Yep, just a long series of lucky flukes ... stretching back to Carrick, Bale and beyond. Alli, Dier, Wimmer and Alderweireld are just the latest lucky hits.
The Spurs thread
- Thread starter GlastonSpur
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yep, just a long series of lucky flukes ... stretching back to Carrick, Bale and beyond. Alli, Dier, Wimmer and Alderweireld are just the latest lucky hits.
I think the overall point is pretty clear: whether United spend big or small they tend to win trophies over any decent time period. Regardless of Spurs spending big or small a League Cup or "closer to Arsenal than last year" is all they achieve.
We have the Europa League to look forward to. We also have an FA Cup final to look forward to and a PL campaign without LVG. All competitions we have a chance at winning unlike Spurs.
That along with one of the most successful managers of our generation with a 9 figure budget replacing one of the worst managers in the League.
soldado, capoue, paulinho. yes spurs have had some good signings but every team has, lets not pretend there hasn't been some pretty poor ones as well, spurs scouting isn't the be all end all your making it out to be.
Whether United spend big? You've been pouring vast amounts of cash down the drain left, right and centre for the last 3 years - and vainly pursuing a variety of players well beyond your reach in the process.
So no surprise that you mention a "9 figure budget". It's probably the only thing that might reproduce another 5th place finish given the appalling state of your scouting system and the obsession with "big name" signings.
Still, the circus manager will be happy with such huge sums. He'd be lost with anything less ... so I guess you just have to hope, given his petulance, arrogance and generally disruptive attitude, that he doesn't lose the dressing room as well.
What "be all end all" am I making it out to be?
Sure most clubs make good signings from time to time for the money involved. And every club has its less good signings. I'm simply saying that Spurs do better than most when it comes to the transfer market - in terms of both sales and signings.
As a fan of a football team I tend to like seeing my team lift trophies. We might win the FA Cup today (a feat Spurs haven't managed in 25 years). Mourinho is a manager that tends to do it every season.
Money spent on wages and transfer fees also as you are aware has a strong correlation to success.
Lets be honest: any Spurs fan given the option would swap places with United in a second.
A monkey might "tend to do it every season" given a nine figure budget. And your "strong correlation" notion seems to have come a cropper in recent times ... but perhaps you'd have more luck suggesting it to a Leicester City fan?
PS. I'm a Spurs fan and I wouldn't now swap places with United ... so that's your "any Spurs fan" thesis gone for a burton straight out of the traps.
Last edited:
Is that the sound of United's collapse since Fergie left?
Spurs £658mil spent in the last 25 years.
No Title
No European trophy
No major domestic cup.
What other club in world football is even close to this level?
I hope this helps.
Net spend baby, net spend.
PS. And do try focusing on the here-and-now, painful as that is for United fans.
Spurs net spend since Mourinho started his career is 170m or so - with one league cup. Mourinho's is double that amount, but he did manage to sneak a few trophies here and there including a community shield.
Is the last 25 years recent enough?
Spurs 0 titles
0 European trophies
0 FA cups
In 25 years of crazy spending.
You spent more than United in the 90s. You wasted millions when construction costs were cheap. United wisely decided to expand.
Now you are going to end up spending £700mil+ on a smaller stadium than OT.
http://theboyhotspur.com/total-stadium-cost-675m-700m/comment-page-1/
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/07/01/building-costs-in-london-now-second-highest-in-world/
Last edited:
Happy days if even a monkey could win with our budget (although LVG/Moyes may disagree). The strong correlation is throughout all teams in all leagues, so not really. Barcelona, PSG, Juve, Bayern would all illustrate that money is king.
Strange that you wouldn't swap places. The reason your team are going to be unable to compete financially for the next decade (and likely therefore to struggle to compete on the pitch) with even the likes of West Ham is to achieve the financial footing that United were on years ago. Simply put United are over a decade ahead of Spurs and nothing has signalled that's about to change (even if 4 points this season would have you assert otherwise).
It'd be like Leicester fans not swapping places with Spurs just because they've just won the League - totally absurd.
For a start your figures won't includes wages - even assuming that your financial claims are correct (which I can't be bothered to check).
And then there's the eternal look backwards - as if the here-and-now doesn't exist. But never mind, United haven't really dropped out of the top 4 twice in the last 3 seasons .... it's just a bad dream.
