Tottenham in the Summer Transfer window - 2013 edition!

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
redwhiteandermblue said:
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.
Click to expand...


Having Dempsey helps as well. He is a very popular player in the US and playing for Spurs has elevated his prestige among US fans. Bale of course helps as does having AVB as there is a large population of Portuguese fans who think he is the dogs bollocks. Add these together and you have the start of a growing fan base. Although there are already is a lot of fans here...

"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)" I think it is a good job you are not running a TV company. NBC spent a shed load on the PL rights as NBC are "
one of the largest broadcast networks in the States, with a signal that is included in most basic cable packages, NBC could potentially deliver what the EPL called the "biggest and broadest programing and promotion commitment ever in the United States."

And just a little guide to how much they have committed http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/socce...r-american-tv-nbc-massive-181033318--sow.html

That doesn't sound like a gamble on behalf of NBC
 
lennypops said:
That seems a fairly questionable stat. Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...

I made it up. <whistle>

Also, NJS, it is good I'm not running a business. People make money more often than not gambling that things will go reasonably well.
I tend to be a knee-jerk pessimist.

But I don't see how we're disagreeing. You quoted my caveat, but from there I went on to speculate about the PL doing well or very well in the US.
 
one other perspective

When I got the states 25 years ago watching the football consisted of video taped highlights or games recorded by Irish airline staff and bought over the Monday after and shown in Irish bars in Manhatten. Occasionally you would get a live game but rarely. The FA Cup would be broadcast live on PPV and was an excuse to get wasted by 11am Saturday morning. Gradually the games got shown on PPV, Setanta showed up and you could see them regularly at bars, ESPN then started showing the games live, you could see the EPL, Champions League, UEFA, Italian, Spanish and French leagues. Fox then bought out the rights, Setanta US failed and ESPN picked up those games. Now NBC has the rights. When the games are on you can see 5-6 games live a weekend on US TV. I would say the EPL has already succeeded.
Unfortunately this might hurt the MLS but having seen the first five seasons of the Metrostars even that league has grown. Where once Andrew Shue of the old 90210 was a big 'star' for LA Galaxy they now have good old Robbie Keene. He might not be a great actor but I think he is a much better football player. And if you close your eyes when watching Seattle you'd get a few home sickness pangs for the crowd noise in the UK.
 
Yid Vicious said:
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.
Click to expand...

We did not make a profit on Bent according to this, (don't know where hbic got his info from, he didn't say) but did reduce the deficit...

" Tottenham in line for Sunderland sell-on fee
»Tottenham will benefit from Darren Bent&#8217;s departure from Sunderland to the tune of a seven-figure payment, which formed part of the agreement when the striker left White Hart Lane.

Bent left Spurs for an initial £10 million, rising to a possible £16.5 million with payments for appearances, goals, international caps and a slice of any sell-on fee.

Spurs have already received extra monies, believed to be around £2 million, and could receive 20 per cent of any profit Sunderland make. So if he goes for £20 million, Spurs may be in line for 20 per cent of the £8 million profit, a useful £1.6 million."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-but-manager-Steve-Bruce-is-disappointed.html

<ok>
 
notsosmartspur said:
We did not make a profit on Bent according to this, (don't know where hbic got his info from, he didn't say) but did reduce the deficit...

" Tottenham in line for Sunderland sell-on fee
»Tottenham will benefit from Darren Bent&#8217;s departure from Sunderland to the tune of a seven-figure payment, which formed part of the agreement when the striker left White Hart Lane.

Bent left Spurs for an initial £10 million, rising to a possible £16.5 million with payments for appearances, goals, international caps and a slice of any sell-on fee.

Spurs have already received extra monies, believed to be around £2 million, and could receive 20 per cent of any profit Sunderland make. So if he goes for £20 million, Spurs may be in line for 20 per cent of the £8 million profit, a useful £1.6 million."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-but-manager-Steve-Bruce-is-disappointed.html

<ok>
Click to expand...

Well if (big if what with all the complexities of a transfer fee) he went for 24m to Aston Villa that means Spurs got about 14.4m for him. So we lost about 1.6m on him.

I was never implying that we made money on him - just that he was always gonna be a player we would get some money for if he moved on. And in my mind the "Oh well - at least we'll be able to flog him for OK money if it doesn't work out" thought was the one positive of the Darren Bent deal at the time*. And that was not terribly inspiring.

Sell-on value is important if you're spending a high amount or getting a player that might not work out. But if it's only 10m (I know - not THAT low) and it's for a top, top player it's just not that much of a consideration. (Compared to, say, buying a right-winger when you already have one of the best or buying a striker when you already have the best strike partnership in the league).

*Mind you I also had that thought about the Bentley deal.
 
lennypops said:
Well if (big if what with all the complexities of a transfer fee) he went for 24m to Aston Villa that means Spurs got about 14.4m for him. So we lost about 1.6m on him.

I was never implying that we made money on him - just that he was always gonna be a player we would get some money for if he moved on. And in my mind the "Oh well - at least we'll be able to flog him for OK money if it doesn't work out" thought was the one positive of the Darren Bent deal at the time*. And that was not terribly inspiring.

Sell-on value is important if you're spending a high amount or getting a player that might not work out. But if it's only 10m (I know - not THAT low) and it's for a top, top player it's just not that much of a consideration. (Compared to, say, buying a right-winger when you already have one of the best or buying a striker when you already have the best strike partnership in the league).

