Gareth Bale
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
Gareth Bale
Not just developing them - we already have some. Lloris for example, Alderweireld for another. And does any other Prem club have a better pair of wingbacks than Rose and Walker? I don't think so.
As for keeping players, you clearly haven't noticed the long list of contract renewals that have recently been taking place at Spurs, with more to come.
You seriously think London has no draw at all? Ask any wealthy foreign person whatever they do if they would sooner live in London, Manchester or Liverpool etc, the answer is pretty much universally going to be London, it's just a fact of life that London is seen as one of the worlds greatest cities.
Spurs don't offer any guarantees about playing at all, Pochettino has clearly stated that all players at Spurs sign contracts that allow them to train with the club, playing is a bonus.
No Spurs fan would say that we are a huge club, we don't have delusions of grandeur, we know what we currently are which is a very well run club, with an excellent manager, a good squad of players and soon to be moving into the best stadium in the capital. Eventually if we choose to we will be able to compete with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool on wages, although we don't seem to be a club that just wants to throw bottomless pits at everything.
We are in a good place right now and other clubs are welcome to the 'top players' whoever they are although I don't see a PL full of them, Aguero, De Bruyne, Sanchez, Ozil and Alderweireld plus some keepers and who else is there?
To be honest I think we'd sooner have a team that has some ability, is well coached and hungry to do well.
Klopp and Pochettino ( Ranieri last year) and in a different way Pep are proving that the sum can be greater than the parts within it.
Wasn't the Bale to Spurs transfer predominantly down to So'ton rejecting United's lower bid and also Bale opting for guaranteed first team Football? I'm sure I remember Fergie saying at the time that you were in pole position because you'd offered a larger fee. What do you think was the reason if neither of these were the case?
You've developed and are developing. Lloris and Alderweield have certainly developed at Spurs and if particularly the latter continue in his current form will be a big player. I don't rate Rose/Walker so I certainly wouldn't put either in that category.
Contract renewals are fantastic, it means you'll be able to demand more money when they want to leave. However there's certainly no current evidence that Spurs will pay the £150-200k salaries that are generally required to keep these player's long term.
Again you'd have to give me an example. Comments such as "ask any wealthy foreign person" are anecdotal at best. The only millionaire I know despises (central) London and would prefer any other Countryside location to live and a much warmer climate to holiday. I think you're getting where wealthy people significantly invest (in property) and where they want to live massively confused.
When I talk about playing opportunities I don't mean written contractual guarantees. I mean the common sense approach when a 20 year old looks at the chances of playing at say Man City and then the chances of playing at Spurs. It's clear that over the past decade quite a few player's historically choose Spurs as they will be given the exposure and playing time to attract the likes of United, Madrid, City etc.
In terms of "we don't seem to be a club that just wants to throw bottomless pits at everything". That isn't a choice you have to make. Historically Spurs have spent every penny available to them whenever they can, the only difference now is the money available is heavily limited due to the stadium being built. If Spurs and Pochettino had a choice between Erikson/Ozil, Sissoko/Pogba, Son/De Bruyne then obviously they would choose the latter in each case.
Being well coached I agree is the most important thing, but there's a reason that there's a strict correlation between wage bill and success. Being well coached and spending big money will always trump being well coached and being unable too. Don't take this as a slight to Spurs: I think they're doing fantastically well with their resources after years of poor management.
Last edited:
Bale wasn't given a guaranteed starting place at Spurs. He was promised an immediate chance to start at LB, but anything thereafter would have depended on his form and how well he did.
He said at the time: "'Man United were interested in me but I wanted to play first-team football, I thought I had a better chance of getting that at Tottenham". This means the fee didn't come into the equation, because if Bale had wanted to go to United and not Spurs, then any higher fee (if there was one) from Spurs wouldn't have mattered.
You asked for an example of a player who chose Spurs over either Manchester club, and I've given you one. Bale simply felt he would develop better at Spurs, as proved the case.
Gascoigne
This isn't the case. Prior to the new stadium we invested a lot in our new training complex and in radically improving our youth development set-up/process, both of which have borne fruit and continue to do so. These things are quite different from spending lots of money on incoming players that are thought to be ready made for the first XI or first team squad.
Always trump? It didn't trump it last season, when Leicester finished above Arsenal and when Spurs finished above Chelski, despite both clubs having good coaches and having spent lots more on wages than either Leicester or Spurs.
This thread is just Spurs fans arguing that they are bigger than United. Gets a bit boring.
Except no Spurs fan does that or thinks that.
Yep, plus Lineker.
Tbh not the case from what I've seen on here.
I don't think we even care about who thinks they are the bigger club, it's a bit my dad is bigger than yours rubbish.
