£45 million on Villa and Martinez!!! these stories get better and better. If only it was the fail and not the ES. priceless.
It's gonna happen Roo. Standard are ITK. Martinez would cost £30m+ plus though so the £45m touted would technically be the right amount, they've just misprinted by sticking Tottenham as the club interested instead of Monaco or Man City
UAE's Al Ain have been linked with an £8m move for Adel Taarabt. What's that got to do with us, you might think? We've got a 40% sell-on clause for the tart. That'd give us an extra £3.2m to spend.
Non Spurs related but looks like Monaco have got Falcao for £52m. A sort of surprising move but personally, I think Monaco are one of the most attractive club destinations to join. Clearly ambitious with the money at their disposal and Monaco itself is simply amazing (not talking from experience... Unfortunately). With Moutinho and Rodriguez already signed, Ricardo Carvahlo close to joining as is Victor Valdes, PSG are going to have one hell of a fight on their hands.
its more **** like this that makes me really want us to sign players who genuinely want to play for us. More Vertonghen types please.
Martinez just resigned from Wigan job. Wouldn't mind Kone & McManaman considering the prices we could get them for even if they are only back up players to NEW STRIKER, and Bale/Lennon
With Falcao, he didn't have much choice as there were so many investors involved they will sell for the highest price they could get, although I doubt there were many complaints from the player, there are worse places to go than Monaco.
Kone? Not for me, he's a decent striker but that's about it from what I've seen. McManaman might be improving but so is Townsend and as long as he doesn't get a ban from the FA, I don't think we should be signing anyother right sided wingers.
Although he had a decent goal return, I don't think Kone is the sort of striker we should be aiming for. McMananman... 50/50. If he's available on the cheap then yeah I'd take him, anything over £3m though and Wigan can go whistle. Townsend's far better anyway.
Villa's too old for me. The chances of a 31 year old striker losing half the season or more to injury have to be around 50/50. We get not sell on fee, and good bad or indifferent, he doesn't end our search for a striker. We'll be looking for a replacement as soon as we have him. Guess I'd take a flyer on Benteke, though. All strikers are high risk, but at least he's young. Doubt we can afford him, though.
Let's be honest, we're Spurs - it doesn't matter what age the player, they all have a 50/50 chance of picking up a long-term injury. If Benteke was available for £12-15m I'd be more inclined to see him as a viable transfer target, but with his value inflated to £20m I'm less sure - partly as it doesn't look as good on a spreadsheet if he turns out to be a one-season wonder, but also because Soldado is better value.
I'll take HBIC's word for it about Soldado vs. Bentecke. On another note, a major network will broadcast PL games once a week in the US. What's that got to do with transfers? Well, some time ago, Spurf asked me what it would take to get more of a US fan base for Spurs. I didn't want to say a title, since that seemed too negative. As it turns out, it was too negative, because regular air time on a major network plus having the best player in the league will in fact create a lot of new Spurs fans in the US. Particularly outside football and baseball, having the best player may be a better road to popularity here than having the best team. While it's hard to estimate how much of a success broadcasting the PL will be in the US, (and there's a decent chance it will flop, I think) if we say it will do okay, then Bale becomes considerably more valuable to Spurs. If it does well, he would be a real gold mine. Fans will be as likely to buy Bale shirts as Man U shirts. So it may be a reason to be willing to pay Bale more and otherwise be more determined to hold onto him. It would certainly seem foolish to throw away a real chance of making Spurs a significantly bigger club by letting him go.
That seems a fairly questionable stat. Where did you get that from? David Villa has been one of the best strikers in the world for some years. Christian Benteke has had a good season in the EPL. Frankly I'll let Levy etc worry about resale value but if you're just comparing players then Villa is (currently) in a different league. Paying 16m for Bent wasn't that crazy (price-wise) cos his resale value was always going to remain fairly high. Now resale value's nice and everything but...
I receive Spurs news by email and the advice is to go for Watford's on loan striker from Udinese,begins with a V. 20 goals in 41 appearances so why not?
Vydra Benteke looks a better prospect than David Villa at present for any club in the PL IMO - strength, pace, power, goalscoring potential and age on his side. And Villa will still fancy a big pay day at a club in the CL anyway - one of City, PSG, Monaco would take a punt and Arsenal are reportedly interested too.
Didn't we only get about £9mill for Bent when we sold him? Levy would do well to remember a £7mill loss like that when he weighs up a deal for Villa. I'd rather we lost £10mill on a player who's a success than lost £5mill on a talented, young player who never really gets going for us. And what about Bentley? I shudder to think what signing him and letting his career fizzle out over the next 5 years cost us.
We actually made a profit on Bent - £10m up front, we broke even on the additional fees, and we got a sell-on fee when he moved to Villa. Can someone inform Monaco that Adel Taarabt is worth £30m?
Top strikers have an inate sense of positioning and timing that does not diminish with age although getting to the position can get more difficult. If such a top striker is available then it makes sense to go for him. Young potential is more of a luxury in our present situation.
