Thanks for your thoughts there
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for your thoughts there
Problem there is that Shaw's already earning more than Kane and Alli... so unless you break your wage structure I can't see that happening.
In elite football, players move to get paid more, rather than less.
So United, if coming in for Alli or Kane would utterly smash what you're capable of paying them - like I said, it might be harsh but I'm just being realistic.
You might be right, Alli might end up there, only time will tell. He seems content enough right now having only just signed a 6 year contract but things change quickly in football. My main disagreement with what you've said is that if he does go I think it would be far more likely to City.
You could be right, I just see Alli moving somewhere that he'll be the main man in his position, and at City I'm not sure he'd walk into their team.
Whereas here he would.
Anyway, my point really is that I strongly think at least one of them will be sold this Summer, and that United will almost definitely at least be in for them, and seeing what we spent on Pogba, it's pretty obvious that Levy would get an obscene fee for either from United.
I think if Alli chose to leave Spurs it would be City because he would be doing it to win things. And let's face it anything Utd would be willing to pay could be trumped by City.
Without wishing to inflame this thread the harsh truth is that City, if not already are well on their way to being completely the dominant force in Manchester.
They have the best manager, better players, more money, better board, it's only onwards and upwards for them.
Hopefully we stay well clear of him. He won't solve, he will add more to the problems. If we sign him then we are stuck with 4-2-3-1 and Pogba in deeper role.
Don't want Alli and definitely not Kane. Rashford will be better than Kane in the coming seasons.
Alli to United makes sense from a economical perspective and from Uniteds squad-perspective. (even if I don't rate him, please don't take offense in that)
People in general clearly see him as a talented attacking midfielder, so again, from United it makes sense to get in someone who can score goals as our current midfield/10 in Rooney is on his way out (at least in terms of talent needed).
Does it make sense for Spurs? Not unless they get an absurd amount of money for him and he wants to go, then they'd probably agree to a sale.
Does it make sense for Alli? At the moment, no.
No because he is developing at Spurs at the moment, and if he continues to play as well as people seem to think he is, the interest won't fade away.
He can wait out and see if and how United pick themselves up from the fallout of post-Fergie with Moyes and LvG, and it's short term "less money" for longer term gain in not making a bad move before it looks better.
Possible move? certainly. Very unlikely for now, though it might change when he feels he needs a challenge (in order to win stuff or to further develop himself or his "brand") and then only if United has gotten back up to around the top.
I do agree with the sentiment that moving to United (granted that United are back up competing) makes more sense in terms of getting playing time than moving to City and having to fight for a spot with De Bruyne, Silva (who would likely be out) & Sterling who at least 2 if not all are better than the options at United (if we go by our options being Rooney & Mata). With Silva out though, you might see a position opening for him there, and we all know that City could do with a quality English player to fill up their quota a bit.
Then again, he might be content with his life at Spurs. He might not be the person who will chase the money. He might think he can help Spurs push into playing around the top and becoming recognized as a top club. We don't know his ambitions or how he sees his career. And that can change fast.
As for Kane... Good striker, but I think he'll stick around at Spurs.
Doesn't seem like the guy who would go for the money (though you never know), and he does seem like someone who would take pleasure from becoming a legend for his childhood club. A fan becoming a player. Don't feel like more analyzing is warranted really.
I'm not a fan of the tone that some Spurs fans use, but at the same time I don't find them saying that Spurs has become a mega-club yet, but they rightfully say that they seem up on the rise and have a good squad and coach who play well. Might be down some of them feeling put down by actually being on a oppositions forum so they try to push back a bit. Bit protective over the "give them your hand and they'll take your arm" way forums work in.
People in general clearly see him as a talented attacking midfielder, so again, from United it makes sense to get in someone who can score goals as our current midfield/10 in Rooney is on his way out (at least in terms of talent needed).
Does it make sense for Spurs? Not unless they get an absurd amount of money for him and he wants to go, then they'd probably agree to a sale.
Does it make sense for Alli? At the moment, no.
No because he is developing at Spurs at the moment, and if he continues to play as well as people seem to think he is, the interest won't fade away.
He can wait out and see if and how United pick themselves up from the fallout of post-Fergie with Moyes and LvG, and it's short term "less money" for longer term gain in not making a bad move before it looks better.
Possible move? certainly. Very unlikely for now, though it might change when he feels he needs a challenge (in order to win stuff or to further develop himself or his "brand") and then only if United has gotten back up to around the top.
