Rose technically came from Leeds, although he moved at a very young age.
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
Rose technically came from Leeds, although he moved at a very young age.
Rose was purchased from Leeds in 2007 I believe. Making him around 17?
It's a fair question. I would say in today's environment Kane alone puts Spurs somewhere near the top. Producing and elevating a product from your academy who goes on to score 20+ goals in back to back seasons, including a golden boot, is about as good as any club can boast in the past, what, 7-10 years?
To be clear, though, I'm not speaking strictly of players who come all the way through a team's academy from age 8 or whatever. The term "Youth development", at least in my opinion, also encompasses those players who you buy young who are outside the first team picture but go on to develop and elevate over time, even if they didn't start their youth career in your academy. You're still taking the time to add considerably to their personal development and, ultimately, are making the decision to add them to the first team picture. This widens the pool for teams across the league to be sure, but I still think Spurs come out favorably here. Walker, Alli, Dier and to an extent Rose would all fall into this category (and Bale too, going back a bit further). Of course I don't think the likes of Eriksen or Lamela qualify (despite being young) due to them being far more established at their previous clubs. It comes back to the question of how many teams would have bought an Eric Dier, refined his skill set, and given him a first team chance as quickly and successfully as Spurs? I'm not saying this doesn't happen at other clubs. But there are several very recent examples of Spurs doing this quite effectively.
I am not bragging. In fact, Glaston was the one insinuating it is funny that we are spending so much money. I just replied that who wouldn't want to be in a position to be able to spend when needed. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't want to have the ability to spend big if need be?
Been already proven multiple times over in the past. Nothing new there, except for Spurs being considered serious title challengers.
That is a fairly significant difference though tbf.
This is a mistake - tipping Spurs to win something. Even in a game of tiddlywinks they'll rather self-combust than win. You may as well throw money down the drain.
They're like Newcastle or Everton perhaps, its ingrained in their DNA to self-destruct at the critical moment. No point worrying about Spurs.
For all the talk of spurs last season thy finished behind an arsenal managed by arsene wenger, failing to win anything again of course.
This season will be the same, in 20 years time you'll look back and say - ''I was there son, I was there when Spurs won nothing again''.
I dont view it as positive or negative if other teams spend massive amounts of cash on players because I dont really care about what other teams do. I probably used the wrong term when I said 'resorting to that', a poor choice of words on my part which doesnt really reflect how I feel and you were right to jump on it. Every team is doing things in their own way and for those who can spend big they do so, that's understandable. I'm not trying to claim any moral victory at all - honestly if in 5 years time once the stadium is built and if we were to spend £50 million plus on a star player I'll be the first one jumping up and down with excitement - I remember when we bought Klinsmann and I was incredibly happy and excited.
Is there really any need for this type of post?
The way you posted, it almost seemed like you were the first team to be doing it.
Yeah Rose came from Leeds - the only youth players in the squad that we can say are true Spurs youth players are Kane, Mason (both England internationals now), Onomah, Winks and Edwards. That's not bad at all really, Onomah and Winks already have had some first team minutes and both are highly rated - Edwards is the biggest prospect we have and is finally in the first team squad so will be interesting to see if he gets many chances.
Not a bad return - we sold a few from the youth team over the past few years with the most recent being Pritchard to Norwich and he should go on and have a good career.
In my opinion yes. Bear in mind that the academy only started to be taken seriously some 10-12 years ago when Levy decided to embark on the youth policy. Obviously it takes time, nobody is going to reap a crop of good talent in 5 minutes. It is now beginning to bear serious fruit with Cameron Carter-Vickers, Marcus Edwards who at 17 is already training and getting minutes with the first team, Kyle Walker-Peters, Harry Winks, Shayon Harrison, Nathan Oduwa, Josh Onomah, Connor Ogilvie, and Luke McGee being the current front runners. Some, like Edwards are already in the first team picture but all are highly rated with high expectations. In the younger age groups there are some promising talents which hopefully move up into the first team picture eventually. So I would say yes, it's impressive.
Im not sure how you came to that conclusion tbh, did I say we were the first team to be doing it?
"What is great though is that we are proving that it is possible to compete when not spending vast sums of cash on players"
That was your quote. Don't you think it looks like you are talking as if you are proving that concept rather than simply following it?
Nonetheless, if you didn't mean so, there is no point discussing it further.
It's very possible some or all of these players are able to make the step up to PL level and the level of consistent CL and league title challengers where Tottenham's ambitions ultimately lie. Also very possible very few or none make that type of progression. Until we see where those players end up I wouldn't be able to say their academy is of a very high quality.
This I agree with. I think Dier is an extremely underrated talent.
I always liked Pritchard. Was a shame he couldn't make it at yours. He was great at Brentford under Warburton.
You're implying what the end-of-season table will be based on Spurs drawing away from home against a decent side in the first game. Do you even realised how ridiculous that makes you look?
Your other comment is equally silly, given that my point was not about any money being spent - has any professional club not paid money for some of their players? - it was instead about the vast amounts of money being spent by Mourinho and Pep.
But since you ask, the current squad includes 17 players who have come from our academy: http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new...remier-league-squad-numbers-announced-120816/
It's not that ridiculous to say you've fallen behind, in my opinion you have. Your squad might be good enough to do alright but you have to remember you only came third last season when everyone was poor. You haven't improved significantly and a lot of your main players are banned, injured or looking out of form in my opinion.
