oh feck!, she has eyes
Van Der Vaart On The Move
- Thread starter Drifter
- Start date
So you're advocating spending 30m on Suarez plus another 20m in wages just because he may have resale value in the future?
So, in other words, you're admitting Spurs is a stepping stone to a bigger club.
In fairness to Glaston, using your logic does it not mean that United's supposed policy of not buying players of Berbatov's age anymore mean that they're a selling club? What he's saying definitely makes sense
Because players use United as a stepping stone to a bigger club.
I'm not advocating spending 30m on any striker, be it Suarez or not. Nor am I advocating breaking the Spurs wage policy.
We've managed to sign more than a few very good players without spending stupid sums of money on each of them, and I see no reason why we can't continue to do so. If next January or next summer we could get Suarez (for example only) for 20m and 60k per week, then good. If not, we'll look elsewhere.
So I'm advocating a sensible use of money for a club that has not had regular CL income and doesn't wish to rack up unsustainable debts. Spending 40M+ on Fabiano would not have been sensible for Spurs - even forgetting that he'd be cup-tied for the CL.
And yes, re-sale value is a factor that needs to considered: only the clubs with sugar-daddies or much bigger income than Spurs - or those willing to gamble their future on huge debts - can afford to ignore it.
Does that mean Spurs are merely a stepping stone up to bigger clubs? Ask VdV - who has just stepped down to join Spurs from just about the biggest club in the world. Does that make him just a "has-been" no mark reject? I think not.
Or does the sale of Berbatov for 30.25m mean that Spurs are a "just" a selling club? No, not when that money more or less paid the transfer fees for Modric, Gomes and Palacios combined and we went on to finish 4th.
Right now Spurs are in the CL and are the 4th best team in one of the strongest leagues in the world. Plenty of very good players would be happy to play for us. No-one wants to leave, no one is hankering to join Man. Utd - sorry if that doesn't stroke your ego sufficiently. As to what happens in the future ... that all depends on how Spurs kick on from here.
Not to wind someone up, just a genuine question because I actually don't know it: How much money have Spurs got? I always thought they were quite a rich club.
*cough* Evra *cough*
If Modric moves to the left wing he isn't going to be pounding down the flank whipping in crosses. It would be a good move from Redknapp to start experimenting with tactics a little bit more modern than route one 4-4-2 if he fancies holding onto that top four spot and avoiding being a European whipping boy.
Modric pulling infield from left wing, Bale overlapping, VdV pushing forward from right centre midfield, Lennon down the right, Palacios/Huddlestone holding through the middle, that sounds almost like a decent system.
The strikers are a bit dubious though.
Luca Toni could have been a good signing for that lone striker slot if he hadn't left Bayern so early
Every single one of your players would jump at the chance to play for United, don't be deluded. You're in a CL for a while, you probably won't be there next season and you're not considered a team that could win the said CL, you just play there just as many other sides. You're no different to teams like Fiorentina or Sevilla who have been there then and again but no one has ever mistaken them for top sides.
I think Arteta is world class. Have done for some time.
Actually Bale didn't
Have we ever made an offer for him? We haven't.
And I meant players who would actually have a chance of getting a game at United, not the ones that would play 10 games a season - and that's where Bale was when we were apparently interested in him some few years ago. Choosing between being first-team players at both clubs, no one would pick Spurs.
It's really a non-starter because I doubt Man.Utd could currently afford to make a persuasive bid for players like Bale, Modric or whoever ... not until you get your spiralling debt under control (if you ever do) or else start selling off some players that might raise some large sums of cash for you.
Like selling a player for £80m?
Modric you can keep.
Bale will be playing for United, Liverpool, Chelsea or City within two years.
It's all relative. Spurs have significantly larger income than clubs like Villa or Everton - or the majority of top 6 six teams in other leagues - but much less income than clubs like Man. Utd, Arsenal, Real Madrid etc.
But there are other factors that help to keep Spurs as a good competitor in the "transfer fees game" and able to splash out money (relatively speaking) on new players if good ones become available. These factors include things like keeping costs well under control in terms of wage bills, plus the selling of players like Carrick, Keane and Berbatov for very large sums that are then re-invested in bargain deals (Bale, VdV, Lennon, Huddlestone etc).
In the future, the planned new stadium will boost income a lot - especially given the very high ticket prices charged by Spurs.
It will likely take more than just the selling of Ronaldo to get your debts under control.Like selling a player for £80m?
Modric you can keep.
Bale will be playing for United, Liverpool, Chelsea or City within two years.
As for your prediction re. Bale, it all depends, as I've said, on how Spurs kick on from here: nothing is set in stone.