I do agree with the sentiment that moving to United (granted that United are back up competing) makes more sense in terms of getting playing time than moving to City and having to fight for a spot with De Bruyne, Silva (who would likely be out) & Sterling who at least 2 if not all are better than the options at United (if we go by our options being Rooney & Mata). With Silva out though, you might see a position opening for him there, and we all know that City could do with a quality English player to fill up their quota a bit.
Then again, he might be content with his life at Spurs. He might not be the person who will chase the money. He might think he can help Spurs push into playing around the top and becoming recognized as a top club. We don't know his ambitions or how he sees his career. And that can change fast.
As for Kane... Good striker, but I think he'll stick around at Spurs.
Doesn't seem like the guy who would go for the money (though you never know), and he does seem like someone who would take pleasure from becoming a legend for his childhood club. A fan becoming a player. Don't feel like more analyzing is warranted really.
I'm not a fan of the tone that some Spurs fans use, but at the same time I don't find them saying that Spurs has become a mega-club yet, but they rightfully say that they seem up on the rise and have a good squad and coach who play well. Might be down some of them feeling put down by actually being on a oppositions forum so they try to push back a bit. Bit protective over the "give them your hand and they'll take your arm" way forums work in.
Last edited:
Levy will not sell another star player to a Prem rival - whether United, City or anyone else. That policy was laid down after Berbatov - and has stood ever since. If a star wants to leave - and currently there is zero sign that any do - then it's abroad or nothing. Hence Bale and Modric both went abroad.
I'd far rather Alli than Kane in this current united squad, in fact I'd take Alli, Alderweireld, Dembele and Wanyama before Harry Kane for our squad.
Kane might be more talented but they are what we need more. Not that any of them are available.
What would folks United/Spurs combined 11 be?
Kane might be more talented but they are what we need more. Not that any of them are available.
What would folks United/Spurs combined 11 be?
It's easy to enforce a policy when every big player since then has had the choice between Real Madrid and a Premier League club. The problem is going to occur when someone like Alli is looking for a weekly salary of £200k+. In that scenario if Madrid aren't interested the only clubs that will be interested will be the likes of United, City & Chelsea.
Of course Levy will hold out against PL teams Summer 2018. Provided Alli doesn't put in a transfer request and start to disrupt the dressing room he may even hold out Summer 2019 hoping that Madrid or Barcelona come in for him.
However with 2 years left in his deal and no interest from abroad at his typically high valuation Levy starts to find himself in a real conundrum. £100m in 2020, £50m in 2021 or £0 in 2022.
With a large stadium debt to pay off, shareholders to account to and a couple of failed managers under his belt since Pochettino had left... Can he afford (or does he have the authority) to devalue an asset by £50m just for his personal pride?
I'd argue it's easy to have a "policy" when no situation has been present to challenge it.
RM aren't the only big club outside of the Prem. If they aren't interested, in the hypothetical situation you describe, then if Alli (or whoever) is in demand from wealthy club in England it's pretty likely that wealthy clubs outside the Prem will also be interested.
But in any case, 2019 or 2020 is a long way off, regardless of your debateable assumptions that Spurs will be deep in debt and that Pochettino will have gone..
How many clubs outside of England have the money to pay £100m and £200k a week in wages? I think you're looking at maybe 2 or 3, only one of which has spent close to that sum in the past and apart from Bale to Madrid none have paid the extra "British tax".
You are correct though. It isn't going to happen for another 2 years at a minimum. However this would fit in perfectly with when a huge club would want to spend such sums.
They aren't going to want a 20 or 22 year old whose been fantastic for a year or two. To pay that money they are going to want consistent improvement over say a 4 year period which culminates in them being one of the best in the world in their position (ideally proven in the CL).
They weren't debatable assumptions in terms of your manager. Excluding caretakers Spurs have employed 13 managers in the 24 years since the PL has started; Redknapp being the longest serving at 4 seasons. Pochettino serving past 2018 would be a massive break in the trend.
Likewise I think you'd agree that the financing for the stadium isn't going to be paid for by the tooth fairy, it'll be a few hundred million that will cost 8 figures per season to service.
By talking about a £100m (world record) fee you're stretching things to extremes that are very unlikely to happen. But there a several clubs abroad who might be able to spend £50m - 70m if they choose or in the right circumstances. Juve spent £75m in Higuan this summer, and then there's PSG, Bayern Munich, RM and Barca ... that's 5 potential clubs straight off the bat.
And yes, your assertion that Pochettino will only be at Spurs for just one more season after this (until 2018) is debateable - highly debateable IMO.
