Eriksen had more goals, and more assists + goals, then No Zeal in fewer minutes. So either No Zeal wasn't worth his money, or Eriksen is worth 37 million, especially as he's two years younger.
I don't get it. In Goonerland, does "deluded" mean that you reason? It would explain a lot, I grant you.
Then you think Ozil was a bad buy. Or am I missing something? There is the fact Ozil has been an exemplary team member and professional, tbf.
He had fewer goals + assists than Eriksen while playing more, he's two or three years older, and you bought him for more than the 37 million you think would be a deluded price for Eriksen.
Erikson is a decent player in an average team, so naturally his stats will look quite good. Ozil is a world class player in a top quality team who challenge for honours, his stats were also good for his first season and I'd expect them to get better this season. Put Erikson in the Arsenal team though and he'd be a squad player. Therein lies the difference and to draw comparisons between the two to try and come up with a figure for what Erikson is worth is a haphazard theory. Ozil was expensive granted, but Erikson is nowhere near worth the figure you quote.
This is so obviously bollocks that I'm amazed you've not deleted it. Spurs and Arsenal play against exactly the same clubs in the PL. We got very slightly fewer points than you against those clubs. This is evidence that we are on average a poorer team. So if one of our players has a better record than one of yours despite the fact that the rest of his team are poorer, this is clear evidence that he played better. One season is a very short time to be drawing conclusions to be sure but your whole thesis is that you KNOW that our signings are poor based on similar observations. I happen to agree with RWAEB that Eriksen is a much better signing than Ozil, because he is younger and has more potential and his value will certainly increase whereas Ozil's will only go down.
The only bollocks here mate is the assertion that Erikson is worth 37m and is better than Ozil. And you still wonder why we call you lot deluded ...
No-one has claimed that have they? RWAEB just said that Eriksens's statistics were better than Ozil's last season
there you go again...using facts...when will you ever learn ? piskie is alway wright (see post 4 if this don't make sense)
On a serious note, very few of us believe that we will come higher than 6th this season. There is a lot of hope that Lamela and soldado will come good but that's about it...no one really expects anything from Chadli (there's talk about him being a make weight in a deal with southampton), Chiriches, capoue etc. we were dire at times last season but managed to come 6th...in my opinion we have sign a few lower key players whereas united, everton, arsenal, liverpool, city and chelsea have all improved significantly (everton less than the others)...so I can't see us being fancied by anyone and that includes spurs fans so hopefully the team will play with less pressure and we will at least get better football to watch
Check the thread .. the 37m Eriksen figure was only mentioned because he was trying to convince himself that spurs could recoup the 110m after I said those players were not worth the money you paid for them. That's where that silly argument went awry.
There's more than a few of your signings from last summer who have been reported to want the exit, including Lamela although I think he's committed to you for now along with Lloris who also looked like he was off. To be honest you can't blame them last season, you were pretty dire and I was surprised that you finished 6th. If Man Utd hadn't had such a mare and Southampton not imploded, then you would have been in a mid-table battle. Also had Bale not made the difference the season before, it would have been the same story. He got something like 22 points with his goals that turned games for you. I haven't seen Spurs improve at all over the last few seasons, I've seen them dismantle a good team and sack managers. Last season with the massive spend and the chaotic sackings, meant you had a shambolic season and I maintain that the players you bought would not recoup what you spent. Which is after all the main topic of this thread
Staying on the topic, the man who sanctioned the spending and the hiring and firing .. Danny boy Levy. What do you Spuds make of this story ? http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/03/totte...in-until-they-get-rid-of-daniel-levy-4819967/
I think it's absolute bullocks. Prior to the CL it was absolutely normal for all clubs big and small to have periods of poor performance. While Spurs were in the big 5 then we had by far the weakest record of the 5 and happened to be in a poor patch when the CL started. With Chelsea and Man City then joining the party by sheer weight of spend it was always going to be difficult. Levy took over when we were absolutely **** and has improved us to the extent that we are now in our second best ever series of league finishes
