No eriksen - no kane
The Spurs thread | 2017-18 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter Damien
- 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.
- Status
That's too simplistic. Many of Kane's goals have been assisted by players other than Eriksen. If were both were available on the open market, you have to ask yourself which player would fetch the higher price.
I dunno, Balague is quite a bit of a BS merchant at times.
The striker obviously because strikers in general bring a higher cost then add the English Premium that gets attached.
Eriksen makes spurs tick, Alli doesn't have the intelligence
Yes, and there's reason for that: goals are priceless. This why Kane is the most important player at Spurs IMO.
Why roll your eyes? Going back for many years Spurs have by far the lowest net spend on transfers (and the lowest wage bill) out of any of the usual top 6 clubs. In fact it's the lowest net spend in the entire Prem over the last 5 or 6 years. So compared to others, the budget on which Pochettino has operated has been a shoe-string.
They've also got the lowest trophy return.
Tottenham has the 10th most expensive squad in the entire world. Your squad was more expensive than Bayern, Dortmund, Monaco, Milan, Roma and Atletico Madrid.
Calling the 10th most expensive squad in the world a "shoe-string" budget is disingenuous. If your budget is a "shoe string" Leicester's must be a thimble of piss in comparison.
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2017/194/en/phone/index.html
Poor old plucky Spurs struggling to get by with their shoe-string budget. It's embarrassing. A team that cost more in fees than Bayern Munich. To claim any top Premier League team is operating on a shoe-string budget shows just how warped the English game now is. A total lack of awareness.
Spurs also have the lowest trophy haul of the top 6 clubs over the last 5 or 6 years. You could say that your trophy count is a direct reflection of your transfer expenditure. Spend nothing, get nothing. Seems about right to me.
Gloating over net spend is futile when you have nothing substantial to back it up.
Those teams are not competing against Spurs in the Prem. United, City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal are.
Everything is relative. And relative to the money spent by other Prem teams - especially the usual top 6 - Spurs have operated for many years now on a shoe-string budget due to our new stadium costs.
Opposition fans want it every which way. They say that unless Spurs spend more our best players will be poached away. And then, when it suits, they'll refer to the cost of Bayern Munich's squad (who, by the way, operate in a pretty-much one-horse league ... and a far weaker league at that).
End the season, Spurs have won the "lowest net spend" trophy again.. what else is there to play for? Other than you know, actual fecking trophies that Spurs don't win.
You compete against them in Europe though.
Also, your squad cost compared to Liverpool and Arsenal is in the same tier. Nowhere near shoe string level. And when Leicester, the club on a true shoe string budget, wins the league then Spurs, Pool and Arsenal can't really use the money of the two Manchester clubs as an excuse.
You should write a critique of Balague's book on Spurs ... how it's all nonsense, how there's been no "revolution", how Pochettino is a loser etc etc. You might even get half a dozen people to read it.
PS. What we get for spending relatively little on transfers and wages is a fantastic new stadium and huge boost to our income in years to come. That's not "nothing".
That came across rather hostile. I'm almost offended.
Fantastic new stadium. Huge income boost. Low net spend. No trophies.
I like where this is going.
Post-Fergie, United have net-spent hundreds of millions more than Spurs on transfers. Add in wages, and the total figure won't be too far short of 1 billion pounds more than Spurs.
League table position: generally not much above mid-table.
My guess is you don't like where that has gone quite so much ...
United's Trophy count post The Great Man:
FA Cup (1)
League Cup (1)
Europa League (1)
Spurs trophy count post The Great Man
...
I like where this is going fine.
In fairness you managed to win all the trophies no one but the winners care about and none of the ones with any prestige.
That said as a Spurs supporter I would obviously relish winning any of them.
Well if you
You utter embarrassment
Spent post-Fergie nearly £1 billion more than Spurs, only to finish 7th, 4th, 5th and 6th ... and you don't find that embarrassing?
Has Glastonspur mentioned how many times Spurs have been above United recently or have I missed that?
Fa Cup doesn't have any prestige?
Where is the calculation that we have spent one thousand million more than you in 4 years?
I'm fine if it's correct, we're rich and you're not. But it seems like an extravagant Trump-esque claim.
Spurs are really in Arsenal's shadow. They are even copying Arsenal fans by talking about building for the future and modest spending. The final part of the imitation is copying the manager by belittling trophies that they havent won in decades. At least Arsenal won some big trophies before the austerity era came into effect.