Anyhow, good luck with the circus: huge squad upheavals (yet again) + endless ego-driven distractions from actual on-pitch performances + even more obsession with 'galactico' signings + youth development consigned to back drawer.
I showed you what Spurs did with their three most expensive signings and I showed you what kind of players other clubs can get for even lesser fees. Yes Spurs have also made some quite good purchases, but to me it seems like for everyone who turned out well there is one or two who didn't. The club has supposedly bought players for a combined fee of over €300m Euro during the past four seasons and the results aren't that impressive if you keep that in mind.
It clearly is for you, since the recent past has been a disaster. But never mind, keep looking far backwards.
Back to the future
But sadly for you, in the here-and-now, behind us in the table ...as you've been for 2 of the last 3 years.
So not just "net spend baby, net spend" then. I'd bet it's significantly less than double the wages.
In other 'did you knows', while Spurs were dominating the League Cup and soaring to fourth Mourinho was going through his barren spell at Inter and could only look on in anguish as Spurs nearly doubled his net spend.
Looking at the here and now, the greatest Spurs side for a generation finished third in the league and tumbled out of all cup competitions while one of the worst Manchester United sides for decades steps out at Wembley in 10 minutes to possibly better Spurs' trophy haul of the last 25 years, a feat considered so great the manager's likely to face the sack.
Too much brutal honesty.
Dont bust glasto's bubble mate. Let him build his 5 yearly boom must cycle.
So, Alli and Dier (just for one example) for a combined £9m is "quite good" ... not absolutely amazing or anything, just "quite good", just merely one-third combined of what United paid for Fellaini alone. Which clubs have done better for "even lesser fees"? Or do you only prefer to focus on our most expensive fees?
As for the rest, it's net spend that really counts, not your "€300m Euro during the past four seasons". And I say that where Spurs are now, with the Prem's lowest net spend over the last 5 years, is far more impressive than your assessment has it.
Too much brutal honesty.
Dont bust glasto's bubble mate. Let him build his 5 yearly boom must cycle.
Is that distinct from Chelski's one year boom-to-bust cycle? A drop of nine places
Or maybe it's different from United's three-year boom-to-bust cycle? Outside the top 4 twice in the last 3 seasons
Or perhaps brutal honesty is not quite your thing after all ...
You clearly dont know the meaning of "cycle" then.Is that distinct from Chelski's one year boom-to-bust cycle? A drop of nine places
Or maybe it's different from United's three-year boom-to-bust cycle? Outside the top 4 twice in the last 3 seasons
Or perhaps brutal honesty is not quite your thing after all ...
Last edited:
Isn't it something like the phrase that needs to be used to some of Chelski's ageing players - i.e. "on yer bike".
But maybe you've accepted your "mid-table" lot (I use the term generously) ....
This post does not even mean anything.
As I said get a grip boy. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I never know what Glaston is actually arguing about when it comes to United vs. Spurs.
What is the point of it all, Glaston?
What is the point of it all, Glaston?
Fixed.
The here and now?
United have just had a more successful season than anything Spurs have managed since Lineker was in your team.
I'm sure you'll be along to congratulate us soon. Not too painful?
Last edited:
Wait. Can someone tell me whether I'm allowed to enjoy the FA Cup win, or if I should be sad because my team finished 4 points behind a team who won feck all this season?
Glaston, I called you out for your arrogance after spurs beat United 3-0 suggesting you could end up with feck all while we went on to win a trophy. I remember you being even more arrogant and dismissive. I'm glad things turned out exactly as they did. Finishing 2nd. 3rd 4th isn't a trophy, it's a ticket into a very tough competition that often detracts from your league title chances.
Only United in recent years in England have managed to win the league while reaching the final. We've done that four times and won it twice.
Come back when you've won something fella, cos at present your recent history has been bettered by several teams, including Wigan and Leicester.
Glaston, I called you out for your arrogance after spurs beat United 3-0 suggesting you could end up with feck all while we went on to win a trophy. I remember you being even more arrogant and dismissive. I'm glad things turned out exactly as they did. Finishing 2nd. 3rd 4th isn't a trophy, it's a ticket into a very tough competition that often detracts from your league title chances.