Fair points, I personally think after Guardiola leaves City after his 2/3 seasons, Pochettino will also be nabbed by City.
He plays a brand of football that could quite happily follow on from Guardiola.
And, as you state in your post, City can offer things to a manager that Spurs will just never be able to do.
Of all the big clubs that Pochettino will likely leave you for - Real, United, Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, PSG, and City - I'd say City are actually the most likely to take him off you.
Which shareholders are these then?
Slight fault in your plan, Alli won't have 2 years of his contract left in 2019, does that mean we just push it all back another year? If so are you suggesting we should be concerned about the hypothetical possibility of a player leaving in 4 years time?
As for Levy finding himself in a real conundrum I get the idea that he actually sort of knows what he's doing.
Will we have a stadium debt in 4 years? Are you sure on this point, what is your estimation on the value of the commercial and residential properties and what the naming rights will be worth?
Will Spurs be able to pay somebody 200k a week in 4 years, are you sure they won't be able to?
What if the club has been sold to some very wealthy investors in your timeframe, what if Levy and Lewis are waiting for the stadium to open and an NFL franchise to cash in?
What if Manchester United continue their demise for the next 4 years and the Ferguson era is but a distant memory?
So may if buts and maybes on top of things like shareholder inaccuracies.
Real and City would be the only clubs that would concern me, removing Barca from the list for obvious reasons and I doubt Bayern as well then I don't see the attraction of anybody else.
Personally I would also remove Real as well because Pochettino's philosophy couldn't be more opposite to theirs and the only sensible and realistic option left is City, which we won't have to worry about for 3 years anyway.
All these hypothetical scenarios for years down the line 
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
Exactly.All these hypothetical scenarios for years down the line
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
All these hypothetical scenarios for years down the line
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
Why would people do that when they can completely ignore what is actually happening and invent totally random shit about stuff which 'might' happen in the future if the present actually was not how it is? This thread is like staring into a black hole.
Of course you're wishing to inflame the thread. They've had most of those things since they won the lottery 8 years ago. Despite that they've won the title twice and actually done worse since Utd lost Alex Ferguson than they were doing before.
ENIC International (a company registered in the Bahamas) owns 84.75% of Spurs. It then gets a bit more difficult as to who owns ENIC and who owns the other 15%. Naturally it's very cloak and dagger because of the Country registered in but the owners include Joe Lewis & Daniel Levy. Even if Levy/Lewis are the sole shareholders of ENIC there is still the other 15% (which will be at least 6 owners, but probably far more) and there is also Lewis who has a far higher share than Levy. To assume that Levy is accountable to no-one and that his decisions come under no scrutiny (as you imply) is naive in the extreme.
Levy would naturally have a conundrum, as any business director in any company would. You have an aggressively de-valuing asset and you have to decide whether as a company it's best to take for example £100m this year, £50m next year or nothing the year after. Arsenal had to make this decision with Nasri and RVP. United had to make it with Ronaldo. Tottenham aren't immune to the conundrums of business.
How do you think your stadium is being paid for? The information we have been provided by Spurs at the moment suggests banks are willing to lend them £350m and that they've already spent c. £100m raised from club operations. It suggests this loan could be a high interest bridge loan for 5 years, which will then be refinanced after other developments are sold. There is then the uncertainty of the naming rights, whereby Spurs have based projections on £30m per season, but this is significantly more than other similar projects. Lewis has shown absolutely no appetite for selling the club which would eradicate this debt, primarily because it will clearly be worth much more in a decade with a new stadium and diminishing debt, compared to what it is at the moment.
In this climate of financing Spurs are almost certainly not going to be able to afford a £200k a week salary inside the next 5-7 years, just as Arsenal haven't for several years.
In terms of United over the next few years their turnover in the last 4 years has risen from £363m to £515m (10% growth per annum) with further growth guaranteed from the Premier League revenue increase. Likewise the Chevrolet deal is tied to the $ so a deal that was worth £47m per annum last year is currently at over £60m. Will we stagnate for the next few years if we miss out on the CL consistently? Possibly. However our current wage capex at 50% of £515m is £257.5m which allows us to pay £200k+ per week to several player's.
Of course there are ifs or buts. However mine seem to be based on the realies of business, whereas yours seem to be based on "what if Spurs won the Euromillions".
Spurs won't entertain offers that aren't representative of the player's talent. If Alli/Kane aren't going to command a top fee £70-100+m fee they also are unlikely to be kicking up too much of a fuss about their wages (as Spurs could afford say £125-135k a week) and therefore are unlikely to leave. The truth is the likes of United, City & Chelsea would already be looking at a fee of around £50-75m for Kane/Alli, so the chances of them going for this in 2 years would require a complete stagnation or even regression of their current form.
