IF he plays him. He's not travelled with the squad and there's strong rumours that we're desperately trying to flog him. I don't see him playing for us again to be honest.
Transfer Rumours transfer thread fact and fiction
- Thread starter remembercolinlee
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
IF he plays him. He's not travelled with the squad and there's strong rumours that we're desperately trying to flog him. I don't see him playing for us again to be honest.
He's gone.
He questioned Mauricio Pochettino and said they needed to have talks to clear the confusion. He might as well have said he wanted talks about clearing his locker. His departure is certain, whether on loan, sale of as part of the new foundations.
He's history - no good to me!
Does Shakespeares' sister manage Leicester ladies (possible
selling option there) ??
Worst and most bizarre signing in our history and I remember Rasiak!!!!!!!
S
Spur of the Moment
Guest
Just a thought regarding wages.
Seeing as we move in to the new stadium in only a years time and revenues will increase, is there really no way we can break the wage structure due to the problems it could be causing us in signing "next level" players to take us forward?
We've discussed how our options seem to be limited due to fees, wages demands in this crazy market etc etc, but we're only talking about 12 months. We've recouped millions in sales, and whilst we've always kept the books in good order, would this potentially not be beneficial to us if it means taking the club to another level when we move in, and be ready to hit the ground running?
Obviously the knock on effect is that other players in the squad will want more money, so why not give it to them as well? We've made a habit of rewarding players who've played well with new contracts and pay rises to show our appreciation when we've not actually needed to, so is it really out of the realms of possibility for this short period?
Could these players be less likely to want moves away in a years time if they feel they are being rewarded more in line with other players at other clubs? Would the cost of doing this for a year potentially outweigh the repercussions of a year from now? Could it actually be a good investment in terms of preparation for our first season at the new WHL, and would it make us a more attractive club to either remain at, or join, even if we don't win anything again this season?
This may be one of my worst posts ever, but we've just sold walker for over £50m, and I'm keen to know your thoughts on whether this wage-structure-break could actually be an investment, rather than a liability.
What do you think?
Seeing as we move in to the new stadium in only a years time and revenues will increase, is there really no way we can break the wage structure due to the problems it could be causing us in signing "next level" players to take us forward?
We've discussed how our options seem to be limited due to fees, wages demands in this crazy market etc etc, but we're only talking about 12 months. We've recouped millions in sales, and whilst we've always kept the books in good order, would this potentially not be beneficial to us if it means taking the club to another level when we move in, and be ready to hit the ground running?
Obviously the knock on effect is that other players in the squad will want more money, so why not give it to them as well? We've made a habit of rewarding players who've played well with new contracts and pay rises to show our appreciation when we've not actually needed to, so is it really out of the realms of possibility for this short period?
Could these players be less likely to want moves away in a years time if they feel they are being rewarded more in line with other players at other clubs? Would the cost of doing this for a year potentially outweigh the repercussions of a year from now? Could it actually be a good investment in terms of preparation for our first season at the new WHL, and would it make us a more attractive club to either remain at, or join, even if we don't win anything again this season?
This may be one of my worst posts ever, but we've just sold walker for over £50m, and I'm keen to know your thoughts on whether this wage-structure-break could actually be an investment, rather than a liability.
What do you think?
S
Spur of the Moment
Guest
I think honesty is the best policy.
Tis there for all to see, including players and their agents, as to how
much Spurs can currently pay players etc without damaging the club
finances. There are no shareholders milking a cash cow either.
If money is your motivation, and you can get more elsewhere than what
is sustainably possible at Spurs, then go.
Based on last year's figures, we're lagging behind our main rivals by upwards of £100m per year. That is an enormous gap to close in one fell swoop and if anything, it will take a good few years until the new stadium breaks even and then starts turning a profit. It is clear that Levy is willing to use each CL money injection to modestly raise the ceiling - so for instance Kane and Lloris went from £80k to £120k last season. But to turn that £120k into £250k (which is what Kane could easily be earning elsewhere) is a bridge too far for the time being, and one that selling players will barely make a dent in unless - as mentioned - we're prepared to offload £100m of talent per year.
Sorry, by stepping up the wages, I didn't mean anything as drastic as that! We'll never be able to compete on that level, as those clubs are bankrolled to an insane level. Anyone who is after that sort of money can **** right off! I meant in the region of £140k-ish, which is supposedly in the region of what West Ham are paying Joe Hart.
But for example, if we took 11 players and paid them all an average extra £50k a year for that year, it would still be less than the Sissoko fee! Now which option would you choose?
But for example, if we took 11 players and paid them all an average extra £50k a year for that year, it would still be less than the Sissoko fee! Now which option would you choose?
The obvious counterpoint is to highlight Arsenal's transfer business in the last couple of seasons before moving to the Emiroids, as the business looked something like this:
Manuel Almunia (£4.25m)
Mathieu Flamini (£480k tribunal)
Emmanuel Eboue (£1.5m)
Niklas Bendtner (£75k)
Vito Mannone (£350k)
Armand Traore (undisclosed)
Alexander Hleb (£7m)
Abou Diaby (£2m)
Emmanuel Adebayor (£8.5m)
Theo Walcott (£5m w/£7m in add-ons)
Mart Poom (£850k)
Similar can be said for the two seasons after moving in:
Alex Song (£3.4m)
Thomas Rosicky (£8.5m)
Julio Baptista (loan)
William Gallas (swap deal)
Denilson (£3.4m)
Lukas Fabianski (£2m)
Eduardo (£7.5m)
Havard Nortvied (£1.5m)
Bacary Sagna (£6m)
Lassana Diarra (£4m)
The majority of those deals all fall under the same guidelines: buy low, sell high, as by and large they weren't splashing the cash until the summer of 2008 where they spent over £10m on both Arshavin and Nasri, while spending large fees consistently didn't start until the summer of 2011.
