The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
This thread is fecking mental.
Worst thread on the Caf.
No they don't have the "right" to wum in any thread. This is not their support forum. This is a Man Utd forum and yes it is nice to have rival fans' point of view, but not at the expense of them saying all sorts of nonsense about the club we support. If you enjoy that, why don't you hop on to RAWK, you can get your fill of people slating United and maybe you can enjoy that too.
As for the decline part, yes we are having a blip by our usual very high standards but Spurs haven't exactly been pulling up trees in the mean time. They qualified for the CL just once in that period and were absolute shambles in it. They have won nothing and yet claim to be somehow superior to United now (not all Spurs' fans but we both know some of them have been acting like that). If you feel that is required on this forum then you are entitled to your opinion, just don't try to act the moral authority here when some actually pull these fans up for their absolutely stupid opinions at times.
They are fit and available, so I'd expect so, yes.
Seriously what is the problem here?
Spurs fans on here don't claim to be superior to anybody let alone Man Utd. Reading through this and other threads you will see that all of the Spurs fans posting are after a top 4 finish, without any delusions of grandeur. When you've suffered as much disappointment as we have over recent times you learn not to be expectant and to take nothing for granted.
We don't claim to have pulled up trees or to be anything that we're not. This has nothing to do with Spurs it's more to do with some posters ganging up together to attack one particular poster because it makes you feel all powerful, but actually it's pretty sad. It's the same every single time that poster posts anything positive about Spurs, in comes the same clique to try and ridicule him in every way possible, thankfully it's only a small clique and the forum as a whole remains excellent.
So United were on the right track then, but have since lost their way. Have you ever considered that this suggests that spending large sums on 'galactico' signings is not the best way forward?
Barcelona and Real Madrid beg to differ. So do their recent results. So do pretty much the last 30 years of european football...
why exactly is this relevant anyways?
Well as I said, you heavily outspent us and we won more than you. Now we've recovered financially and you're having to be more austere, but we're still winning more than you. If we continue to add trophies, I'll be more than happy to 'lose our way'. We're in four competitions this year with a realistic chance at a couple of trophies. We have a manager who is making a side who are very difficult to beat. The portents are good.
In our current squad we have one player that could be considered a galactico signing - Pogba. Zlatan fits the 'profile' but was free, perhaps one of the best free signings ever made in the PL based on this season's evidence. I don't think any of our other players are anything like galacticos. Martial has a high fee if all clauses in his contract are met (in which case he'll be a bargain), but you'd never describe signing a 19 year old relatively unknown raw gem as a galactico.
All our other signings are signings that any top club could make. Most have been cheaper than Sissoko for instance (perhaps one of the worst £30m+ signings made in recent years).
So I don't really buy the galactico thing. That said, it certainly hasn't hurt clubs like Real, Barca and Bayern to use their revenue to pursue the very best players in the world - something United arguably should've done more of to remain at the top. We still continue to bring through great young talent. If that's complemented with the odd Pogba/Greizmann type signing, why would I complain? It's our money to do with what we want, and if it's not going on the pitch where are we going to put it? Owner's pockets? Shareholder dividends? I'm sure you'd prefer that scenario where the cash is siphoned out of the club, but unfortunately for you it looks like a good chunk of it is going to go on the pitch.
And I'm fully on board with you in hoping it's not going anywhere near Spurs. I'm certain it won't be.
No they don't. Of all of the other clubs in the top 6 I prefer Spurs. You're talking absolute shite again.
And I haven't done any of the things you're claiming. You're having a fictitious argument. You'd be better served actually responding to the points raised but naturally there are many you want to avoid.
It suggests that United didn't have as much money due to the debt repayments. Spending more money suggests that the debt repayments are no longer an issue so we can spend more freely. That is the extent to which net spend effects both clubs.
2005 - 2010 Spurs spent much more than United as the latter had a huge debt pile
2011 - 2016 United spend much more than Spurs as the latter had a stadium to pay for
Neither one is tied to success or failure. If Pochettino had another £250m over the last 5 years Spurs are very likely to have a much stronger squad and would probably have won some trophies. If Fergie were given £400m extra 2005 - 2010 United are likely to have won even more. The fact that there is a huge correlation between salaries/transfer spend and success tends to highlight that if the same manager in the sam environment is given more money, he is likely to win more. Therefore seeing net spend as an achievement is fine in a vacuum, but the truth is a low net spend is a means to an end and certainly isn't anything brag-worthy.
