'Big Club' and argue it forever to a standstill. I don't think anyone is really speaking the same language here tbh. My absolute line in the sand is that Spurs are a noticeable distance behind the countries - and europes - biggest clubs.
 
GlastonSpur said:
You originally said (incorrectly) that a new stadium was not our first choice. Now you fall back on a 2nd line of attack.

At the time, the option to build over WHL didn't exist, but things changed. And with that change, it was preferable - for obvious reasons - for the club to stay in its current and historic location, where its roots lie. I imagine that would have been the choice originally, had the option then existed.

You claim to know about the relative costs of the two options, but I doubt that you actually do ... especially when taking into account today's prices rather than looking back several years.

It's also the case the new stadium complex has many design features that were not part of the plan for the Olympic Stadium - the capacity to stage NFL games for instance (with dedicated NFL facilities, including an entirely separate pitch, that create the future possibility of an NFL franchise taking up residence). I also wonder if your £250m figure included the hotel, apartments, extreme sports centre, housing and many other features that are part of the current project and which, whilst pushing up the cost, also push up the potential financial returns.
Click to expand...

Tottenham had been fighting for years with West Ham about Olympic Stadium and even considered legal challenges to West Ham following their successful bid for the stadium, before changing to the current plan. It still not confirm that the current project was not the first choice? Such a joke.

The proposal your club submitted in the bid for Olympic Stadium was published. I would be surprised if you, as a Spurs fan, didn't know about that 250M in details and 350M loan for the current project.

No matter if the current plan does include the hotel, apartments, housing or whatever..., it was not the first choice.
 
Next year will be interesting to see if they keep the majority of their best players, they need to pass to the next level, that is the Champions League, for me at least when they play at the White Hart Lane they play the best football in England, but for some strange reason they do not keep the same level in Europe, Pochettino is my favourite coach atm in England.
 
Claude Makélélé said:
Tottenham had been fighting for years with West Ham about Olympic Stadium and even considered legal challenges to West Ham following their successful bid for the stadium, before changing to the current plan. Does it still not confirm that the current project was not the first choice? Such a joke.

The proposal your club submitted in the bid for Olympic Stadium was published. I would be surprised if you, as a Spurs fan, didn't know about that 250M in details and 350M loan for current project.

No matter if the current plan does include the hotel, apartments, housing or whatever..., it was not the first choice.
Click to expand...

As I've already said, at the time it was the only choice available, since the option to build over WHL did not exist. The concept of "first choice" implies other optional locations - there weren't any.

As for the rest, I stand by what I've said about your £250m figure. And yes, there are loan options for £350m in place for the current stadium - so what?
 
GlastonSpur said:
As I've already said, at the time it was the only choice available, since the option to build over WHL did not exist. The concept of "first choice" implies other optional locations - there weren't any.

As for the rest, I stand by what I've said about your £250m figure. And yes, there are loan options for £350m in place for the current stadium - so what?
Click to expand...

"The option to build over WHL did not exist" - so you think Tottenham did not considered building a new stadium at WHL before joining the bid for the Olympic Stadium? It should be a joke again or a stupid decision made by Tottenham's board: considering a new stadium since like 2000 (a decade before) but have never thought about building a new stadium at current ground.


"so what?" - so if Tottenham had won that bid, probably they wouldn't have to take the loan and move to the current plan.
 
bleedred said:
So is claiming that you are one among them without winning anything for god knows how long.
Click to expand...
This whole argument seems to be based on the definition of 'big club'. Whilst Spurs may not be amongst the most historied as far as winning trophies is concerned is that the definition of a 'big club' ? Historically perhaps, when money mattered less, but in this modern era ?
As for trophies, there are only 5 per season on offer, domestically Spurs are unlucky enough to be in a league that has some of the largest and most powerful clubs on the planet (in terms of both finance and playing staff) and the PL money has only strengthened that situation. In Europe the Spanish clubs now dominate, does that mean that PSG, Juve, Milan, Bayern, United etc. etc. are no longer massive clubs ? When the competition for trophies is so strong across the board I would not say that you have to win them frequently to be considered a 'big club', there is way too much competition both domestically and in Europe for that, and of course there's another level beyond that of being labeled a 'big club'.
 
We are a really well supported club that easily filled Wembley. Got a great current team, fantastic facilities and soon the third biggest stadium. Our history is also rich, and we've won more trophies than City for example.

Now I'm not saying this makes us better or bigger than other teams, but I don't think there are 5 'big teams' and Spurs in the current top 6.