It's a bit ironic that you say Guardiola and Mourinho have spent vast amounts of money. United have certainly splashed out but we can do with ease, and as far as I'm aware city have only spent around 100 million which is about as much as you spent a few summers ago is it not? You can try and pretend your squad was built on a shoe string budget if it makes you feel better but it's not true.
Spurs do have resources, as you'd expect with a club that currently has the 12th largest income world-wide and will soon be in the top 10. It's simply that we are investing in building our new stadium complex, in further developing our world-class training centre, and in youth development.
Well said.
You can reasonably argue that, come the season end and in your opinion, we will have fallen behind. But it's entirely ridiculous to say that we have already fallen behind based on the result of Game 1 (a fixture that we also drew last season). Moreover, we lost the first game of last season.
As for the rest, I'm talking about net spend, since talking about transfer expenditure without subtracting income from player sales is entirely misleading. If I buy a car for £1,000, but sell my old car for £900, then I'm out-of-pocket by only £100 and not £900.
In my opinion you're already behind. You're behind in the table and your squad and manager aren't as good as ours of cities or maybe Chelsea's.
Net spend has to be the most ridiculously stupid thing anyone has ever come out with.
That's your opinion and fair enough you are entitled to it. I just think it's a bit premature to be forming opinions at this stage in the season with one league game played and the transfer window still open.
This cracks me up. Will you switch to tipping Spurs for the title if we top the table after Game Week 2?As for your net spend comment, try telling that to your bank manager. S/he will reply that you live in a financial fantasy world, one where you can spend as much as you like without bothering about the little things ... like money coming in.
Do you actually understand finances? Honestly? Are you one of these people that thinks football clubs' money comes solely from transferring players? Honestly? If so feel free to quote me and I'll explain to you why Manchester United are capable of spending their hard earned millions on players.
As for your net spend comment, try telling that to your bank manager. S/he will reply that you live in a financial fantasy world, one where you can spend as much as you like without bothering about the little things ... like money coming in.
Even suggesting United should be worried about money coming in is daft.
Where have I suggested that United should be worried about money coming in? And where have I said that football clubs' money comes solely from transferring players?
The answer is: nowhere. So your comments are irrelevant.
Fair point glaston, but I do think it's a bit funny when last season you were describing Man United as a 'spent force' with how players won't be interested in signing for a club without champions league and how the 3 year trend (or a five year trend) proving conclusively that Spurs have 'moved on' leaving United behind.
But you've implied several times now that United will be in trouble if they keep spending more on players than they make from selling them? The transfer net spend. At least, that's how I've read some of your posts.
Even though the only season we've ever made a profit from player transfers during my lifetime was probably when we sold Ronaldo.
I think a lot of us just find it quite an odd assertion.
You said that the amount of money spent on players is misleading if you don't take into account the amount made on players, but you're conveniently ignoring the fact that United make more in six months than Spurs do in years. Its something fans of small clubs do all the time so that when the big/rich teams finish above them they can take solace in the incredibly misleading net spend.
As for saying that you didn't say money comes purely from transfers is just you trying to be difficult/clever.
He want's to have it every which way. Basically what Glaston said is correct even if it actually clashes with something he's said previously, it's a shame because there's plenty of Spurs' fans on here who want a reasonable discussion.
I didn't know that you had the 12th largest income. Could you link to any article which provides this information?
I haven't described United as a "spent force". And nor have I said that "players won't be interested in signing for a club without champions league". These are entirely your inventions.
As for the last 3 seasons (etc.), this has been done to death elsewhere. If you want to rehash it all again, then you'll be doing so without my engagement as I've said all I need to say on the subject.
Look, you began this by talking about Spurs having spent £100m on transfers in one particular season (I can't be bothered to check if that £100m is accurate). I responded by saying that in net terms we didn't (in fact we made a net profit).
Now you (not me) are trying to widen the discussion beyond just talking about transfer money. Do United have a larger income than Spurs? Yes. Happy now?
It is accurate, you splashed out big time and wasted loads of money.
I just think it's funny that you claim united and city spend vast amounts of money, as if Spurs have a brilliant team all brought in for 5 million.
Although on comedy value it's not quite up there with saying i'm ridiculous for claiming we're ahead of you (we are) yet its fine to say you've left us behind because you finished above us last season (didn't win anything mind you, unlike us) and because you finished ahead of us when we had David Moyes managing us.
Although my original point regarding net spend (before you got in a huff and said I live in finance fantasy land was it?) was that fans like you claim net spend means you haven't spent as much as you have, and that clubs that already have money spend beyond their means because they make money elsewhere.
Now I'll wait for you to reply Glaston
I've said that United will eventually be in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them. United have now spent a vast sum, in net terms, on additions to your last title-winning squad. You can keep up the current rate for a while, but not indefinitely, for accumulative-finance reasons I've explained previously (not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere).
The one refers to now, the other refers to the future. Big difference. @Dec9003
And in any case, neither refers to football clubs' money coming solely from transferring players.
How do you guys feel about Eriksen blowing open your wage budget?
Will the financial chickens come home to roost, @GlastonSpur ?
Will the financial chickens come home to roost, @GlastonSpur ?
- Status