I see a dark future for Spurs, they have basically been sold the same con as the Arsenal fans in the early 2000s. This new stadium isnt about pushing Spurs forward, its about lining the pockets of the money men. Stadium capacity is only a minor variable in allowing a club to invest in players; club profile is far more important; the best way to improve the club profile is to win titles.
Now thts too simplistic, strikers are more marketable and like I said, he's English, who cost more? Pogba or Lukaku?
Your theory doesn't hold up, Kane without eriksen is just another alright prem striker
I'd rather have some success to look back during a very troublesome rebuild after the unique occurrence of Fergie leaving than DVD after DVD of "remember that time we almost won the league"
Citing one example where a midfielder cost more than a striker doesn't make the case. Generally speaking strikers - or those who score lots of goals - sell for more than players in other positions, often a lot more. And this is not just because they're more marketable, it's because they score goals and goals win matches ... which in turn is why they are more marketable.
I also see you've moved onto theory number two about Kane. The first theory - just a one-season wonder - was blown away by a Hurrikane.
So now we're on to "Kane-is-nothing-special-without Eriksen". Lol.
Last edited:
I'm afraid you miss the scope of the new stadium project, which is about far more than just increasing seating capacity. The total eventual increase in income to Spurs will be far more than just a "minor variable".
Arsenal keep winning it but everyone refers to them as a shambles and their manager has won more of them than anyone and is critisized regularly...so no I don't think it actually counts for much anymore.
In fact a common criticism of them is that they don't win anything - really highlighting what people actually think of the FA Cup.
Although again I'd take one in a heart beat.
No, what I find embarrassing is someone who is older than 10 years old ignoring the fact his team has won feck all for half a century for all the money they have spent for that HALF A CENTURY trying to argue that the biggest club in the world has won 4 trophies in 3 years. The irony is you have no choice but to concede that is below our standards but still light years away from yours...
I like your selective cherry picking of seasons and money spent. Why don't you mention the seasons where you spent more than us and we still won
You have no choice but to try and argue "net spend" when you have no argument to defend the absolutely pitiful record spurs have at winning ANYTHING. I tried to go and get some historical records with teams that have done something since Tottenham did and this is the message I got "Sorry our records don't go back that far". I Even tried to find a site that listed the last league cup winners and I could not fit all the teams onto my screen to get to Tottenham to even be listed and I have a fecking 40 Inch monitor!
Trying to compare Manchester United's spending to yours makes as much sense as comparing my Spending to Mohammed el Fayed. "ha sorry Mr Fayed but I trump you because you spent all that money on that Jetliner and I bought an easy jet flight ticket for £10M less!!!
So let's go by your logic. Net-spend vs achievements":
Since 1992
Manchester United have spent: 1.3 Billion & Won: 13 Premier league titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 Champions leagues (I have left the as you say "less prestigious cups" out (the ones you have not won for God knows how long).
Totehnam have spent: 1.7 Billion + & won league Cup
Wigan Athletic have spent: £100M & won the FA Cup
Therefore Wigan is a far more successful and better ran club than Tottenham right?
And if you try and go down another intellectual cul-de-sac, I did not even mention the finals we have got to in all competitions. Spurs can't even get to those. Let's not even talk about where you finished in the Champions league group table and dumped out of the EC after that as well.
This thread constantly gets derailed from what the point of the thread is, clearly the 20017-18 season. Its tedious having the same debate over and over.
yep, it's getting like Groundhog Day in here. A separate thread for Glaston to argue over the Net Spend trophy please.I must of missed Kane's achievements, so far they are scoring prem goals and going missing in major tournaments he is the Phillips of our time.
Good for spurs if you can build a team and try to win the league as he gets goals but he isn't a great player.
Anyway just opinions, always had that thought about Kane, same for lukaku neither are great players but good goal scorers
Or just take discussions privately lol, actually if the mods allowed it I would be all for it. It should be players and matches that are discussed in here.
Anyway Dortmund seem to be off to a flier, we seem to be kicking into gear but the Wembley hoodoo continues. If ever there was a time to put the curse behind us it's tomorrow night.
Are you genuinely comparing Kane to Phillips? Please if you are explain, also why is Kane not a great player?
Exciting match tomorrow.
Hoping for a Spuds win. I always support the PL teams in Europe. Especially now that we have been under-performing lately in the CL.
Hoping for a Spuds win. I always support the PL teams in Europe. Especially now that we have been under-performing lately in the CL.
The cumulative gap is ~510m in transfers and ~450m in wages. Spurs have made a net profit on transfers since Ferguson retired and Pochettino should be recognised for enhancing their football while still allowing Levy to balance the transfer book.
- Status