The Spurs thread

acnumber9 said:
Pride in net spend is completely baffling. It's only a sign of a club selling their players. Why is this a good thing?
Click to expand...

Actually, in Spurs case, it's a sign of putting money into a new training centre and new stadium complex. Is that not a good thing?

And yes, I'm pleased that we've managed to do this whilst at the same time finishing in the top 4 twice in the last 5 years in question and challenging for the title this season ... all in the face of 5 clubs with currently much larger incomes.

Why shouldn't I be happy with the way things are going for Spurs?
 
Realistically there's around six or seven sides that could win the league next year if they have a good window, including Spurs. The odds shouldn't be that far apart for those sides either.

@GlastonSpur You should probably take a step back and wait to see how next season starts. It might look good for Spurs at the moment but it can all change very quickly. Mourinho with a couple of smart signings could get United above Tottenham challenging for the league in no time and then you're going to get everyone quoting your posts from this thread. Of course you can't write Spurs off given how strong your very young squad looks but writing off United because they finished four points behind Tottenham and won the FA Cup (despite Van Gaal's short comings) is naive.

Pochettino still hasn't won anything yet and whilst this season has been very impressive, he still has a lot to prove. Finishing third and being in the Champions League is great but Spurs need to win a trophy and prove that they can do that regularly before they can really be considered as one of the big sides. You can use us as an example for how it can all fall apart. We finished second two years ago and United finished seventh, yet found ourselves behind them again the following season.

United are like Real Madrid and Barcelona. They can have a tough two or three years here and there but they'll always find a way back. That's Ferguson's legacy and it's not something Tottenham have ever had in their history, which is why you should hold off from writing them off like you're doing in this thread and see what happens. Spurs could very easily end up out of the top four next season whilst Mourinho lifts the title at United.

I do think Spurs have a good chance of competing for the league next season but then so do United, so lets see what happens.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Actually, in Spurs case, it's a sign of putting money into a new training centre and new stadium complex. Is that not a good thing?

And yes, I'm pleased that we've managed to do this whilst at the same time finishing in the top 4 twice in the last 5 years in question and challenging for the title this season ... all in the face of 5 clubs with currently much larger incomes.

Why shouldn't I be happy with the way things are going for Spurs?
Click to expand...
It is a good thing to invest in your clubs future. But in and of itself it's nothing to be proud of. It's not what sets football clubs apart. All it does is show you've sold your best players for high fees. Utd could've done that too. But then we would've won less. Utd don't need to finance their squad by selling players. Net spend only matters as a whole. That means the clubs entire incoming and outgoings. I'd say on that scale Utd have done alright.
 
acnumber9 said:
It is a good thing to invest in your clubs future. But in and of itself it's nothing to be proud of. It's not what sets football clubs apart. All it does is show you've sold your best players for high fees. Utd could've done that too. But then we would've won less. Utd don't need to finance their squad by selling players. Net spend only matters as a whole. That means the clubs entire incoming and outgoings. I'd say on that scale Utd have done alright.
Click to expand...

No, that's not all it shows. It also shows we've signed some gems for little money - Alli, Dier and Alderweireld being three recent examples, who in total cost less than what United paid for Depay.

And our low net spend - due in part to such canny overall transfer dealings - has allowed to invest more money in our new stadium complex and new training centre, which in the longer run will pay dividends.


I'm not sure what else you're saying, other than United have a much larger income than Spurs.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, that's not all it shows. It also shows we've signed some gems for little money - Alli, Dier and Alderweireld being three recent examples, who in total cost less than what United paid for Depay.

And our low net spend - due in part to such canny overall transfer dealings - has allowed to invest more money in our new stadium complex and new training centre, which in the longer run will pay dividends.


I'm not sure what else you're saying, other than United have a much larger income than Spurs.
Click to expand...
It does if you ignore the rest too. You sold Bale and Modric for big sums. Without that your precious net spend doesn't look so good. I'm saying net spend arguments are bloody stupid. Utd have to pay premiums for players because clubs know they have money. That's how these things work. That means any comparison is eschewed to begin with.

Spurs have done well to grow naturally. Utd did the exact same thing to much greater results though. I hope Utd never have net spend like Spurs have had on the recent past. It's not a good sign of building a good team.
 