I've yet to see any indications that the large debt is not under control.
Spurs will at best be competing for 3rd and 4th spot in coming seasons. If any of the heavyweights come in for Bale, he will obviously leave Spurs.
Heh. Note the way he completely ignores the duff players bought with the same funds? The likes of Bent, Zokora, Boateng, Chimobonda and Pavyluchenko.
Typical Glaston.
No, not necessarily. Spurs would demand a huge fee and I don't think we or Arsenal would pay it. Liverpool would have to be owned by a Sheikh and maybe quickly so that they don't get basically overtaken by the likes of City and Spurs which would make the acquisition difficult. Chelsea are a maybe. City might well bid but they are pretty stocked there.
I can see him staying at Spurs for some time.
Has anyone went over VDV quotes from a week or two ago yet?
The way Spurs is currently run, they won't win much in the next 3-5 years. Management's strategy is to keep making the Champions League, get a new stadium, and pad out any financial shortfalls with player sales. Redknapp doesn't get much of a say here.
Yeah saw that but United did not bite for value reasons
Bale would go for +/- £25m if he continues his form.
At the moment, I don't think that is out of United's reach, certainly not out of Chelsea's, pocket money for City, and in a year or two, Liverpool's ownership will clearly be sorted.
Those comments about value are getting very frigging tiresome.
As for van der Vaart, don't see the hype.
There is a reason he has gone to Spurs for £8m....
There is a reason he has gone to Spurs for £8m....
It depends on what you mean by "under control".
You are obviously not going to go bust anytime soon, but sooner or later the principal sums owed have to be re-paid. And many believe that the interest payments are already having an effect on the funds available for transfers - or at least, from what I've read on here, that's what a fair few Man. Utd Caftards believe.
In my view Man. Utd are close to a water-shed moment, even if it has not yet quite arrived. The retirement of Fergie and players like Scholes and Giggs is not far away, and you have several other players who are starting to knock on a bit (e.g. Ferdinand will soon be 32, VdS is nearly 40, Neville is 35, Owen will soon be 31, as will Wes Brown). And huge debts remain.
So it's an open question as to whether Man. Utd will for much longer have the money and drive needed to adequately replace all these assets and continue at the same level.
All in all it's by no means set in stone that Bale will be leaving Spurs for anywhere anytime soon.
Of course it is not set in stone - but if he keeps on putting in the current kind of performances, bigger clubs than Spurs will come knocking, and Bale will want to go to one of them.
As for United, according to rival fans, the writing has been on our door for a decade.
New challenges are always popping up, and we keep over-coming these challenges.
Bale would not be sold for 25m or anything close to that. It would require much more.
You can dispute that all you wish, but the fact is he's only just turned 21, has just signed a new contract with Spurs, is of immense value to the team and is attracting attention from right across Europe. Being in the CL will only increase that attention.
It's not a question of whatever you might regard as reasonable value for money. It's what he's worth to Spurs and the level of demand for Bale from other clubs - these would determine his sale price. Levy is not an idiot, Spurs aren't desperate for cash and Bale, if sold at all, would only be let go for a staggering sum of money.
You're living in a special person's world....
£25m is a staggering sum of money.
Edit: Unless it is City who buys him, obviously....
I don't regard Bent as a 'duff player' (his goals tally speaks for itself) and Spurs sold him for exactly the same amount that we paid for him. He just wasn't really needed (proof: we finished 4th), doesn't contribute much to all round play and didn't fit in that well with the Spurs preferred style of play.
Nor do I regard Pav as a "duff player". For example, it was his great strike away at Young Boys that kept Spurs up and alive going into the 2nd leg of the CL qualifier. He cost Spurs 13.8m - less than many worse strikers go for - and will likely play a good part in the various campaigns for Spurs this season.
Zokora was sold for more money than we paid for him. We lost 1m on Chimbonda (2nd time around) and 600k on Boateng: these sums are tiny compared to profits made on Berbatov etc and the cash invested in new players like Bale.
Nah, we could easily make a bid for one of your players and get him if we wanted. We had the exact same debt here when we signed Berbatov from you lot, the fact that we don't sign anyone only means that we're not interested - and frankly I cannot see any players in your current team that could work in a current United team except for Bale and he's not yet a finished article.
We just spent £25m in the market too.
Bale wouldn't cost much more than £25m, he'd probably not even cost that much. Not in the real world. He wouldn't get a place at a team like Barcelona or Madrid, only British teams will be interested in him and only City out of all these team is capable of paying more than £25m for a player.