Having said that, I don't care much of being a 'big' club or not. It doesn't really have much relevance on the future unless it directly put the club in a position for future success.
 
SCP said:
Next year will be interesting to see if they keep the majority of their best players, they need to pass to the next level, that is the Champions League, for me at least when they play at the White Hart Lane they play the best football in England, but for some strange reason they do not keep the same level in Europe, Pochettino is my favourite coach atm in England.
Click to expand...

They have only been back in the CL for one season. People talk about their CL performance like it is an ongoing trend.
 
hellohello said:
We are a really well supported club that easily filled Wembley. Got a great current team, fantastic facilities and soon the third biggest stadium. Our history is also rich, and we've won more trophies than City for example.

Now I'm not saying this makes us better or bigger than other teams, but I don't think there are 5 'big teams' and Spurs in the current top 6.

Having said that, I don't care much of being a 'big' club or not. It doesn't really have much relevance on the future unless it directly put the club in a position for future success.
Click to expand...

Precisely, it's a ridiculous arguement, one continuously pressed forward by Glaston as if to ease his own insecurities. It's quite sad really. Fact is, if Spurs were a big club, in the truest sence of the word, then wouldn't even be having this discussion. Be honest, even with United's current woes, does our status as a big club even come under question? But as you rightly pointed out, it is entirely irrelevent.
 
Precisely, it's a ridiculous arguement, one continuously pressed forward by Glaston as if to ease his own insecurities. It's quite sad really. Fact is, if Spurs were a big club, in the truest sence of the word, then wouldn't even be having this discussion. Be honest, even with United's current woes, does our status as a big club even come under question? But as you rightly pointed out, it is entirely irrelevent.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it was a United supporter @TheReligion who raised the issue. I simply replied to him and then you and others took up the baton.

What's actually sad is how so many -including you - want to personalise things.
 
GlastonSpur said:
On the contrary, it was a United supporter @TheReligion who raised the issue. I simply replied to him and then you and others took up the baton.

What's actually sad is how so many -including you - want to personalise things.
Click to expand...

It's banter, mate, nothing more nothing less. It's never personal. I thought you understood that since you're more than happy to dish it out.
 
Random Task said:
It's banter, mate, nothing more nothing less. It's never personal. I thought you understood that since you're more than happy to dish it out.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I address the footballing issues and rarely make personal attacks on the poster.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The difference is that I address the footballing issues and rarely make personal attacks on the poster.
Click to expand...

It's never personal. Ever. No doubt things get heated on occasion, but that's to be expected when a group of opposition fans debate football.

And on that note, Spurs are a moderately sized club with minimal ambition who are currently in a state of stagnation. No doubt you disagree. Round and round we go.
 
Random Task said:
It's never personal. Ever. No doubt things get heated on occasion, but that's to be expected when a group of opposition fans debate football.

And on that note, Spurs are a moderately sized club with minimal ambition who are currently in a state of stagnation. No doubt you disagree. Round and round we go.
Click to expand...

That's just incorrect though, we are clearly an improving side. Also I would argue we are one of the most ambitious clubs in the Premiership currently in the sense that we are actively trying to become a bigger club with the upcoming new stadium and the general progression we are making in performances on the pitch. Yes we are a moderately sized club but we are trying to change that.
 
balaks said:
That's just incorrect though, we are clearly an improving side. Also I would argue we are one of the most ambitious clubs in the Premiership currently in the sense that we are actively trying to become a bigger club with the upcoming new stadium and the general progression we are making in performances on the pitch. Yes we are a moderately sized club but we are trying to change that.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Random Task may have been joking just a bit there. Spurs have a great side and really have been the best in the league the past month and a half or so, they just ran out of steam a bit. The key will be holding on to those key players, and we know who they are. The new stadium and the deal with the NFL is going to be huge for them going forward.
 
Keeps It tidy said:
They have only been back in the CL for one season. People talk about their CL performance like it is an ongoing trend.
Click to expand...
So what, I mentioned this season in the Champions League, not all European seasons were in the Champions League under Pochettino, but even in the Europa League they need to do more.
 
Can anyone actually believe Spurs played in this years champions league? Like I honestly can't remember a single moment in their games. Hardly rousing for a "return to the top"
 
SCP said:
So what, I mentioned this season in the Champions League, not all European seasons were in the Champions League under Pochettino, but even in the Europa League they need to do more.
Click to expand...