Only United in recent years in England have managed to win the league while reaching the final. We've done that four times and won it twice.
Come back when you've won something fella, cos at present your recent history has been bettered by several teams, including Wigan and Leicester.
Nah, the sound of us winning yet another trophy. It's obvious why you wouldn't be able to recognize that
Not as far as I'm concerned. Qualifying for next season's CL is more important for Spurs - for reasons I've previously given - than winning the FA Cup, so given the choice between the two I'd take CL qualification.
Sadly, it doesn't really matter what you think. Winning the FA Cup is categorically a more successful season than anything Spurs have managed since Lineker.
Your sentiment is utterly wrong in any case. Have a look at the player and fan celebrations yesterday and tell me that they would've been anywhere near the same over a 3rd place finish. That goes for Spurs too. Your 3rd place finish wasn't exactly greeted with street parties and wildly celebrating players on the pitch - far from it.
Apart from the silverware, football is about memories and games like yesterday will live with supporters and players forever.
And it's sad you can't drop the inferiority complex for at least one day and just give some congratulations.
Come on now. Are you seriously upset because I "only" called them quite good? And I'm beginning to think that you're missing my point on purpose, no one is doubting that some transfers have been good, my cricisim is leveled at the accuracy of Spurs transfers. Because if your strategy means that you have to buy a couple of flops for every "bargain" then your bargains don't really come as cheap as it might seem at first glance.
I think the truth lies somewhere inbetween. For the here and now a CL qualification is far more valuable than an FA cup imho. But a couple of years from now no one will care about it, while people will still remember the silverware.
If it doesn't matter what I think then why don't you stop directing posts at me? Your "contributions" wouldn't be missed.
You ask for congratulations, yet come into this thread crowing about how United have supposedly had a more successful season than Spurs ... so go figure.
As I've said, for Spurs qualifying for the CL was the most important objective (and I note the existence of a thread elsewhere that wondered if it would be the more important achievement for United also) ... because it ensures that we'll keep our best players for further development together, brings in a funding boost at a time when have a massive construction project to finance (not just CL income itself, but also increased sponsorship opportunities) and brings the enjoyment of playing in the CL.
Given the choice between the two for Spurs - FA Cup or CL qualification - I would have chosen the latter. If you disagree that's too bad.
That's not an accurate description of our transfer dealings. It would be more accurate to say that there has been the occasional flop, outnumbered by successes.
This latter description is supported by the fact that our net spend has been the Prem's lowest over the last 5 seasons, yet we've finished in 3rd place this season and in the top 4 twice during this period.
You're really trying to tell me this with a straight face? 13/14 Spurs bought players for a total of supposedly €122m and couldn't replace one player. 4/7 of those purchases have already left the club, all of them with a loss. Last season €50m spend for two starters, two squad players. €20m of those on players who already left the club.
This season they bought players for €70m, got one starter out of it. Son is your highest transfer ever, along Soldado and Lamela, is he not? And he got a whopping return of 4 league goals, as an attacker.
For fun let's name the flops and hits these last 3 seasons:
Erikson - hit
Alli - hit
Dier - hit
Alderweireld - hit
Soldado - flop
Paulinho - flop
Chadli - flop
Capoue - flop
Chiriches - flop
Stambouli - flop
N'Jie - flop
Fazio - flop
Yeldlin - flop
The jury still being very much our on the likes of Son, Lamela, Davies, Trippier etc.
I certainly wouldn't say over 2 poor signings for every hit is the occasional flop outnumbered by successes. Particularly given that 2 signings at £25m still have big question marks over them (with one already sold at a huge loss)
You'll probably try to argue just because some clubs bought those failures for similar fees that they are irrelevant, ignoring the large salaries they were being paid whilst stinking up the place.
Last edited:
This thread is awful but I can see Spurs "do a Liverpool" and finish outside top 4 next season.
I don't have to tell you this with any sort of face, straight or otherwise, because the overall facts speak for themselves:
Lowest net spend in the Prem over the last 5 years + two top 4 finishes in that period in the face of 5 clubs with much larger incomes. The only possible conclusion from these facts are that Spurs transfer dealings have overall been remarkably good.
Your attempted nit-picking is laughable.