Obviously the landscape has changed somewhat since, what with the TV money inflating like an airbag in a microwave on one side while the outside forces of Chelsea and City give reason to loosen the purse strings on the other, but that's not an automatic reason for clubs who didn't pick the car keys of a billionnaire out of the bowl at their private shindig to start hurling cash left and right for the sake of it, as we're still in the position of needing to spend smart rather than spending big.
There's the obvious problem with being in that position, though: there's enough big spenders who are only too happy to gazump us not because they want the player, but because they want us to not have the player. It's hardly new, as Man Utd and Chelsea were guilty of it well over a decade ago, but with City joining that particularly odious club while there's also examples such as Liverpool encouraging the mercenary behaviour of players by being only too happy to pay them six figures a week because of reasons it means we not only have to buy smart, but we also have to be pretty goddamn smart with buying smart so we can sign players that can improve the team which, for whatever reason, are not on the radar of other clubs.
Interesting article from the BBC site
Tottenham in the transfer market: When will Spurs make their move?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40654071
Tottenham in the transfer market: When will Spurs make their move?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40654071
I'm waiting for the headlines screaming that we're selling Edwards, Shashoa, Sterling and Harrison based on them not travelling to the US with the rest of the squad.
Then again, there appears to be an explanation for Harrison not being in the squad...
Oh, and here's Cy Goddard in training with Yokohama FC, so give it three weeks and we might get a confirmation
Then again, there appears to be an explanation for Harrison not being in the squad...
You must log in or register to see media
Oh, and here's Cy Goddard in training with Yokohama FC, so give it three weeks and we might get a confirmation
You must log in or register to see media
That's interesting HBIC, in particular the part about how the landscape has changed.
Because the Tv money has helped aid the smaller clubs pay more for players and offer more that they could have 10 years ago in wages, and we're seeing the current market like it is, does this in fact pose a further problem resulting in us being caught in limbo?
Does a top end wage at £150k a week for example, put us out there as "competitive" without it being too detrimental to our finances? Does it open up a market of players who aren't necessarily mercenaries, (as many clubs are paying a weekly figure within this region (or there abouts)) who could be the ones that would really make the difference to us going forward? Are we missing out on that type of player because they are seeing us as "tight" when other clubs who aren't in our position in terms of quality, are making wages offers that they believe we should be offering based on our success in recent seasons, and the international players we have on our books?
Because the Tv money has helped aid the smaller clubs pay more for players and offer more that they could have 10 years ago in wages, and we're seeing the current market like it is, does this in fact pose a further problem resulting in us being caught in limbo?
Does a top end wage at £150k a week for example, put us out there as "competitive" without it being too detrimental to our finances? Does it open up a market of players who aren't necessarily mercenaries, (as many clubs are paying a weekly figure within this region (or there abouts)) who could be the ones that would really make the difference to us going forward? Are we missing out on that type of player because they are seeing us as "tight" when other clubs who aren't in our position in terms of quality, are making wages offers that they believe we should be offering based on our success in recent seasons, and the international players we have on our books?
If anything the TV money has grossly distorted the Premier League's internal transfer market, which had previously only been distorted by Passport Tax but now we're at a stage where a mid-table club can demand £50m for a player and it doesn't look absurd...until you look outside the Premier League and see the obvious disparity in fees paid by La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A clubs.
A decade ago we kept hearing variations on how a Premier League club would either pay £6-8m for a player because they're English or sign a non-English player of the same quality from abroad for £1-2m - now it's got to the stage where you have to pay £30m for a player because they play in the Premier League or sign a player of the same quality from abroad for less than half that, and that's unsustainable.
A quick follow up on Cy Goddard: According to Google Translate, the tweet reads as follows...
【Yokohama Express】 The biggest surprise is former Tottenham Youth's 10th Aya Goddard and former Spartak Moscow's Shinozuka Ippei [Tokamachi camp first day report]
【Yokohama Express】 The biggest surprise is former Tottenham Youth's 10th Aya Goddard and former Spartak Moscow's Shinozuka Ippei [Tokamachi camp first day report]
I completely agree, it's totally ridiculous and it's ruining football.
I'm more interested in the wage side of things though.
Let's take Javier Hernandez for example. A player we were supposedly been interested in not so long ago. I doubt he'd command a huge fee at all, but I expect his wages would be out of our reach. He's a proven goal scorer and has done a good job for club and country. I'm not for one minute saying we him, but he's just the first example that comes to mind of the kind of player who improves a squad and you know what you're getting.
Many have said they'd have loved to have Defoe back as backup for us. But apparently he's earning £145,000 a week at Bournemouth!!!
In the same way that the transfer fees seem like they are unsustainable, like you say, does it become a matter of time before the spell of great players and our recent success (despite no trophies), results in the bubble bursting due to the inability to attract players to replace ones that may end up leaving?
I'm not trying to be awkward here by the way, just playing devils advocate.