Then how about Bentley that you barely use, at £17m, Hutton that you struggled to sell - at £9m, dos Santos that has just been moved even further down in pecking order by van der Vaart - at £8.5m. And as for all the money you got for Keane, you actually spent £16m to get him back, and then moved him on loan to Celtic because he wasn't getting games.
You've spent a lot of money on needless transfers over the last few years, you've basically changed your whole squad several times.
I'd imagine Spurs final place in the league this season will determine the future of a lot of their higher profile players. Fail to get 4th and I'd imagine some of them will be off.
All these players remain in the squad and doubtless all will play their part as Spurs campaign on the 4 fronts: just because they aren't in the first XI doesn't make them useless or valueless.
When/if we sell any of these players for a significant loss then you might reasonably comment on it. Until then, it's all just "evidence of Spurs financial incompetence" wishful thinking on your part.
In any case, why try and dissect every Spurs transfer deal? It's not as if Man. Utd haven't made big losses on certain players or have never signed players who didn't turn out to be hugely successful.
The point is that Spurs generally do pretty well in their transfer dealings - certainly better than most clubs. All the money we spend is club-generated and Levy has done well for Spurs in the face of competition from sugar-daddy clubs and clubs that have had season after season of CL income.
When a club doesn't need to sell, when the same club doesn't wish to sell, and when a hugely talented player aged 21 is on a long contract ... then the "real world" price is whatever that club says it is.
Bale wouldn't cost much more than £25m, he'd probably not even cost that much. Not in the real world. ...
Don't like the price being asked? Then walk away, because Levy will otherwise, as he's done several times before.
The very fact that we are still comfortably afloat tells you just how profitable United are. Few, if any, teams, including Real Madrid (who don't actually make a big profit, which is why their transfer spending has been funded largely through debt), could afford a £45m a year interest repayment, and still compete at the highest echelons of European football.
To put it all in to perspective, United made a profit of £90m last season, before the interest repayment. That means that there should be at least £45m available each year. The only reason that there hasn't been is because of all of the restructuring that has cost tens of millions, which has literally been wasted on very little of any worth, to supporters at least.
The PIK's are clearly a problem, although even that should be manageable once the Ronaldo money is inevitably used to pay off at least £70m (there is more than £100m in the bank as we speak). And I say all of this as someone who loathes what has happened to my club, but I can't deny that the club is profitable enough to deal with the issue and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, principally because most of the money that we make isn't dependent on success.
It's unlikely that we will replace Neville or Giggs once they retire, and it is entirely possible at this point that we won't replace Scholes, either, due to the fact that players of that type are so very rare these days. That doesn't mean that we won't buy players for those positions, of course, but they are not priiority positions, given that we have several very good right backs, as well as Nani and Valencia.
So, the goalkeeping position is probably the only one where we will need to find a direct replacement. History quite clearly shows that we don't "replace" players, anyway, despite the fact that the media always think that it will be necessary (lack of imagination). Carrick didn't "replace" Keane, for example, and despite the fact that Scholes and Giggs still play a big part in the team, that has a lot more to do with their continued form than anything else.
As for Spurs, I'm actually delighted that at least one club in the Premier League has done what I have been advocating for many years. That is to grow the club and squad through the intelligent and targeted acquisition of players, and to then sell on one or two every few years which provides the funds to purchase several more players. It's an obvious strategy that certain Spanish clubs have been using, and which enabled fairly small clubs like Sevilla and Villareal to compete in La Liga and in the Champions League.
Spurs have a massive advantage over those clubs in that they are part of the Premier League which affords them TV money each year, and that provides a kind buffer against any mistakes that are made in the transfer market. Most Spanish clubs don't have that buffer (because of individual TV rights), and so, they are more susceptible to their own mistakes in the transfer market, although they obviously benefited from the Champions League money.
However, the problem for Spurs is that a club like Man City can elevate themselves above you without having to do any of the intelligent planning that has been so successful at your club. It's unlikely that you will finish above Chelsea, United, or Arsenal in the next few years, unless one of those clubs has a particularly bad year, so that means that you will probably be left fighting it out with Man City and Liverpool for that fourth place.
Missing out on that Champions League place will mean that, at some point, you might have to sell on one or two more players to fund future growth, although it is possible that you could hold on to those players and then have another go at making the Champions League the year after. But if it happens, say, two years in a row, then you will almost certainly be in a position where you will need to sell players, because Spurs simply don't have the revenue beyond that, or the attraction, to grow at the same rate as almost any of your rivals for that Champions League spot.
Obviously, you've assumed Bale doesn't want to leave. And you could have to sell, if those plans for a new stadium are ever going to come to fruition.