9 Players out to keep Modric and Bale.

Spending on players includes both transfers and wages.
Joe Cole, for example, was signed on a Bosman, so he's down as £0 in any transfer figure, but he's on £90k pw.
That's money that can't be spent on transfers.
It's the same pool of money.

 

Only an idiot would claim that Spurs didn't benefit from Liverpool being in disarray.They did and fair play to them.Lets see if they can compete with a strong and stable Liverpool.This will be the test that will prove that their entry into the CL was not a fluke which most people think it was.

 

Do you have some sort of problem answering straight questions?

This is one of the moderators on the Liverpool board?
Seriously?
Did they have a ****ing raffle or something?

 

The fact is Spurs benefitted from Liverpool being in disarray.I've no problem with that,as this is competition.Fair play to them.However in ''competition'' when a club is no longer in ''disarray'' lets see how they compete.I personally don't think Spurs will be able to compete with a resurgent Liverpool and they will go back to their level and that is a top 6-8 side.The reason being is that they aren't strong enough and Redknapp who is a relatively poor manager who as I said has won one trophy in 30 years of management is proof of that.

 

It is equally idiotic to maintain that Spurs simply benefited from Liverpool's disarray.

They improved dramatically and have a Squad of far greater quality, depth and balance than Liverpool's

 

Thanks for that, Mystic Meg.

How many times would 70 points NOT have been a top 4 finish since the Premier League was reduced to 20 teams?
Care to acknowledge your horde of mistakes while you're at it, too?

 

They have improved dramatically/.Schofield you haven't a clue what your talking about.
Do you actually know the difference between ''Addirtions'' and ''Replacements''.
Liverpool until this summer have been replacing players,whilst other clubs including Spurs have been making additions.
Heres simple maths.Liverpool until this summer have been applying this 3-3=0.Thats 3 in and 3 out = 0.Spurs have been applying this 2 in and 0 out which = 2.Now lets see how they get on when they have to do what Liverpool have done previously and thats having to ''sell to buy''.
Secondly Poll,you mention 70 points.Spurs didn't get 70 points,they in 2010/2011 got 62 points.So thats irrelevant.Generally 62 points is not enough to get top 4.

 

Dear me.

 

Spurs got 70 points in the season before last.
The season that you claimed Liverpool were in disarray, which was the only reason that Spurs qualified for the Champions League.

Dear me, indeed.

 

Well seeing as Liverpool finished 3nd and got 86 points the season before that yet finished behind Spurs who only got 70 points the following season I would say that the massive drop in points over just a season points to a club in disarray.

 

Also weren't we awful in opening game of the season at spurs giving them an easy three points and thus a massive psychological boost for the season.

 

Or it's just a club having a less successful season, after having a particularly good one.
I believe that Liverpool's average is a little lower than 70 points, since the Prem was reduced to 20 teams.

 

A 20 year average is hardly relevant.

 

Guess where this is going.

 

Ok.
In the past 5 seasons Liverpool have attained 70 points or more on two occasions.

 

What is Spurs average points been since the prem was reduced to 20 teams?

 

I have no idea.
Something quite crap, probably.

 

From what I've seen on the Spurs board, PNP is the complete opposite of what you said. He says it like it is.

 

Look Spurs have finished above Liverpool 3 times in the last 40 years(1971,2010,2011).Which is rather pathetic seeing as Everton have managed it 4 times(1970,1985,1987,2005),and Spurs claimed to be a bigger club than Everton.However this isn't the case as Everton last won the league in 1987,Spurs in 1961.

 

Also a a pretty meaningless and irrelevant number I'd say in terms of today.