Hardly. we've been in the CL every season regardless of how little we've spent. Spurs on the other hand have a long record of big spending to achieve **** all. This summer was an incredible outlay for a team in the second tier of the PL. You can only assume that they've spent such massive amounts in an attempt to try and break into the top four, which if they fail will end up to be a huge amount pissed up the wall
I dread to think of the slant a spurs fan might try and put on pissing over a hundred million up the wall.
Piskie - if you were the manager of Spurs and had got in £110m for selling players, would you have spent the money on new players or kept it in the bank? I really don't get why you think we've done anything out of the ordinary. Improving teams are bound to have higher gross spend than established or declining ones because one of the ways to improve is to sell a £10m value player and buy a £15m one.
I think it's about value for money. You got an unbelievable windfall from Bale, who let's face it was probably worth around £35m in any normal market. But Real, desperate to try and get one up on Barca and the Neymar deal forked out a ludicrous amount for him. So flushed with cash, it's right to spend it on rebuilding the squad, but you did it in an overinflated market and I'm not convinced with the quality of players you bought with that £110m. It's a bit like Liverpool getting £50m for Torres then going and spending £35m on Carroll
So what value would you put on Soldado, Eriksen, Chadli, Lamela, Chiriches, Capoue and Paulinho. More than £35m (your valuation of Bale) I presume. In which case we've still done well surely?
Soldado looks way overpriced as does Lamela and Paulinho. Eriksen was the only player you bought at a decent price. I think £110m was a eye watering amount to pay for what you got.
The new £puds are worth £80m tops, but they fleeced Real for Bale. Surprised Levy got so badly mugged off though,
I think we were bound to get poorer than usual value for money when people knew we had the Bale cash. I think, taking everything into account we've improved our squad quite a bit for no net spend. Why that should make it a disaster if we don't finish above, say Arsenal, who had a high net spend remains beyond me.
It's not the first time Spurs have spent big trying to chase the top teams. In fact since the premier league began they've spent more than Man Utd on transfers and achieved **** all - that is quite a monumental failure. Also don't forget for all of Levy's supposed business acumen he's managed to piss a staggering amount of money up the wall since he's been there. £15m on David Bentley £16m on Darren Bent £15m on Pavlyuchenko £15m on Defoe - after they'd sold him to Pompy £12m on Robbie Keane - after they'd sold him to Liverpool £12m on Wilson Palacios Spurs fans like to go on about net spend but the fact is that their net spend isn't actually that good. They are 15th overall in terms of net spend in the PL, only being outspent in net terms by teams like Chelsea, City, Man Utd and Liverpool.
That remains to be seen. To be honest you've only just scraped past a few teams so far this season with the help of some penalties and more recently you've been undone. Getting done O-3 at home by West Ham wasn't a freak result either. It was symptomatic AVB looking completely bereft of a Plan B without Gareth Bale. I've already pointed out where your net spend is nowhere near as glossy as spurs fans like to make out, but that aside whatever way you want to look at it, you still spent a whopping £110m in one transfer window. That's on a par with Chelsea and City trying to buy the league. I'd say for that money anything less than top four would be a complete disaster.
Just to demonstrate how bizarre your logic is: Say in January we sell the seven players we brought for £110m and buy Bale, Dempsey, Huddlestone and Caulker for £110m. According to you we've now 'spent' £220m in two windows and so I guess you'd say we should be winning the CL at least. In reality we would have exactly the same team as we had last summer. You really have to understand the difference between being able to afford to add quality to a squad by net spend (eg Ozil) and what we've been doing.
We were crap when the PL started and needed to spend to pull us up the table. It's no surprise we've got the 5th biggest net spend - we've got the 6th biggest resources behind those 4 and Arsenal. Arsenal have been brilliantly managed by Wenger, particuarly in unearthing valuable players for low fees. Having the fifth highest net spend and dragging ourselves up to fifth is hardly a failure.
No, what I'm saying is that good spending is relative to value for money. £110m spent is a massive amount for the players you have bought. If you'd spent £220m then yes I'd expect you to be challenging for the Champions League, the problem though lies in how you spend that money. For a 5th place club to spend £110m, you would expect them to achieve more, i.e. a top four spot. For them not to achieve any better than 5th would be a travesty. It remains to be seen what Spurs achieve with that huge amount of spending, but any spurs fan who says that 5th would be acceptable is making excuses.
Surely what Arsenal have spent on Ozil, the same applies? And City and Chelsea too. That only leaves Utd's place to take and they are defending Champions (won easily last season). So yes, spending what we did should yield top 4, but deciding who would fall out is not so easy. You can make a case for 5 teams (6 with Pool) that should make top 4, but they can't all do it.
I'd definitely expect Arsenal to do better with Ozil in the team this season. Fourth place would be the absolute minimum requirement, but I'd be expecting us to push higher and go further in the cups. I just think the size of the outlay from Spurs means that the expectation on them is huge.
Spot on SD. Presumably Piskie can enlighten us on which team finishing 5th would feel that they had performed satisfactorily if we came 4th. Unless its Arsenal and all these posts are just getting his excuses in early.....
I expect us to get at least 4th. As for getting excuses in early, I think it was you who said it wouldn't be a disaster if you don't finish above us .....
we also made £16m back on Bent so broke even We sold defoe for £10m 11 months previously so lost £5m on the deal we sold keane for £22m 6 months so made £10m on the deal...we then sold him again making a further £6m making a total profit of £16m on the deal we sold Pav for £6.5m so lost around £8m and sold wilson for £6m so lost £6m so in total we £19m on the defoe pav and wilson deals and made £16 on the keane deal and broke even on the Bent deal meaning those transfers actually cost us £3m. and defoe is well worth what we've paid on him. Now Bentley...there's a terrible deal! but then you have your own don't you with Arshavin? Your logic falls apart when you start to look at the wages that you have paid for some of the dross in your teams over the years...like £50k per week for Bendtner...he cost you very little transfer fee wise but he and many others have bled you dry wage wise but you refuse to see this as Arsenal pissing money up the wall...why? Because you qualify for the CL only to get knocked out in the last 16 or on a good year in the 1/4 finals! We spent a lot of money and Boas will be sacked if we don't come top 4...but personally speaking I want us to win trophies ... the top 4 is ****...it is purely about qualifying in it to make money so you can buy better players pay them higher wages in order to qualify again for the CL the following season. I honestly don't get it but have to accept I am in a tiny minority...so now I have finished whining you can go back to laughing at us again
I think Spurs spending more than Man Utd on transfers since the PL started says it all in terms of pissing money up the wall