We are what we are and we're doing ok right now.
Who in their right mind would make that claim? Man Utd are arguably the biggest club in the world.
Feel free to find posts in the thread where a Spurs fan has claimed Spurs are a bigger club than Utd.
Care to give an example?
Which later he admitted to be the worst decision in his career
LOL Spurs bigger than United? look I know you lot have a thing about beating Arsenal but I didnt know it extended to delusions of grandeur.
Spurs will do well, they may get top 4 but its only down to their manager and nothing else, he has a system that benefits his young players and has them playing a style that allows them to have a high energy press and ultra concentration.
Having said all that, it will completely fall apart when he leaves, and believe me, he will leave, he has made no secret that his dream job is Barcelona and once Enrique is put to the sword he will be their number one candidate. I also believe if we had aggressively persued him and had decided against Jose and his "guaranteed success" he would have come to United and taken a bunch of his scouts and backroom staff with him.
You can argue to hell and high water that its not the case, the point is United are and forever will be bigger than Spurs. But kudos where its due, fantastic team with a fantastic manager, was behind them all the way when they dimantled Peps City, lets hope its the blueprint to beat his teams.
Spurs will do well, they may get top 4 but its only down to their manager and nothing else, he has a system that benefits his young players and has them playing a style that allows them to have a high energy press and ultra concentration.
Having said all that, it will completely fall apart when he leaves, and believe me, he will leave, he has made no secret that his dream job is Barcelona and once Enrique is put to the sword he will be their number one candidate. I also believe if we had aggressively persued him and had decided against Jose and his "guaranteed success" he would have come to United and taken a bunch of his scouts and backroom staff with him.
You can argue to hell and high water that its not the case, the point is United are and forever will be bigger than Spurs. But kudos where its due, fantastic team with a fantastic manager, was behind them all the way when they dimantled Peps City, lets hope its the blueprint to beat his teams.
Ehh... please read the posts before you type. The only person saying Spurs fan have claimed Spurs are a bigger club than Man Utd is a Man Utd fan (I'm assuming Silverman is) - no Spurs fans have ever claimed that.
No player is ever going to be guaranteed to start irrespective of form (except Rooney under LVG). The point is he was guaranteed a starting position and guaranteed every opportunity to find his form, regardless of how poor he started. This is proven by his awful start in a Spurs shirt still allowing him numerous opportunities to play him into form (how many win-less games did Spurs have initially with him in the team). Opportunities that weren't given to the likes of Sinclair & Rodwell at Man City or Parker, Sidwell, Sturrdge etc at Chelsea.
At the time there were a few quotes including Sir Alex: "Southampton said no to us because they are looking for more money, which they have every right to do. I am not exactly sure what Tottenham have offered but they have offered more and that puts them in pole position."
So it seems I am correct. It was a combination of Spurs offering more money and Bale choosing Spurs because he wouldn't get in the United team ahead of Evra and consequently used them as a stepping stone to Madrid.
Last season the only other teams that was particularly well coached in the top 6 were Leicester and to a lesser extent Arsenal, teams who both finished above Spurs. United were a shambles, City were a shambles, Chelsea were a shambles, Liverpool were a shambles... Hell even Everton were a shambles. This is proven by the fact that City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool & Everton all sacked their managers at some point throughout the season.
A well coached team will always outperform a team in disarray. However a well coached team with money will always outperform one with less.
That just isn't true though.
I can think of no examples in English football during the Premier League era where this hasn't been true.
Man United have consistently had money and won 13 titles out of 24 titles
Chelsea have had a lot of money since Abramovich bought the club and have won 4 out of 24
Arsenal had a lot of money before building their stadium and won 3 out of 24
City have had a lot of money since Mansour bought the club and have won 2 out of 24
Blackburn had a lot of money for a brief period and won 1 title
Leicester won a title when the only other well coached clubs (Spurs/Arsenal) spent a combined net total of £0 the previous Summer
All these teams during their winning seasons were also well coached under the likes of Fergie, Mourinho, Wenger, Ancelotti,
Man United have consistently had money and won 13 titles out of 24 titles
Chelsea have had a lot of money since Abramovich bought the club and have won 4 out of 24
Arsenal had a lot of money before building their stadium and won 3 out of 24
City have had a lot of money since Mansour bought the club and have won 2 out of 24
Blackburn had a lot of money for a brief period and won 1 title
Leicester won a title when the only other well coached clubs (Spurs/Arsenal) spent a combined net total of £0 the previous Summer
All these teams during their winning seasons were also well coached under the likes of Fergie, Mourinho, Wenger, Ancelotti,
Reading that you would think that Leicester were a bigger spending club than Arsenal - in actual fact last season is the perfect counter argument to your statement - Arsenal have spent millions in the past few years on some top class talent and they were beaten by Leicester. If you change the wording of your statement from 'will always' to 'will normally' then I'd agree with it.
