I don't think it is realistic to expect top 4 in the way that the Man Utd board for example might expect it on a yearly basis but I certainly think we should be aiming for it on a yearly basis, yes. I certainly don't expect us to be completely adrift the whole season and would be slightly disappointed with such an outcome.
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it's American football. The news Spurs stadium is being built with a 2nd retractable pitch for this, plus NFL-dedicated changing rooms and the other required facilities.
I don't really know about the market, but I'd guess that the ticket demand would be large enough if it was the only NFL franchise in England and in a major capital city to boot. Also, it takes no longer to fly from the large sections of the American East coast to London than it does for the same folk to fly to the American West Coast.
Yeah that's fair enough. IF people go you should get a lot of money from it, that's if loads go though.
Right and that wouldn't happen at the earliest until 2022/23 because you're not convincing 32 separate individuals, some of whom operate teams like cash cows like Stan Kroenke, that it's in their benefit to reduce their share of the pie anytime before a new TV contract comes into play and the added bonus of the London market comes into play.
To be completely honest I think the NFL is going to be in a very different financial space within the next 10 years. The amount of negative coverage from the absurd way the league office and commissioner have handled player conduct, player health (major major problem that's only growing in severity) and legal issues is manifesting itself in a major shift in it's consumption at youth levels in America. The average teenager now is way more likely to be an NBA fan than an NFL fan, which is a major shift from even 5 years ago.
That may actually increase the likelihood of the NFL wanting to start a franchise in London as a new market to monetize, but my gut instinct is it's a bit of a weird market to extend to for various reasons. Also if what you're saying about the NFL's involvement in stadium construction is true then it makes it likely they will at the very least put the owners to a vote on it.
This isn't true, but the difference isn't too much different. It's pretty comfortable for me to watch any PL or CL match timing wise except for the earliest ones over the weekend as those begin at 745 EST. It's way more difficult timing wise for those in Mountain or West Coast time zones.
Here's a link about the NFL Chief Exec and other NFL execs visiting the stadium project back in June: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-new-home-for-american-football-a3272496.html
You're right about it being a longer-term prospect, if it happens. But anyhow, we still have to finish building it and then see how the initially-agreed hosting of at least 2 NFL games per year goes.
It's also very important to take into account the weekly concerts at the new stadium. The likes of the Rolling Stones, U2, Beyonce will be performing there every week, give or take. Levy has done a deal to siphon all of that money away from the actual performers into the Spurs transfer fund, so all financial chickens will remain unroosted.
Like this is supposed to prove something? Of course he's going to use simple terms when speaking publicy in a press statement. I'm referring to the actual financial people involved with the club. Didn't Florentino Perez also claim that Ronaldo's shirt sales paid for his transfer?
I can provide you with the articles I've read etc (for sources) if you would like to read them too.
No, as I stated, the expenditure is of course considered. But it is not considered as 'net spend'. The amount United technically have paid in transfer fees is not our spend for this season. That is why net spend is misused. It doesn't account for actual yearly spend. You cannot look at the transfer fees in one year, add them together, and work out a clubs yearly spend. You spin the 'net spend' agenda because adding 89 million (from Pogba) onto United's yearly spend makes us look worse, and 'strengthens' your argument. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. We aren't JUST relying on this years revenue to pay for Pogba, which is precisely why net spend is such an overused term. So, to reiterate: cost is of course considered, but not as net spend.
Again, this is not information I've made up. I wouldn't know any of this, but for a few good sources I've read that have explained the process.
And yes, it is big clubs. I'm referring to how big clubs do business. Yes, Spurs is included in that, before you jump down my neck.
Can you clear something up for me? I don't mean to pick on you personally, but I see a lot of the same sentiment on this forum about Spurs that seems somewhat oxymoronic to me.
That being we have a great manager, but surely Real Madrid will take him from us. We've got great young players like Kane, Alli, Dier, Eriksen, etc. that as soon as there's a link to them the transfer thread is loaded with comments about how much fans would like them and surely we can't hold them from a big offer and the rest of the squad is filled with underrated talents like Dembele, Alderweireld, Lloris, etc. that should surely be at better clubs as well.
Except even when given that we're also still garbage, behind all the other teams who were poor last year and surely won't be again and will be lucky to make top 6.
Surely those two things don't add up. Surely we can't have a squad and manager so good they'll be picked off by Europe's greats and yet we'll be lucky to even be making the top 6 or 4.
Seems like this whole thread and others where Spurs are mentioned just devolves into the same drivel in an attempt to goad Spurs supporters. There's really very little constructive content most of the time.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Of course your (or any clubs) transfer spend isn't the clubs spend for the year and nobody is suggesting that it is. When fans talk about net spend it refers solely to transfer net spend because that relates directly to the value on the pitch. For example if Man City spend 150 million on players while selling some players for a total of 40 million, their value on the pitch has increased by 110 million. You would therefore expect them to finish above a team that had a value on the pitch increase of 50 million. It's simply a fan's measure of where teams should finish and how well or badly they have done relative to the money spent (net) on players. By that measure, Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea performed badly last season, they all had a value on the pitch spend far in access of Leicester, Spurs and Arsenal but all finished below those latter teams.
