Chelsea have signed three players; with Matic and Costa being sold. From their managers point of view they've improved, they've gotten rid of two players that weren't in his first team plans and replaced them with three players who are. Whilst Coutinho is still a Liverpool player they've improved with Salah. Just because Conte wanted rid of Costa doesn't change my view that Morata is likely to prove a downgrade on him in this coming season, his first in a new league. As for the other changes at Chelsea, I'm not convinced that they'll amount to any great improvement. Your point about Liverpool is reasonable.
No-one is saying Spurs need half new team. However it's clear they need a few players and it's also clear that out of the top 6 teams Spurs have the lightest squad. I'm sure the majority of your fans and your manager as well expected a couple of players in by this point. Maybe so, but I strongly doubt that this has anything to do with Levy blocking Pochettino's desires. I rather think it has everything to with the particular situations of target players - e.g. Barkley and Everton initially demanding £50m, but now lowered reportedly to £35m as of a week or so ago.
You've proven my point. United didn't get Griezmann, so secured Lukaku. They didn't get Dier, so secured Matic. We had months to get our ducks in a row and when our first choice players didn't work out we moved on to our second choices. OK, but you've presented no evidence that Spurs have not done the same, nor even given any evidence that we've failed with our first choice targets. Your only "evidence" is that we've not signed anyone so far.
The time to make judgments about the transfer window as a whole in 1st September. But the time to look at which clubs have been the most organised and prepared for the new season is now, a few days before the first game. This I agree with. But what makes you think that Spurs are not well prepared for our first games? With the exception perhaps of RB (due to Trippier's recent injury), there is no new signing that we could have made weeks ago that would come in and replace anyone on our likely starting team sheet for Newcastle away. And what if tonight Pogba and Herrera get injured? Will you then say that United have been disorganised and ill-prepared for the new season?
My original post wasn't that Spurs wouldn't sign anyone. It's that Levy's tactics of leaving transfer business until the absolute death to either save a few quid, or make an extra few quid; is to the detriment of the team and the manager. It's a tactic he employs only when needed. If you look at last summer and the summer before that you'll see we signed several players early, but of course this gets ignored because it doesn't fit with the mythical narrative.
If you believe there is no difference from a squad or a management point of view between signing a player on 1st July and on 31st August then fair enough. However I'd imagine almost every manager would disagree and if it were up to almost every manager they'd take spending a few extra £m if it meant having a pre-season with the club. I don't believe it makes no difference when a player is signed, but I don't think a few weeks matters all that much compared to the 10 months of the actual season ... particularly when a club already largely has a settled squad. Also, If we sign Barkley for £30m rather than £50m, then a saving of £20m is more than just "a few extra £m" in my view, particularly when we have a new stadium to fund.