I see where you're coming from but I think the majority of people would accept that Leicester are the exception to the rule. Their season in itself was a 1% chance before adding in the fact that in the majority of other seasons either Chelsea, United or City wouldn't have been in disarray and would have knocked them down to 2nd. It really is a fairy-tale story, rather than one to base anything on. In the context of Football where there are tiny but real chances of any team winning over 90 minutes "will always" refers to the 99%, not the 1%.
Unlikely? Yes - but it happened and if it happened once then it could happen again - my disagreement with your statement was only because you said it would never happen but last season proved that it can.
Has he, please provide us with a link to his quotes about that, will be an interesting read.
Fair enough - maybe my wording was too unequivocal.
@finneh is such a good poster.
Last edited:
Just an opinion from sifting through the thread the odd time.
Ah come on Glaston, how many times have you been called up on trying to argue Tottenham are bigger.
The answer is never, but feel free to waste your time sifting through my posts in minute detail.
Have I said that some Spurs players are better than some United players? Yes
Have I predicted that Spurs would finish above United? Yes
Do I think that Spurs have a better and more balanced squad, and a better manager? Yes.
Do I think that Spurs are a club very much on the rise? Yes.
But none of that amounts to saying that Spurs are currently a bigger club.
The inability to acknowledge good points about United and constantly arguing give off an inferiority vibe. My initial post was not meant in a literal way.
So, which one of Kane or Alli does everyone reckon we'll sign this coming Summer for a huge fee...?
My money's on Kane, but I'd prefer Alli.
My money's on Kane, but I'd prefer Alli.
They would obviously both crawl over broken glass to get there, they probably think about nothing else.
Not implying that, more about the inevitability of it - you've done well to keep them both last Summer, but failure to win Silverware and they're off without doubt.
Teams will make offers of wages that you can't come close to, and, in reality, United are probably very likely to sign one of them this Summer.
As I said, I'd prefer Alli. In fact, I dunno that I'd even want Kane, but I reckon Kane has got 'Rooney's replacement' written all over him.
I would say there us little to no chance of either going to Utd, higher wages or not.
Kane is especially unlikely to go, he recently said that he sees himself spending his whole career at Spurs and can't imagine playing anywhere else. He's from the area, they are expecting their first child, I really can't see Kane upping sticks.
Alli we'll see but I don't see him being attracted to Utd, but if Man City and Pep come in for him it might be a different.
I hope not. They would not fit in to our team as things stand. We have various options for the centre forward position once Zlatan leaves. And we don't need another attacking midfielder.
I'm not sure either are that likely to leave though as I'm not sure how much the other big teams would want them. They'll both stay for a few years at Spurs I expect but you're right if higher wages aren't offered by the time they are in their mid to late 20's and they are still very successful individually they'll of course leave.
I'd be against the signing of Kane, he's clearly a good player but not for me the mould I'd like, his main bonus for me is the HG status.. I'd prefer Zlatan/Rashford/Martial, also Alli as good as he is plays #10 best, we have Mata, Mikhi, Shrek plus youngsters on loan like Pereira I'd rather give a chance to
Not sure where Alli would get games at City...?
The thing with United you have to remember is that marketability does play a big part in our signings and investment, and with Rooney on the way out a top British star will replace him, no doubt about that, and you're a club who has the top 2 marketable young England stars, yet you can't compete with us financially.
I know it sounds harsh, and as I said, I wouldn't want Kane, but if you step back a bit and look at the big picture, it's kinda obvious.
Some posts from United fans in here are fecking cringeworthy.
Which one of Martial or Shaw will Spurs get this summer for a huge fee do you reckon? Since Spurs are in Champions League and Man Utd aren't Spurs are obv more attractive to those players.
My money's on Martial, but I'd prefer Shaw.
It is inevitable - you did well to keep Martial and Shaw last summer when Man Utd failed in the league and didn't get into Champions League, but failure to win silverware again and they're off without a doubt.
Teams will make offers of playing in the Champions League that you can't come close to, and, in reality, Spurs are probably very likely to sign one of them this summer.
As I said, I'd prefer Shaw. In fact, I dunno that I'd even want Martial because we have Son but I reckon Martial has got 'Son replacement' written all over him.
I'd be against the signing of Martial, he's clearly a good player but not for me the mould I'd like, his main bonus for me is his pace... I'd prefer Kane/Alli/Eriksen, also Shaw as good as he is plays left back best, we have Rose plus youngsters such as CCV and Edwards I'd rather give a chance to.
- Status