Yes, of course. For people like us, (eg fans of the club), we hear about prices paid for players, and referring to the 'net spend' makes any discussion easier. My point was not that the term should never be used. When fans speak about general spending, and transfers, net spend is an easy and uncomplicated way of comparisons, as you've suggested. My point referred to the official side of things, which is why I am even discussing net spend. Some people indicated that net spend is something that clubs consider when they do business. From what I have read, it is not (not to say expenditure/revenue isn't considered, but it isn't considered as net spend). With respect, you can't tell me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, when I wasn't actually replying to you, and you're not even involved in this specific conversation. Your incredibly hostile tone is unwelcome, too.
Firstly, this is an open forum, anybody can join in on any discussion, it's not exclusive to certain people. Secondly, I see nothing hostile in my post, simply an explanation of what is meant by "net spend" when fans refer to it.
And had you read the discussion prior to jumping in, you'd have realised it was the way a poster stated net spend with reference to the official financial side of football clubs which I objected to; it had absolutely nothing to do with the way 'fans refer to it'.
Net spend, the crutch of failure.
True words.
This thread is an utter disgrace.
It's the worst thread on this forum right now.
Used by fans of teams who haven't won much in recent times. Most successful teams will always spend more than what they'll receive.
Leicester last season was an exception not a rule. I don't understand why some fans have the mentality of being happy over a positive "net spend".
According to you, the concept of annual net spend is meaningless. And by the same token you must also think that the concept of annual transfer spending (i.e. non-net) is meaningless ... because both measures of spending are accounted for in terms of 'instalments' spread over more than year (usually several years) - either actual instalments (payments coming in for players sold), or sums amortised over the lifetimes of players contracts (for players bought).
Which, in your conceptual world, thus leaves no meaningful way for fans and pundits to discuss transfer expenditure except in the arcane language of accountants. But since fans and pundits don't speak the language of accountants, in your conceptual world this leaves no effective means of discussing transfer spending at all.
In your conceptual world it means no-one can say that Pogba has cost £90m (or whatever it was), because in the next year only 20% of that sum will be amortised (year 1 of his 5 year contract). In your conceptual world no-one can say that Spurs sold Bale for £X (whatever it was), because actually maybe Spurs are still receiving annual instalments on that sum.
In short, regardless of the fact than "annual net spend" is not an item in club financial accounts it is still a very useful indicator of the direction and speed of travel ... and it's an essential indicator in terms of facilitating fan and pundit discussions of such matters.
Last edited:
Skim read because it's all bollocks. I didn't say any of that, nor did I deny that it is a useful enabler of fan discussion. Read what you said, read what I said, and you'll see all your contradictions.
'you said this, i will now prove how wrong you are by writing an essay' - 'no, you are wrong because of this one word you used in your essay that proves that I was right all along' - 'how dare you use that one word against me, please now read another mini essay I wrote about this other point which again has nothing to do with actual football' - 'na na na na na' - 'blah blah blah blah'
I give up on this thread.
I give up on this thread.
Isn't that how debate and conversation works? You respond to a poster with a differing opinion?
Do you want people to beg you to stay? You keep commenting on how you're done, why don't you take a walk then?
Isn't that how debate and conversation works? You respond to a poster with a differing opinion?
Do you want people to beg you to stay? You keep commenting on how you're done, why don't you take a walk then?
First time Ive commented that I am done - multiple times ive complained about this thread though and with good reason I might add. You are not helping by the way. The bit you should have highlighted from my post was the bit about the debate not being about football. It's about total nonsense.
For the Spurs fans:
What do you think about playing Alli deeper while Dembele is out?
I thought that's how Poch would of started the season, with Eriksen playing in the centre behind Kane
Is there an obvious reason I am missing why this hasn't been the case?
What do you think about playing Alli deeper while Dembele is out?
I thought that's how Poch would of started the season, with Eriksen playing in the centre behind Kane
Is there an obvious reason I am missing why this hasn't been the case?
Alli isn't good enough yet to play deeper imo, he lacks the passing ability and the discipline to be effective there.
I can understand that, young players usually lack positional discipline (Dier being an obvious exception) but imo out of the Spurs squad he is best able to replicate the offensive contribution of Dembele
I think you are right, I see him moving deeper over the next few years as his game develops more.
Exactly so. A lot of the time what passes for "discussion" is simply a series of attempts - often from the same small band of posters - to launch attack after attack. And when one attack fails - as they mostly all do, being based on nonsense - the grounds of the attack are shifted so that another angle of attack can be opened up.