GlastonSpur said:
It also shows we've signed some gems for little money - Alli, Dier and Alderweireld being three recent examples, who in total cost less than what United paid for Depay.
Click to expand...
The type of which will become far harder as clubs like MK Dons will be either less naive or looking to cash in on the 'next Alli' in terms of the prices demanded especially now you are a 'Champions league club'.
 
acnumber9 said:
It does if you ignore the rest too. You sold Bale and Modric for big sums. Without that your precious net spend doesn't look so good. I'm saying net spend arguments are bloody stupid. Utd have to pay premiums for players because clubs know they have money. That's how these things work. That means any comparison is eschewed to begin with.

Spurs have done well to grow naturally. Utd did the exact same thing to much greater results though. I hope Utd never have net spend like Spurs have had on the recent past. It's not a good sign of building a good team.
Click to expand...

So what ... the fact is we did sell those players for big money, just as there are other players in the current team who would be worth a lot of money if made available.

Nor is it the case that low net spend is necessarily the sign of not building a good team: IMO Spurs have built a good team.
 
GlastonSpur said:
So what ... the fact is we did sell those players for big money, just as there are other players in the current team who would be worth a lot of money if made available.

Nor is it the case that low net spend is necessarily the sign of not building a good team: IMO Surs have built a good team.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that. Utd could've done that too when they had great players. Thankfully they didn't. We kept them and won stuff. Which is kind of what football is about.

They do have a good team. Would you not rather they had a higher net spend and a better team that wins trophies though?
 
Leftback99 said:
The type of which will become far harder as clubs like MK Dons will be either less naive or looking to cash in on the 'next Alli' in terms of the prices demanded especially now you are a 'Champions league club'.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. People might have said the same thing when we signed Rose for £750k years ago from Leeds United, or when we signed Walker for £4- £5m from Sheffield United, both many years ago.
 
acnumber9 said:
I'm aware of that. Utd could've done that too when they had great players. Thankfully they didn't. We kept them and won stuff. Which is kind of what football is about.

They do have a good team. Would you not rather they had a higher net spend and a better team that wins trophies though?
Click to expand...

You sold Ronaldo, Beckham and others: any club will sell if enough money is offered.

That's a false choice, because it ignores the need for Spurs in the longer run to build a new stadium. The money has to come from somewhere and we're not sugar-daddy funded.
 
acnumber9 said:
It does if you ignore the rest too. You sold Bale and Modric for big sums. Without that your precious net spend doesn't look so good. I'm saying net spend arguments are bloody stupid. Utd have to pay premiums for players because clubs know they have money. That's how these things work. That means any comparison is eschewed to begin with.

Spurs have done well to grow naturally. Utd did the exact same thing to much greater results though. I hope Utd never have net spend like Spurs have had on the recent past. It's not a good sign of building a good team.
Click to expand...

The bolded part will be conveniently ignored as it does not serve his purpose, when, in actual fact, it has had a significantly large impact on their overal net spend, which was the point being made earlier. Debating over net spend is stupid as you say, irrelevent even, it's easy to manipulate and can be made to look favourable when viewed from a selective standpoint, but when certain individuals are using it to bolster their argument it becomes all the more relative, unfortunately.

When all is said and done, it simply comes down to this; Spurs haven't won a league title for 56 years and after last seasons bottle job (their best chance to win it in decades) they are highly unlikely to win it anytime soon. United and City will strengthen, I expect Chelsea to comeback with a point to prove and Arsenal will remain a consistently good football team who will be there ot thereabouts. If Spurs even finish top four next season I will be impressed, let alone go on to win it.
 
GlastonSpur said:
You sold Ronaldo, Beckham and others: any club will sell if enough money is offered.

That's a false choice, because it ignores the need for Spurs in the longer run to build a new stadium. The money has to come from somewhere and we're not sugar-daddy funded.
Click to expand...

And neither are we. United's unrivalled commercial, broadcasting and matchday revenue has come from sound investment and top notch marketing strategy. A self-made club running off the largest business model in world football.

Perhaps you will understand the significance of the United brand when Spurs sell Harry Kane to United this summer.
 
