So, dippers can't even win the net spend trophy this season either? January really isn't doing them much good.
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
You're backtracking because you know you're talking crap, it's in your post that I quoted, 'they know how to balance the books better than you (meaning a fan), there are other ways to make money etc'.
Would you care if their net spend was zero over 10 years? Of course you would, so it matters to you.
Jesus Christ. You can join the ignore list. You're just a boring version of Glaston.
Excellent, just keep talking complete and utter crap and expect to not be pulled up on it.
Agree with your post there.
More to do with glaston imo
Don't agree myself. I'd elaborate but can't be bothered with the backlash. This thread is bad enough as is.
You really don't get it do you. Spurs have wanted a low net spend to help finance our new stadium ... and not because of some fevered imaginings on your part that selling star players is the club's main source of net income and thus indispensable to our way of operating. And the reason why we've been able to achieve the desired low net spend is down to the success of our transfer, scouting and youth development systems.
As for the rest, I might just as well ask why United didn't spend even more than the vast sums that you did spend under LvG to to "strengthen their squad to handle the Champions League"?
We finished 3rd last season and sit in 3rd in the league currently ... not so bad for team that supposedly is "running out of players that can be sold for big profit".*
* A recent study found that Spurs have one of the most valuable squads in Europe.
Spending nearly £400m net on transfer fees (never mind wages) over the last 5 years no longer squares with United having "good scouting and youth development systems", particularly given your decline over the last 3+ years.
You don't anymore - see post #3729.
I said "If I buy a car every 5 years ...."
If United's revenue stays consistant we will have brought in over 2b over the next 5 years.
What car are you buying?
The point is that £400m is not an "irrelevant" portion of £2bn.
Last edited:
Well, the point is also - I suppose - that it's not money spent randomly or recklessly by the club: The Glazers are all about building the brand, and presumably consider spending record amounts on big names a sound investment. Or something along those lines. Doesn't really matter what it is - they can afford it, and it's part of a strategy, a business model, call it what you will.
Simply looking at transfer net spend isn't the most relevant thing to do when assessing the operation as a whole - which is what people are driving at here, or so I would imagine.
I do get it thanks. I've said that continuing to have a low net spend will require you to either not sufficiently invest in your squad or to sell assets. I never said anything about the reason Spurs choose to have a low net spend. You were the one claiming it wasn't just because you needed it when clearly it is. The reason you have done been able to do it is because you sold assets. What assets will Spurs be able to sell in future? What has his great scouting led to? Alli and Dier?
United invested in an attempt to improve strength. Unfortunately a shite manager spent it on shite players. I fail to see what Man United have to do with a discussion about Spurs net spend but that is your mantra.
What use is your valuable squad to you in this discussion? It's not because of the players that Spurs will want to sell. How much profit will Spurs great scouting lead to with Sissoko?
Utd produce more players in the English league than most. Including two that won the league last year. Where are all the products of Spurs youth academy hiding?
But Spurs won the Net-Transfer cup for the last 5 years.
link please..I want to check this source
Fact is unless we have a squad full of free transfer then it has to be something. It may be 400m but if we suddenly shut the war chest and reduce it to 300m the financial burden is exactly the same to us. 400m / 300m/ 250m out of 2b means, in essence, the same thing.
Looking at the 2b figure its actually closer to 2.7b if we stagnate the revenue from this year with zero growth.
It's a drop in the ocean.
Will Kane and Rose play Tuesday Spurs fans?
Your flawed logic fails to account for how we've managed to improve the squad over the last 3 years whilst still maintaining a low net spend and not selling any star assets. What we've done during this period, we can continue to do ... or at least you've failed to explain why we can't.
In any case, there will be a large increase in our income from the new stadium, starting in just 18 months from now ... which will mean, far from being impoverished, that Spurs will be in the top 10 income-wise of clubs globally .
Nor is selling assets the only reason for our low net spend. It's also because we have .successfully developed youth players and acquired many players - Walker, Rose, Alderweireld, Lloris, Alli etc - that are top 4 quality for very little money ... which also answers your question as to where all our scouting has led to.
I'm not sure why you ask "what assets will Spurs be able to sell in future?", when clearly we have several very valuable players. More to the point, however, is that Spurs have no need to sell valuable players.
"Only Barcelona and Real Madrid have more valuable squads than Tottenham Hotspur, according to a new study.
The CIES Football Observatory study found that only Barcelona had a greater gap between the cost of assembling their squad and its current value than Spurs. ..."
http://www.espnfc.com/tottenham-hot...uad-is-europes-third-most-valuable-cies-study
I've no idea what "stagnate the revenue from this year with zero growth" is supposed to mean.
£400m is your net spend over the last 5 years, and your income over that period has not been £2.7 billion. Which means your net spend on transfers over this period has been at least 20% of your total income ... which, I repeat, is not an "irrelevant" proportion despite the earlier claims that it is.
It means if we go against our trend of increasing our revenues year on year and freeze it at 516m for the next 5 years then 400m over that period isn't important at all.
If anything having our revenues increase year on year like you say then 400m gets less and less significant.