Spurs low net spend will allow them to build a stadium which in the next 10 years will allow them to spend similarly to clubs such as Liverpool and with exceptional management might see them be able to spend like Arsenal within the next few decades.
Arsenal had a negative net spend over a 10 year period 2002 - 2012. In this time they achieved top 4 every season and won a PL title, 2 Community Shields & 2 FA Cups. As previously mentioned United had a negative net spend for 5 years and won 4 League titles, a Champions League, a Club World Cup, two League Cups and 4 Charity Shields. The thing United and Arsenal have in common is they had top class managers who could win without spending money.
Naturally anyone on here could post a "net spend to trophies won over the last decade" table and make the "interesting" point that Spurs have spent an infinite amount of money per trophy and are bottom of the list (below teams such as Wigan, Birmingham, Leicester, Swansea as well as the huge spenders like City, United & Chelsea). However this would just be an inflammatory "table" serving only to goad a response out of the Spurs fans on this forum; just as a Spurs fan posting a "net spend table" on a United forum is equally crass.
Pochettino and Spurs at the moment are doing well with a limited budget. But as with any top 10 club they will only be recognised as doing very well when they win trophies.
I think you need to factor in that both individual posters and certain concepts (like net spend, which is a standing joke on here) have a history. People aren't randomly attacking anyone who says anything positive about Spurs.
Quite. Which is the salient point here.
Unless one actually suggests a causal relationship between high transfer net spend and poor results on the pitch, it simply isn't a relevant point to bring up. At United the football side of the operation is the manager's responsibility - and that is that (as far as anyone knows). Being able to spend record amounts on high profile players without worrying about net spend is no guarantee of success - but it obviously isn't some sort of structural problem either.
And it - clearly - isn't detrimental to the business side. You can say what you will about our owners, but they're not the sort who enjoy throwing money out the window.
@GlastonSpur I have a question for you. You're constantly telling us how your new stadium is going to boost your revenues massively, yes? When this happens, are you still hoping to maintain your current net spend figures? You seem very reluctant to acknowledge just how relevant transfer net spend is, because it's not the only way of measuring money coming in and out of a club, but I imagine when (if?) you're stadium expansion is as successful as you hope, you'll soon have a lot less to say on the matter?
Ideally we would maintain a low net spend on transfer fees and be able continue to improve the squad mainly due to (a) promotions from our academy; and (b) unearthing low-cost gems via our scouting network. If we can do this then it would free up more money to spend on (a) wages used to retain our best players and so maintain squad continuity; and (b) on further improvements to our training ground complex and/or complex stadium facilities.
Whether can we do this remains to be seen.
The point is that a high net transfer-spend is better avoided if possible. It's only a good thing IF it results in more squad/team improvement than a club could otherwise obtain - and sometimes it doesn't.
You ignore the massive differences in spending on wages. And also you ignore the huge difference between the net-spend gap in 2005-10 and the net spend gap in 2011-16: Spurs did not outspend United in net terms during 2005-10 by a ratio of around 56:1, but that has been the ratio during 2011-16.
Also, Leicester last season were an exception the likes of which we'll very probably never see again, whilst cup trophies depend hugely on the luck of the draw. When did Wigan, Birmingham or Swansea finish in the top 4?
I kind of take your point, but surely the same applies to low net transfer spend, where it is only good if it results in squad improvements etc.
For instance, our net spend over the last few years under Ferguson was hugely altered by the sale of Ronaldo, but if you asked most United fans if they'd have rather kept Ronaldo, and been down the £80m in net spend, they'd have preferred that.
We comfortably could've done this (purely financially, I'm not taking into account the fact he wanted to leave), because of the other revenue streams coming into the club. However, take the sale of Bale to Madrid. Would most Spurs fans rather have kept Bale and been £80m down in net spend? Of course! Was that a financial possibility? From what I understand, absolutely not.
The situations at the two clubs are completely different, and it's understandable therefore, that the two sets of fans disagree on the importance of net spend. There's no correct answer per se, but I would add that in general, the major European teams don't tend to focus on it.