GlastonSpur said:
You sold Ronaldo, Beckham and others: any club will sell if enough money is offered.

That's a false choice, because it ignores the need for Spurs in the longer run to build a new stadium. The money has to come from somewhere and we're not sugar-daddy funded.
Click to expand...
Just butt in the notion of United sold Beckham and Ronaldo for money. Both had to ability to pay for their wage themselves through commercial mean. Beckham fell out with SAF, Beck was hauled off at cheap price for his real value. Ronaldo wanted to leave. If both wanted to stay, United wouldn't sell. United can match wage offer by other big clubs. The transfer fee is not worth their commercial value and on pitch performance. United didn't sell in order to make profit. United sold due to unavoidable circumstances.

Bale and Modric are not that hot in commercial value. Spurs sold both for very much best fee they can get and haven't missed out much in commercial value.
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
You sold Ronaldo, Beckham and others: any club will sell if enough money is offered.

That's a false choice, because it ignores the need for Spurs in the longer run to build a new stadium. The money has to come from somewhere and we're not sugar-daddy funded.
Click to expand...
One the club chose to get rid of for footballing reasons and one we didn't. Who else have United sold in recent memory that was still a regular, top class performer for us? The difference in the two clubs was vastly different and neither player were sold to balance the books. Utd's net spend could've been great if we'd sold all our best players at their peak worth. Thankfully we didn't.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, that's not all it shows. It also shows we've signed some gems for little money - Alli, Dier and Alderweireld being three recent examples, who in total cost less than what United paid for Depay.
Click to expand...
You bring up gems but what about Soldado, Paulinho, Capoue, Chiriches, Chadli and even Lamela who were bought with Bale's money? Then what about Fazio, Stambouli, Gylfi, Dempsey and the likes?

Your transfer history in recent seasons is patchy at best. You literally threw Bale's money in the bin.
 
Random Task said:
And neither are we. United's unrivalled commercial, broadcasting and matchday revenue has come from sound investment and top notch marketing strategy. A self-made club running off the largest business model in world football.

Perhaps you will understand the significance of the United brand when Spurs sell Harry Kane to United this summer.
Click to expand...

Don't be a pompous arse. The "United brand" will be applying its significance in the EL next season. You've about as much chance of signing Kane as you have of signing Neymar or Messi.
 
Last edited:
Random Task said:
And neither are we. United's unrivalled commercial, broadcasting and matchday revenue has come from sound investment and top notch marketing strategy. A self-made club running off the largest business model in world football.

Perhaps you will understand the significance of the United brand when Spurs sell Harry Kane to United this summer.
Click to expand...

If they do sell us Kane, his net spend calculator will overheat.
 
acnumber9 said:
One the club chose to get rid of for footballing reasons and one we didn't. Who else have United sold in recent memory that was still a regular, top class performer for us? The difference in the two clubs was vastly different and neither player were sold to balance the books. Utd's net spend could've been great if we'd sold all our best players at their peak worth. Thankfully we didn't.
Click to expand...

You were going to sell de Gea last summer - the fact that it didn't happen is a mere technicality.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Don't be a pompous arse. The "United brand" will be applying its significance the EL next season. You've about as much chance of signing Kane as you have of signing Neymar or Messi.
Click to expand...

Said with such conviction as to be worthy of remembrance. So much so that I'll happily remind of this statement when my prediction bares fruition.
 
Enigma_87 said:
You bring up gems but what about Soldado, Paulinho, Capoue, Chiriches, Chadli and even Lamela who were bought with Bale's money? Then what about Fazio, Stambouli, Gylfi, Dempsey and the likes?

Your transfer history in recent seasons is patchy at best. You literally threw Bale's money in the bin.
Click to expand...

Gylfi and Dempsey did OK. They served a purpose for a while and then were sold - simple as that. Chadli has also been OK and is still with us. Lamela is an integral part of out first XI.

The other six I'll give you, but far outweighed by the successes. The list of flops at United is far longer over the same period.
 
Random Task said:
Said with such conviction as to be worthy of remembrance. So much so that I'll happily remind of this statement when my prediction bares fruition.
Click to expand...