If you're a Spurs fan, you can't say that Spurs have a good chance of top 4 without that being translated by some into a claim that Spurs are the best team in Europe. You're not allowed to say that we have a world-class training centre, without that being translated by some into a claim that Spurs are the best team in the world. I spend half my time responding to things that I haven't ever said, but which are presented as if they were fact.
In my view a lot of it stems from the insecurity of some United (and other) fans on here, who, despite what they claim, don't actually like to see continuing threats to their cosy notion of an "elite top 4" that's more or less fixed in place ... despite this notion having been blown out of the water already anyhow. What they want to see instead is big money being spent on "big players" by "big managers" at "elite clubs" who will then proceed to battle with each other, albeit using cheque-books instead of swords, in the Prem and CL gladiatorial arena, while all the other clubs - the "non-elite" - look on in supposed admiration.
So when Spurs come along and starting pushing United down the league and out into the EL, the attacking mission of this minority of gang-boy posters get fuelled up: show that Spurs are rubbish no-hopers, and use every piece of nonsense, thrown from every angle, to try and achieve this.
Skim read because it's all bollocks. I didn't say any of that, nor did I deny that it is a useful enabler of fan discussion. Read what you said, read what I said, and you'll see all your contradictions.
So if the idea of annual net spend is a useful enabler of fan discussion, why the feck do you keep rubbishing the concept?
My guess is it's because it shows United in a less than flattering light.
It's a bollocks thread as United fans use it to wind Glaston up. Report posters you think are baiting and they'll get thread banned and we can have some sensible discussion rather than idiots wang waving.
On topic question... Given how positive Janssen has looked in pre season and the 2nd half against Everton how would you lineup if you had to include him in the first 11?
You know why, but I'll oblige you.
I disagreed with the concept because you stated that United are not sustainable due to net spend and that net spend is definitely something that financial experts seriously consider during annual financial planning/reviewing. It's not. THOUGH it is not a bad starting point to discuss transfers as fans. Once it gets to the relevant people (the top dogs at football clubs), net spend isn't considered. So, no issue with discussing net spend as fans. But once you start to build arguments against clubs, based on sustainability, because of their net spend, that's when I find it objectionable.
Anyway, many find the direction of this thread utterly repelling, so perhaps we should steer clear of this net spend rubbish?
I wouldnt be surprised if we start Janssen up front with Kane behind him - especially as it is a home game. Though knowing Poch I suspect he will start with same lineup vs Everton as he likes to give people the chance to make up for poor performances (I think). Basically I have no idea!
Yes please
Give it a rest.
You are by a distance the most insecure poster on this forum, constantly seeking validation from United fans on a United forum about the prospects of your team.
As if United fans are happier seeing the likes of City and Chelsea in the top four than a team like Leicester (I'm not including Spurs because no club has spent as much in the PL era for so little return). During that time, you've very much been an elite level club in terms of spending, without the elite level success. Crying poverty now the purse is empty is pathetic.
You won't have bids from better teams yet because your players aren't good enough yet. Take Kane for example, great player scores quite a few goals and he's no cart horse either. But Levy would (quite rightfully) want at least what 80 mil? 90? He's not that player yet. He might never be we don't know, but if he had a paddy and somehow he could go for 40 to a premier league club everyone would be after him. Spurs wouldn't be lucky to make top 6 if they end up 6th it's a disaster season. I'm not sure why people say Poch is such a great manager though. The man has never won anything and yet he's linked with Real and Barca. I imagine before they'd even consider Poch he'd have had to win at least the league.
Please keep this thread on topic; that is to discuss Spurs performances on the pitch not their new stadium or the most tired debate in the history of the world in net spend. Talk about the football or don't fecking talk at all.
Please also try to avoid getting caught up in petty squabbles that just take up pages and pages and are dull as shit for anyone else to read. We all know where these tend to evolve from, so if you've nothing constructive to say then just ignore stuff you think is bollocks because the chances are so does everyone else anyway.
Please also try to avoid getting caught up in petty squabbles that just take up pages and pages and are dull as shit for anyone else to read. We all know where these tend to evolve from, so if you've nothing constructive to say then just ignore stuff you think is bollocks because the chances are so does everyone else anyway.
Thanks
Agree with you. He's definitely got the attributes necessary to fill the Dembele role temporarily but also agree that he's probably not quite disciplined enough just yet to really excel in the role. Not to mention I thought he was our worst player last weekend. That said, Palace at home is a fixture where it would make sense to give it a try. There's not a huge need to play Wanyama and Dier together...one should be fine. This then also allows for Janssen to be accomodated in the starting 11 after making a big impact off the bench against Everton. Still, I expect Poch to stick with the same lineup and bring Janssen on after 65 minutes or so. Hope I'm wrong on that, though.
So in that scenario who drops out? Tricky to work out.
I would imagine it would be what happened vs Everton and we would use one defensive midfielder instead of two so either Wanyama or Dier would drop to the bench. The perhaps Eriksen or Alli moves back into midfield.
Yeah he wasn't great, moving him around may not be the best idea until he rediscovers his form
- Status