Ah the good old net spend debate. I used to spout this tripe when I was younger during our tight years in the early Glazer period. Then again, I used to wind up opposition fans but gloating about actual trophies won during that low net spend period. Something that I see this thread lacks somewhat.
And?
There's any number if hypotheticals you can spout on about, but I'm not entirely sure what the 'debate' is here?
1. Spurs are outperforming relative to their wages, compared to the current top 6
Indeed, points per wage or whatever crushing it. But miles worse than Leicester last season. And probably worse than lots of teams outside the top 6. Also, who cares?
2. Spurs are doing better than United in recent times
In the Champions League, so earned more money and the right to play...oh that's right, didn't bother with the qualifying for the later rounds bit. Still, in pure points terms this is factually correct.
3. Spurs are more attractive than United to prospective signings
I assume it's been said somewhere, but this seems utterly ludicrous to me, unless you've big posters of Pochettino on the wall or something. You go to Spurs to win troph... ah. You go to come, erm, 3rd in the league? You go there to work with the manager - yeah that's fair. But that's kind of it, and if we're doing a manager-off, as much as I dislike him, one has a huge cabinet of trophies and is factually the most successful manager in the last decade. The other has done well with a limited budget and seems nice.
4. Spurs' medium term future is better than United
Again, I don't see why this would be the case? If you look at the correlation between wages and success in football, it's practically linear over a large sample size. IE, the house wins in the end, if by house I mean United's giant bank account. United have made some serious blunders, and have had to replace an entire squad in 3 seasons. But, it's starting to get there, and why wouldn't the future look better at United than Spurs? If anything, Spurs/Liverpool/Arsenal should be kicking themselves for not winning the league while the two Manchester clubs are busy sorting aging squads out.
I just don't understand what's going on here. Is it a pissing contest?
1. Spurs are outperforming relative to their wages, compared to the current top 6
Indeed, points per wage or whatever crushing it. But miles worse than Leicester last season. And probably worse than lots of teams outside the top 6. Also, who cares?
2. Spurs are doing better than United in recent times
In the Champions League, so earned more money and the right to play...oh that's right, didn't bother with the qualifying for the later rounds bit. Still, in pure points terms this is factually correct.
3. Spurs are more attractive than United to prospective signings
I assume it's been said somewhere, but this seems utterly ludicrous to me, unless you've big posters of Pochettino on the wall or something. You go to Spurs to win troph... ah. You go to come, erm, 3rd in the league? You go there to work with the manager - yeah that's fair. But that's kind of it, and if we're doing a manager-off, as much as I dislike him, one has a huge cabinet of trophies and is factually the most successful manager in the last decade. The other has done well with a limited budget and seems nice.
4. Spurs' medium term future is better than United
Again, I don't see why this would be the case? If you look at the correlation between wages and success in football, it's practically linear over a large sample size. IE, the house wins in the end, if by house I mean United's giant bank account. United have made some serious blunders, and have had to replace an entire squad in 3 seasons. But, it's starting to get there, and why wouldn't the future look better at United than Spurs? If anything, Spurs/Liverpool/Arsenal should be kicking themselves for not winning the league while the two Manchester clubs are busy sorting aging squads out.
I just don't understand what's going on here. Is it a pissing contest?
1. Spurs fans care because it's the only way we could have improved as much as we have, if it was easy to do, a lot more teams would have done it. IMO something to be proud of.
2. I've seen the 'didn't bother' thrown around a few times. Did you see our games in the CL? Our form earlier in the season wasn't great, we also had a few injuries to key players. Add this to our inexperience with CL/Wembley or whatever and we ended up not progressing. We definitely didn't do this on purpose, but we didn't perform well enough for whatever reason, also, a few games we were genuinely the better side, but couldn't convert it in what matters, goals.
3. Not sure who said this. But this could be said for United too. Right now there are clubs more likely to win trophies than you as well. It's obvious United has a bigger pulling power than Spurs, especially for established players such as Mkhitaryan and Zlatan. However, Spurs is also an attractive destination at the moment, especially for young talents who may believe Tottenham and Pochettino will help them progress, and they can see a clear route to the first team if they progress well.