You've predicted that Kane will be sold to United this summer, swayed by the mighty "United brand".

Right oh .... you remind me when it happens :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger:
 
acnumber9 said:
Yeah but we didn't. Is that all you have? Three players, one of which hasn't left yet?
Click to expand...

The point is - the point I made before - is that every club will sell if enough money is offered or a player wants to leave badly enough.

Despite this reality, some United fans wallow in the myth of the all-conquering "United brand". And in fact you've spent the last three summers chasing players that are way beyond your reach, only to end up in last minute panic scrambles as the reality dawns.
 
finneh said:
United fans are used to spending nothing and winning, that's the difference:

Man Utd 2006 - 2011:
Net spend: £13.5m
Honours: PL x 4, League Cup x 2, CL x 1, CS x 4

Spurs 2010 - 2015:
Net spend: -£40m
Honours: League Cup x 1
Click to expand...

Finneh plz
 
ti vu said:
Just butt in the notion of United sold Beckham and Ronaldo for money. Both had to ability to pay for their wage themselves through commercial mean. Beckham fell out with SAF, Beck was hauled off at cheap price for his real value. Ronaldo wanted to leave. If both wanted to stay, United wouldn't sell. United can match wage offer by other big clubs. The transfer fee is not worth their commercial value and on pitch performance. United didn't sell in order to make profit. United sold due to unavoidable circumstances.

Bale and Modric are not that hot in commercial value. Spurs sold both for very much best fee they can get and haven't missed out much in commercial value.
Click to expand...

Spurs wouldn't have sold Bale or Modric if they'd wanted to stay. United don't have some special exemption from the transfer problems that other clubs face.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Finneh plz
Click to expand...

The point was that any club can pick a period of time where their net spend is low compared to their on field success. United being the masters of that around the time they sold Ronaldo.

The fact that Glaston is picking the last 5 years where success has been pretty much non existent (after decades of spending frivolously with no success) as an illustration of how fantastically well Spurs are run is the laughable part.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Gylfi and Dempsey did OK. They served a purpose for a while and then were sold - simple as that. Chadli has also been OK and is still with us. Lamela is an integral part of out first XI.

The other six I'll give you, but far outweighed by the successes. The list of flops at United is far longer over the same period.
Click to expand...
I think it's little early to call some of those you mentioned successes. They've had only 1 good season so far. Lamela I don't think has lived to the expectations yet, he's not a flop but not success yet IMO.
 
finneh said:
The point was that any club can pick a period of time where their net spend is low compared to their on field success. United being the masters of that around the time they sold Ronaldo.

The fact that Glaston is picking the last 5 years where success has been pretty much non existent (after decades of spending frivolously with no success) as an illustration of how fantastically well Spurs are run is the laughable part.
Click to expand...

The Ronaldo sale blows the scale right out, but that is what happens when you sell one of the best players of our lifetime.

I think a factor that is not being discussed here (in this United v Spurs debate) is that United can actually afford to make some mistakes in the market, whereas Spurs cannot. Obviously you don't want to be making these poor transfer dealings for obvious reasons, but at least the financial impact isn't felt at United. Spurs can't really afford to be bombing out on signings like Soldado, etc.
 
Klopper76 said:
Realistically there's around six or seven sides that could win the league next year if they have a good window, including Spurs. The odds shouldn't be that far apart for those sides either.

@GlastonSpur You should probably take a step back and wait to see how next season starts. It might look good for Spurs at the moment but it can all change very quickly. Mourinho with a couple of smart signings could get United above Tottenham challenging for the league in no time and then you're going to get everyone quoting your posts from this thread. Of course you can't write Spurs off given how strong your very young squad looks but writing off United because they finished four points behind Tottenham and won the FA Cup (despite Van Gaal's short comings) is naive.

Pochettino still hasn't won anything yet and whilst this season has been very impressive, he still has a lot to prove. Finishing third and being in the Champions League is great but Spurs need to win a trophy and prove that they can do that regularly before they can really be considered as one of the big sides. You can use us as an example for how it can all fall apart. We finished second two years ago and United finished seventh, yet found ourselves behind them again the following season.