*Mind you I also had that thought about the Bentley deal.
Click to expand...

Err lenny...when did you turn into hbic? on that basis I never implied...that you implied anything!...I replied to YV initially.<confused>
 
People on here who would turn down David Villa <laugh> He had 1 bad injury but is still one in the best finishers in the game. Even after injury he is better that Ade and Defoe. David Villa is still spains best striker.
 
seanDCFC said:
People on here who would turn down David Villa <laugh> He had 1 bad injury but is still one in the best finishers in the game. Even after injury he is better that Ade and Defoe. David Villa is still spains best striker.
Click to expand...

If we did buy David Villa,then it would send a message to Gareth that we are serious about getting C/L football,and it might encourage other "big names" to join the club
 
notsosmartspur said:
Err lenny...when did you turn into hbic? on that basis I never implied...that you implied anything!...I replied to YV initially.<confused>
Click to expand...

Oh yeah - I wasn't thinking you were addressing me per se. I'm just surfing in and out of other people's arguments - don't mind me! Sorry for confusion and didn't mean to come over argumentative - I wasn't meaning to.

Basically 10m for David Villa with no likely sell-on value (though who knows if he might still be worth a decent fee in two/three/four years' time?) is fine by me.

(And I'm sure the powers that be are relieved to hear that).
 
This agent is the one that was representing Ashley Cole when he got caught having tea with Chelsea whilst still a Goon. He got an 18 month ban.
 
That guillem ballbag is slowly becoming one of the people i most hate in this world.

Constant bullshit just to keep his name in the limelight. <grr>
 
Been away with no internet. Seen we missed moutinho, anything else of note happen with our "targets"?
 
notsosmartspur said:
We did not make a profit on Bent according to this, (don't know where hbic got his info from, he didn't say) but did reduce the deficit...

" Tottenham in line for Sunderland sell-on fee
»Tottenham will benefit from Darren Bent&#8217;s departure from Sunderland to the tune of a seven-figure payment, which formed part of the agreement when the striker left White Hart Lane.

Bent left Spurs for an initial £10 million, rising to a possible £16.5 million with payments for appearances, goals, international caps and a slice of any sell-on fee.

Spurs have already received extra monies, believed to be around £2 million, and could receive 20 per cent of any profit Sunderland make. So if he goes for £20 million, Spurs may be in line for 20 per cent of the £8 million profit, a useful £1.6 million."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-but-manager-Steve-Bruce-is-disappointed.html

<ok>
Click to expand...

Okay thanks but my point still stands, I think. We relied on Villa paying a stupid amount in order to even get close to breaking even on Bent. A world renowned footballer might be a better signing that spending double on someone younger.

seanDCFC said:
People on here who would turn down David Villa <laugh> He had 1 bad injury but is still one in the best finishers in the game. Even after injury he is better that Ade and Defoe. David Villa is still spains best striker.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's saying he isn't. It's the other potential strikers we could get in that people are worried about and also the amount, we don't have £10mill(plus high wages) to piss away so you can see why people are nervous about the signing, once a player gets a few injuries and loses a bit of pace they can go downhill very quickly. Look at Owen, look at Torres and plenty of others.

It's a risk for us but one that I'd happily take. I can understand that people don't want to though.
 
From another source it shows what's been edited out in that clip I posted:

-----------------------------------------------

"If Florentino [Perez, Real president] is interested in Gareth Bale, then that would be an honour and we would listen, but his contract is with Tottenham," Barnett told MarcaTV.

"But we are not free to talk to anyone."

As for the rumours regarding a new contract extension in the offing at White Hart Lane, he added: "No, we have not talked to anybody.

"I do not know if there has already been an offer. What I know is that the player has three years left on his contract."

Meanwhile, Barnett has boldly claimed that any club wishing to sign Bale would have to spend a pretty penny, as the prolific forward is priced over and above what Barcelona recently spent on Neymar.

"He is a much better player than Neymar, he has proven himself in one of the best leagues in the world, the Premier League," he said.

"And I would hope any club wanting him, would not want him because they lost out on Neymar but because he was first choice.

"This is all crazy, but whatever Neymar cost - Gareth Bale is worth more."

From: http://www.football411.com/story/0,22162,14287_8740903,00.html

--------------------------------------

Highlighted bits cut out of that audio clip.

That doesn't sound as bad.
 
lennypops said:
From another source it shows what's been edited out in that clip I posted:

-----------------------------------------------

"If Florentino [Perez, Real president] is interested in Gareth Bale, then that would be an honour and we would listen, but his contract is with Tottenham," Barnett told MarcaTV.

"But we are not free to talk to anyone."

As for the rumours regarding a new contract extension in the offing at White Hart Lane, he added: "No, we have not talked to anybody.

"I do not know if there has already been an offer. What I know is that the player has three years left on his contract."

Meanwhile, Barnett has boldly claimed that any club wishing to sign Bale would have to spend a pretty penny, as the prolific forward is priced over and above what Barcelona recently spent on Neymar.

"He is a much better player than Neymar, he has proven himself in one of the best leagues in the world, the Premier League," he said.

"And I would hope any club wanting him, would not want him because they lost out on Neymar but because he was first choice.

"This is all crazy, but whatever Neymar cost - Gareth Bale is worth more."

From: http://www.football411.com/story/0,22162,14287_8740903,00.html

--------------------------------------

Highlighted bits cut out of that audio clip.

That doesn't sound as bad.
Click to expand...

A good example of how these stories are spun. <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back