The question will always be: what transfer fee hit would Spurs take in order to sell a player abroad, rather than to an English club. If Alli has 2 years left on his deal and Barcelona offer £40m and United offer £85m I'd suggest Levy lets him go to United, whereas if Barcelona offer £65m and United offer £85m then he'd probably let him go to Barcelona.
So the question isn't about "policy" as I'm sure even you'd agree if it were a choice of letting him go to Barcelona on a free in 2022 or going to United for £100m in 2020, Levy would choose the latter (who wouldn't). That's before even talking about the current increase in PL revenue meaning I wouldn't be surprised to see £300k a week salaries being offered to key players by 2020. If that does happens I'd say only Madrid & maybe PSG are there to compete with the English clubs (possibly Barcelona although they've never shown such interest in English player's).
In terms of Pochettino I'm guessing he leaves 2018 or 2019 (2017 if Barcelona come in hard). I know you're a huge fan of trends and Spurs' trend to replace their manager every 2-4 seasons is consistent a trend as you're likely to see.
Spurs "policy" reminds me of the Winston Churchil quote:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
All these hypothetical scenarios for years down the line
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
The present moment is Spurs having two players on the cusp of being one of the best in their positions in the world. History suggests that the best player's in the world play for the clubs that pay them the highest salaries which their talent deserves.
Last edited:
The first acronym 'ENIC' was good, the last word 'deserve' was also good.
Unfortunately everything in between was just nonsensical rambling.
I find it great irony Pochetino Argie done well England Wenger next could be manger of country destroyed national team "revolution" in diet, though Wrighty says Bergkamp felt him up first touch. If Spurs push on grimbley grimbley become the biggest club in Norf London what can we expect from Southgate's rentaweed then? Rose tinted spectacles you lot about half celtic/half arsenal hats wrecked the coal industry, with or without cushty I'll have a G and T lovely cummerbund. No, Big Ron was right let one in they all want in I honestly believe in Bumstead and Spackman, though never in a Hatton Cross diamond formation. My point is please date me without judging my norse cross tattoo wonder how Strachan will look aged 80, proper elf. Zubizaretta's mum hurt me, oi why's my piece smaller than his? Defo top four.
All these hypothetical scenarios for years down the line
Pochettino and a load of their key players including Alli have signed long term deals recently. That's the current state of play.
Live in the present moment ffs.
Post of the thread.
I never expect and have never seen anyone post "actually you are correct" on this forum. In my experience however a post like this is as close as you're ever going to get.
Your policy in this thread reminds me of Walter Mitty - wishful thinking, projected into various hypothetical future scenarios, which all strangely enough turn out badly for Spurs or show that some other Prem clubs will eat us for breakfast and take away all our best players.
Meanwhile, back in the here-and-now ...
Spot on, he's just living in some weirdly fantastic futuristic movie that he bizarrely believes is really happening.
Maybe he can tell us who will win the 2020 Derby even though the horse hasn't even been born yet.
Didnt understand a word of that but I completely agree.
Why would I wish that a player like Alli or Kane end up at the likes of City or Chelsea? I'd much prefer them to go to Barcelona or Madrid; however I'm realistic about the fact that with Premier League revenues escalating the quantity of clubs that can compete with the richest English clubs is rapidly diminishing.
Likewise I haven't said anything would end up badly for Spurs. Quite the contrary; Spurs in 10 years time have an exceptionally bright future. Their match day revenue will be knocking on £100m per season (around £55m more than current) and their debt will have reduced to a manegable mortgage that will be low 8 figures per season (more than offset by the increase in match day revenue). Of course they will have to tighten their belts for the next 5-7 years in the mean time and they won't be able to pay £200k+ per week to their stars, but that's typical short term pain for long term gain.
I likewise specifically said that it would take a huge bid to pry either of them away and that they couldn't be bought for 3 years. That's a far more balanced opinion than some on here. I don't see what's wrong with saying that a club like Spurs is going to have a problem keeping hold of their best player's when the 5-6 clubs that have twice the turnover come calling. I don't believe a Dortmund fan would have a problem accepting this, who're a very similar club to Spurs.
The summation of my points is far less balanced than the points themselves. An example of this is the comment above: "Will we have a stadium debt in 4 years?" No point is made as to the alternative, it's a bizarrely flippant remark with no basis or source. Likewise "Will Spurs be able to pay somebody 200k a week in 4 years, are you sure they won't be able to?" What evidence is there that they will? Could other teams in similar situations?