You're the one who brought up every 5 years, not me.if you suddenly declare you only meant the 5 years past then it clearly hasn't affected us finacially since we're a few months gone from breaking the fecking world record transfer fee.
There is literally nothing that backs up your argument. We've had a horrendous 3 years yet smashed the half a billion mark. Real Madrid won the CL and couldn't come nesr us.
Yet you have no trophy success to show for it. And just two top level academy players in a decade (one of whom was signed as a pro). So it's not really success is it? At least for a top club with trophy winning ambition, which I would've thought Spurs should be.
If United can have a net spend of around £11m in 5 years between 05/06 and 10/11 and win multiple major honours, what's Spurs excuse? Especially considering you spent 10 times more in the same period.
The tables have turned a bit now. We've paid down debt, we're in a better place financially, Spurs are no longer able to throw money around with such profligacy. And we're still adding to our trophy haul whilst Spurs do not.
I just don't really know what your problem is. We went through a period of spending much less than Spurs and still won considerably more. Now we're going through a period of spending more than Spurs and still winning more. Are you just angry and frustrated that you didn't capitalise when you had more cards stacked on your favour?
Last edited:
Fair play to you @GlastonSpur at least you're consistent.
My question to you, is given spurs status as a 2nd tier club at best, who do you see the club realistically going after in the summer? Whilst the bigger clubs duke it out for the megastars, who would you like to replace in the current team?
My question to you, is given spurs status as a 2nd tier club at best, who do you see the club realistically going after in the summer? Whilst the bigger clubs duke it out for the megastars, who would you like to replace in the current team?
How many times will Spurs be able to find players like Alli for £4m? Finding him once suggests it will happen again and again? The increase in your income has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I'm not predicting doom for Spurs but your inferiority complex has kicked in again.
Rose and Walker were acquired ten and eight years ago respectively, Llrois was one of the most expensive keepers of all time too. Is this the great scouting that is going to reap dividends for time immemorial?
I ask because we're talking about how Spurs will be able to continue having a low net spend while improving your squad. Unless you get luckier in the transfer market than you did with Clinton N'Jie and the like it's going to be a lot more difficult than you think. Unless you sell your better players. You ain't making profit on Sissoko anytime soon.
The same people have Pogba as the third most valuable player in the world. And you told us he was a waste of money.
There are many things to be proud of as a United fan. Just recently you had Fergie, class of 92, and have been consistently winning trophies. I have been cheering for United to win the league ahead of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City etc because I preferred the way the club was run and liked some of the players/manager.
You now have a massive following, is one of the biggest brands in football and have lots of money. This is something to be proud of.
However, this doesn't mean that that us Spurs fans aren't allowed to be proud as well. Over the last years Spurs have played Champions league football. Finished above many of the big spenders in the league. Built a solid team who are one of the best in the league. And financed a top class training\youth facility and stadium.
All this had to be achieved by being clever on the transfer market. And credit to Levy he has. On top of that we have a manager who trusts youth and builds a team around an an English core. Trophies are not the only thing to be proud of, although every team wants to win something.
I'm a little surprised so many people on here have so much against Spurs, whilst at the same time wanting teams to trust youth, battling with financial doping etc. Did I just imagine United fans claiming to be different from City because they 'bought' the league?
You now have a massive following, is one of the biggest brands in football and have lots of money. This is something to be proud of.
However, this doesn't mean that that us Spurs fans aren't allowed to be proud as well. Over the last years Spurs have played Champions league football. Finished above many of the big spenders in the league. Built a solid team who are one of the best in the league. And financed a top class training\youth facility and stadium.
All this had to be achieved by being clever on the transfer market. And credit to Levy he has. On top of that we have a manager who trusts youth and builds a team around an an English core. Trophies are not the only thing to be proud of, although every team wants to win something.
I'm a little surprised so many people on here have so much against Spurs, whilst at the same time wanting teams to trust youth, battling with financial doping etc. Did I just imagine United fans claiming to be different from City because they 'bought' the league?
IIRC they also said Jones was the best young CB in the world and Smalling in top 3 or best in the world.
From what's been said they should both be fine, Verts, Lamela and Trippier will all be out.
I think we will revert to a back 4 for this game.
@GlastonSpur If the club executives feel comfortable about splashing say £1bn in transfer net spend, why on earth should we (the fans) have an issue with that as long as the club has earned the money itself and the people in charge is comfortable with the spending?
You don't win internet if you don't win net spend.
Interesting this was ignored by Glaston.
AVB signed players worth 100s of millions, Poch comes in and sells them for 100s of millions and use the same money to sign players he wanted. Conclusion, AVB spent 100 million whereas Poch spent 0. Logic is very much flawed.
I envy Spurs at the full backs. But centrally defending they are very, very, depending on Alderweireld and Vertonghen. Every time Wimmer makes an appearance the defence looks shaky at the least
I'm sure the majority of teams around wouldn't look as comfortable without their first choice centre backs.
What a joke of a study. Spurs were cannon fodder in the CL.
You have a low net spend. And what? What is the actual point you're making?
I'm not sure I get it.
- Status