I agree, I said the same thing few weeks ago. I think they were in Europe 3 seasons under Poch and all seasons they played poorly. Winning only 1 KO tie in 3 years is poor.
 
Zii said:
Can anyone actually believe Spurs played in this years champions league? Like I honestly can't remember a single moment in their games. Hardly rousing for a "return to the top"
Click to expand...

They've had their pants pulled down in all competitions this year to be fair. Just lacking that little extra. Be it mentality, squad depth or something else they've fallen short.

Will be an interesting summer.
 
roonster09 said:
I agree, I said the same thing few weeks ago. I think they were in Europe 3 seasons under Poch and all seasons they played poorly. Winning only 1 KO tie in 3 years is poor.
Click to expand...
That is why I still say they are not at top level outside England, at the White Hart Lane they are the team who I like more to see in England, but outside England even Delle Ali or Harry Kane didn't do nothing special to be called World Class Players like I see some guys in the media saying, maybe they are more used to the chaotic games in England, and when they have to face teams who are tactically well organized, they struggle because they cannot find the spaces.

Like Guardiola said, in England in the middle of the field nothing happens.
 
SCP said:
That is why I still say they are not at top level outside England, at the White Hart Lane they are the team who I like more to see in England, but outside England even Delle Ali or Harry Kane didn't do nothing special to be called World Class Players like I see some guys in the media saying, maybe they are more used to the chaotic games in England, and when they have to face teams who are tactically well organized, they struggle because they cannot find the spaces.

Like Guardiola said, in England in the middle of the field nothing happens.
Click to expand...

Thank god someone else thinks this, I get hammered for saying this in the UK.
 
Zii said:
Can anyone actually believe Spurs played in this years champions league? Like I honestly can't remember a single moment in their games. Hardly rousing for a "return to the top"
Click to expand...

We got roundly thumped by Monaco, thats all I remember and I'm a Spurs fan.
 
Lash said:
Thank god someone else thinks this, I get hammered for saying this in the UK.
Click to expand...

I dont think anybody has called either Alli or Kane world class though. They may have the potential to become world class but neither are there yet.
 
balaks said:
We got roundly thumped by Monaco, thats all I remember and I'm a Spurs fan.
Click to expand...

At Wembley I think we were the better team overall, they had 2 shots on target and two goals. Wasn't much in it. We got outplayed in Monaco though.
 
Lash said:
Thank god someone else thinks this, I get hammered for saying this in the UK.
Click to expand...
Maybe it will change next season if they stay there and more 1 year of Pochettino, so far they only shine in England, I even remember Kane at the Under 21 Euros in 2015 without scoring 1 goal, maybe I am being harsh, lets wait and see.
balaks said:
I dont think anybody has called either Alli or Kane world class though. They may have the potential to become world class but neither are there yet.
Click to expand...
Maybe you not, the British media yes.
 
balaks said:
I dont think anybody has called either Alli or Kane world class though. They may have the potential to become world class but neither are there yet.
Click to expand...

I think more people see Alli as having the potential, but the amount of time's I've been told Kane is a world class striker, in the top 5 strikers in europe, etc; by media and fans alike, it's so premature.

SCP said:
Maybe it will change next season if they stay there and more 1 year of Pochettino, so far they only shine in England, I even remember Kane at the Under 21 Euros in 2015 without scoring 1 goal, maybe I am being harsh, lets wait and see.
Click to expand...

I watched Kane at Millwall when he was on loan and there's no doubt he had talent, but he hasn't changed at all since then - he just shoots from anywhere and everywhere. Obviously he's become far more athletic and honed his technique of shooting, but I'm still unconvinced that he'll ever be top class at a European level. Saying that - I thought people would suss him out in the prem after a few seasons, but that hasn't happened.
 
Lash said:
I think more people see Alli as having the potential, but the amount of time's I've been told Kane is a world class striker, in the top 5 strikers in europe, etc; by media and fans alike, it's so premature.



I watched Kane at Millwall when he was on loan and there's no doubt he had talent, but he hasn't changed at all since then - he just shoots from anywhere and everywhere. Obviously he's become far more athletic and honed his technique of shooting, but I'm still unconvinced that he'll ever be top class at a European level. Saying that - I thought people would suss him out in the prem after a few seasons, but that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

I think his finishing and movement is world class. He also doesn't really have any obvious weaknesses to his game, and his overall play is good. Not yet among the absolute best strikers in the world, but sit comfortably a tier below. My opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.