4. I think spurs fans are optimistic about the future, and it's not as unavoidable as you make it seem. I don't think the PL will be anything like a three horse race between United, City and Chelsea in a few years. Arsenal are a big club, Liverpool as well, - and with our new stadium we will not be a poor club either. I expect a competitive league for years to come, and I agree with Glaston that no team will be guaranteed top 4 for years to come.
Tbh all english teams are struggling in europe, we have too.
I dont think the players are worse or the managers. Its a strange one.
(just on the 2nd point)
I dont think the players are worse or the managers. Its a strange one.
(just on the 2nd point)
Well done, Lad. Glaston has taken a lot of shit over the years and yet always stuck around.
After all that you finally hit the nail on the head.
Why limit to only leicester, Atletico Madrid had a net spend of 2 million from 2011 season (thats 0.33 Million per season) and less than 0 in last 5 seasons. But they won league (competing against Madrid and Barca who had arguably the best ever player and many of them best of their generation) and also won Europa league, Domestic cups and reached champions league finals twice in 3 years.
Saying Spurs had only 1 Million net spend is not a big achievement when they did feck all in those seasons except 1.
No one mentioned wages? Your entire point was how "interesting" it was that Spurs had such a low net spend in comparison to their rivals.
As I said if I posted a table with net spend per trophy Spurs would be rock bottom of the list. However I'd be highly unlikely to do this as it'd serve only to antagonise Spurs fans. Especially if I then selected the exact years whereby the club had been fiscally responsible and ignored the previous years, despite some of the incoming fees being a result of purchases prior to the period in question.
For example Modric was bought for a high fee prior to your time frame, but sold for an even higher one during your time frame. Your actual net profit on him was "only" £13m but in your period you get credit for full £30m as if you never spent a penny on him.
You actually lost money on Pavlyuchenko, Palacios, Keane, Crouch, Hutton, Gomes, Corluka, Dos Santos. However I imagine (depending on how far back you've gone) these would be included as sales but not as purchases.
To take it to the extreme United fans could say they have a negative net spend of £45m over my selected time period, which along with Chelsea is the best in the league. However that would totally ignore the fact that the two players were sold at a £4m loss.
The truth is net spend is all about context. Spurs are doing well and aren't spending a lot which is good for the club at this time; just like it was good for Arsenal and United.
But again if your board are similarly not backing your manager when you aren't building a new stadium and about to be in huge debt then your fans will be protesting, not dick swinging.
Pochettino with £400m to spend... Now that's something I'd like to see.
That's exactly the point. Net spend is all about context, just putting random numbers won't make any sense like ignoring the money spent on players to sign them.
Any chance we can have a separate net spend thread?
Came in here to see any updates on the Spurs squad and any mention of upcoming fixtures etc. Got 5 pages of shit.
Came in here to see any updates on the Spurs squad and any mention of upcoming fixtures etc. Got 5 pages of shit.
Yeah this thread is 99% awful. Anyway, big game tonight against a team you would expect to defeat - Toby and Danny Rose should be fit to play and we will be full strength minus Jan and Lamela (who might make the bench as he is back training with the team).
Vital we get the win and hopefully a few goals to help keep our goal difference in good shape.
Looking at your upcoming fixtures, really need you guys to slip up Liverpool fashion in games like these.
I'm greedy, I want everyone to slip up
Apart from us of course. I seriously doubt Spurs will, we should have learned by now we expect Moyes to do anything good, ever.
2 January 2017 - Sunderland 2-2 Liverpool
He owes us a couple more favourable results.
Oh yeah
. Go on then Moyes, give us a three-nil'er. Gibson hat-trick from a combined 100+ yards should do it.This round I think the most likely 'slip' is Manchester City away to West Ham, hoping for a good Carrol performance. No game is won on paper, however, so anything can happen.
Definitely the most likely on the face of it. To be honest I've rarely had Spurs down to drop points at all since you went out of the CL. Very consistent performers and always look like you have a goal or two in you.
Indeed! He might be a bit of a troll, but I say he's allowed too given he's been here for 10 years and for 7 of those years Spurs have been dire.
Yeah, because that poster doesn't do anything to incite the responses he gets. This is the problem. People like him WUM and when people react, you and some others try to act as if people on here are trying to lynch him.
And you can draw your own conclusions ...
- Status