I'm happy to hear an argument put forward with a logical alternative as implied.
Once you have some of your facts straight somebody might entertain you in reasonable debate, until then there's no point.
I welcome any correction of facts, as I'm quite happy to be educated further. I'm not purporting to be an oracle on the subject, just using the information I've read alongside Spurs' current financials, as well as comparative examples to formulate the most likely scenario.
If you really want some in depth info on Spurs, the stadium etc from a fans perspective then this is a good read.
https://thespursreport.wordpress.com
Anyone saying Poch could go to Barcelona really needs to check up on the fact that he's an Espanyol legend essentially and that Barca is 99% likely to be off the cards.
Seems a lot of it echoes my points (all quoted from various articles from that website):
- The final stadium cost at £500 million, KPMG estimates the cost of the entire scheme at between £675 million and £750 million.
- Spurs are borrowing at least £350 million from banks, plus securitising future commercial and matchday revenues, in order to fund the stadium project and associated development.
- They have also found three banks willing to loan £350 million towards the project. This loan is £90 million more than Arsenal secured, more than 10 years ago. This still leaves between £225 million and £300 million to find (£100m already spent, £350m in loans, £225-300m funding gap)
- The financial benefits of a new stadium could be less than the merit payments attributed to finishing a few places higher (in the Premier League)
- The TV income is so high it is seen to be creating an argument AGAINST expanding stadia
- The debt load will surpass what Arsenal took on to build the Emirates a decade ago
- The next five years promise to be one of the most... risky, periods in the club’s history.
- Since 2014, a new era has emerged, with a more prudent approach to player trading and a greater focus on cost controls.
- In the past decade, the club is £152 million in profit. However, in that time, accounting profit on player trading is £295 million — without player trading, the club would have theoretically lost £143 million.
- Levy referred to “pragmatic player trading” in the club’s statement in 2015
- Over the next five years, the period of peak financing, Spurs need to strike a balance between funding stadium construction, and remaining competitive on the pitch.
- The extent to which Spurs can compete for new players over the next five years will depend on how much Spurs will have to spend to finance construction. Spurs will be taking on huge debt — at least £350 million
- £350 million loan will be a five-year loan, which will then be refinanced
- Arsenal raised debt... likewise, Spurs will be funding property development as well as stadium construction.
- For the first four years, you can see how total financing costs were between £35m and £45m (for Arsenal) — quite a burden. Spurs can expect a similar profile to this.
- For five years, repayments and interest will be high, but then the bank loan will be refinanced into a long-term debt package at a lower rate of interest.
- On the one hand, Spurs are taking on a bigger finance package — £350m versus £260m. On the other hand, Spurs are doing it from a stronger financial position — £196m revenue versus £137m.
- The ability of Spurs to control financing costs and maximise revenues during the construction phase will ultimately determine the amount that is ringfenced to be spent on transfers and wages.
- There is an adjustment coming, but won’t be like Spurs are accelerating from 0 to 60mph — we’ve already been cruising along at 30mph for a while now (in relation to having to manage costs).
- The next five years is about finding the right balance between funding the stadium and funding a competitive team. It’ll be hugely challenging, and even if Spurs get it “right”, events out of the club’s control — luck, relative performance of others, macroeconomy, you name it — may mean it looks like the club got it “wrong”.
- Underinvestment in the playing squad could have a negative impact on the viability of the stadium project, just as overinvestment could. It is safe to assume Spurs will be on the cautious side of this spectrum — the unofficial target of a 45 percent wages-turnover ratio hints as much (currently being missed by 6% - at 1%)
- The KPMG report makes clear this £30 million figure (for stadium naming rights) is the club’s, and it came from an external report. But the huge disparity between what Arsenal achieved in 2004 and Manchester City engineered in 2011 provides few clues, while the rights deal in the US may suggest what Spurs are after is optimistic.
- Can Levy pull a rabbit out of the hat, and land a £225 million to £300 million naming rights deal to cover the gap? We’ll see. But it appears likely that Spurs will need more funding to complete the scheme.
- ENIC held over 182 million shares in the club, representing 85.46 percent of those in issue. I don’t know who owns the other 14.5 percent — filings to Companies House simply state “other”
- ENIC view an equity sale, now, as a last resort (so debt is the preference)
Spurs sides of old would have lost that.
Should have won it in the first half really but after a really poor second half showing and the inevitable goal from Chadli I don't think a point was a terrible result. Away to WBA is always tricky.
- Status