United are like Real Madrid and Barcelona. They can have a tough two or three years here and there but they'll always find a way back. That's Ferguson's legacy and it's not something Tottenham have ever had in their history, which is why you should hold off from writing them off like you're doing in this thread and see what happens. Spurs could very easily end up out of the top four next season whilst Mourinho lifts the title at United.

I do think Spurs have a good chance of competing for the league next season but then so do United, so lets see what happens.
Click to expand...

This. We should all wait and see how the summer pans out before making mad predictions. Spurs were good last year but that season is done now, past.
 
finneh said:
The point was that any club can pick a period of time where their net spend is low compared to their on field success. United being the masters of that around the time they sold Ronaldo.

The fact that Glaston is picking the last 5 years where success has been pretty much non existent (after decades of spending frivolously with no success) as an illustration of how fantastically well Spurs are run is the laughable part.
Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that five other Prem clubs have currently much larger incomes than Spurs - 2 of them sugar-daddy funded. Considering this - and considering that we've managed to fund (partly through a very low net spend over the last 5 years) both a world-class new training centre and the ongoing construction of our new stadium complex - I do think it's testament to how well Spurs are run that we've still managed to finish in the top 4 twice during this period and have challenged for the title this season.

But you have a pre-determined bias and show a complete unwillingness to engage in any kind of fair and reasonable discussion.
 
Random Task said:
And neither are we. United's unrivalled commercial, broadcasting and matchday revenue has come from sound investment and top notch marketing strategy. A self-made club running off the largest business model in world football.

Perhaps you will understand the significance of the United brand when Spurs sell Harry Kane to United this summer.
Click to expand...

Aren't you just so proud of the hardworkers in the broadcasting department and the number crunchers in marketing? It's been a real treat to watch them as young academy accountants grow to now be on top of their game and winning Largest Business Model trophies year after year. Football truly is the people's game.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The only fact in relation to net spend that I've cited is that Spurs have the lowest in the Prem over the last 5 seasons.

So what's the next piece of crap that you want to come up with?
Click to expand...

To be fair you also mentioned that Mourinho needs bucketloads of cash to succeed, completely overlooking the fact that in his two most successful roles (Inter and Porto) his teams won the European Cup spending significanly less than their rivals and the season before this one his team won a double with a similar net spend to Spurs. Granted he messed last season up - the first time he truly screwed up since he started in management - but your point was poorly made and fails the most basic scrutiny.

Fact is Spurs had a good season worthy of moderate cheer and your team are about to take their first steps into Champions league football. Even high faluting city took time to acclimatise to that one. I like Spurs and I hope they do well but the ticker tape and confetti Rojo experienced yesterday is still far from gracing Harry Kane's face. The only real thing 3rd place gave you over a Man Utd fan this season is one extra hope for the next one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jojojo
Eboue said:
Aren't you just so proud of the hardworkers in the broadcasting department and the number crunchers in marketing? It's been a real treat to watch them as young academy accountants grow to now be on top of their game and winning Largest Business Model trophies year after year. Football truly is the people's game.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Eboue said:
Aren't you just so proud of the hardworkers in the broadcasting department and the number crunchers in marketing? It's been a real treat to watch them as young academy accountants grow to now be on top of their game and winning Largest Business Model trophies year after year. Football truly is the people's game.
Click to expand...

:lol: thats funny, even if its Eboue.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The point is - the point I made before - is that every club will sell if enough money is offered or a player wants to leave badly enough.

Despite this reality, some United fans wallow in the myth of the all-conquering "United brand". And in fact you've spent the last three summers chasing players that are way beyond your reach, only to end up in last minute panic scrambles as the reality dawns.
Click to expand...
That's not the the point at all. All clubs sell players from time to time. Utd rarely do unless they specifically choose to. The names you've been able to muster over the last 20 years are evidence of that. You're bragging about net spend on transfers like this is a good thing. It isn't. The ideal scenario is spending on players, keeping them and being successful. Maintaining a good net spend on transfers for Tottenham is either dependant on selling your best players or not spending much. Neither of those scenarios are something to aim for or be happy with.

If we keep making last minute scrambles like Martial I'm sure we won't be too disappointed. Meanwhile you'll have to hope that your team don't continue to crumble under any modicum of pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.