The North London Power-Shift

We'll see. As mentioned it could be that this season acts as a platform for West Ham to build on and the power shift from Spurs to West Ham.

Whilst Spurs have stood still for a few seasons despite spending huge amounts to try and get into the top 4, West Ham are the upwardly mobile club and it could act as a catalyst for them to retain their best players and attract more quality to the club.

 

All this "Spurs will have to finish above Arsenal consistently for 20 years" bollocks is utter nonsense! The minute Spurs finish above Arsenal the power will have shifted. Every gooner knows and fears that, hence the need to create this nonsense!

The power could always shift back the following season - not that it will, according to some (but not necessarily me, yet) - but the minute the power begins to shift then it will have shifted. Full-stop!

 

According to your Logic HIAG, if West Ham or Liverpool finish above Spurs this season, then the power will have shifted to them. At this point in the season, it looks like either club could achieve that.

The real debate on this thread is whether the North London power shift is moving from N17 to either West Ham or Merseyside, or both.

 

Possibly with 'Pool, but you're wrong about the Spanners. They've been no where near us for years. Indeed, they are barely back from the wilderness. 'Pool and us have, of course, been locked in a battle for top 4 for a few seasons, now, and this season is no exception. So, there clearly is a power-struggle between us and 'Pool, as there is between Arsenal and 'Pool. The poor Spanners, however, feature no where in this debate, as you (despite your desperately poor wum attempt) know perfectly well.

As with us and 'Pool, there is clearly a power-struggle between us and Arsenal - only a complete muppet would attempt to argue otherwise. Has a power-shift resulted from this power-struggle? Well, that is the purpose of this debate.

 

So you admit that that power has shifted from North London (N17) to Merseyside. They finished above you last season, so by your logic the power has shifted. They are above you again now and it looks likely that the power shift will remain with the scousers

You can't rule out West Ham, they beat you 3 times last season and you only narrowly avoided defeat to them the other day (despite claiming it would be an easy 3 points) I can almost smell your fear HIAG that along with Liverpool, the North London power shift in Tottenham will also yield more power to West Ham

 

We have net spent next to nothing. That's what you don't seem to understand. Yes, some of the money was poorly used, but it came from the sale of Bale.

 

PESKIE does understand, NSS; he chooses to pretend ignorance as a wum-ploy. It is ill-conceived humour, like a clown who has put on his size 48 shoes, but forgotten his make-up.

 

B

I've never really associated humour with Peskie, but if you think so...

 

Er...they also finished above you!..so...?

 

The sale of Gareth Bale was a freak one off. Totally distorts the figures. Yes he was a great buy and you got a great price when selling him, but you shouldn't pretend that Levy ever envisaged that kind of profit or that he will ever repeat it.

The Spuds squad cost in excess of £220M. Probably not much less than Arsenals. I know whose squad I would rather have. Our squad cost around £70M - less than 1/3 of the spuds squad.

You would think a £220M squad would be a bit further ahead of a £70M squad than just 5 points wouldn't you?

If we can already compete with spuds despite the gulf in the two clubs' finances, imagine when our spending power increases and we are on more of an equal financial footing.

It's gonna be a fun 5 or so years.

 

Good points. Also despite the spuds wanting to point out their net spend, they cannot escape the fact that they had £120m at their disposal after the Bale sale and pissed the majority of it up the wall.

It's quite staggering how given a £150m gulf in value between Spurs' and West Ham's squads, that they've only beaten you once in the last 5 meetings with 3 wins to the Hammers and a narrowly avoided defeat at WHL the other day.

This North London power shift from N17 to West Ham could really hot up over the next few seasons, especially with the Spuds trying to manage the debt of their stadium build and more top players potentially looking for the exit should they miss out on CL football yet again.

 

I'm only using HIAG's logic applied to Spurs, where the power has already shifted to Liverpool.

As I said, Spurs would have to overhaul 20 years of finishing below us to even begin to think about a power shift to them from us.

 

We're working on it.

 

Good luck

 

Anyway, back to the real North London power shift. The power shifting from N17 to West Ham. Could it already be happening ? Certainly 3 wins and but for a last second scuffed penalty it would have been 4 out of 5, suggests that the Hammers are in the ascendency.

HIAG has already confirmed that the power has shifted from Spurs to Liverpool, could the Hammers be the next club where the power from North London shifts to ?

 

You are at a point in time where you actually have some half decent players. Can you keep them is the question? I doubt it...

 

Er...No!...

 

Three of their current first XI leave at the end of the season for nothing, as things stand.
Jenkinson and Song are on loan, while Reid's contract is expiring. Noble's is also up, but it appears he'll stay.

 

We might well end up selling Jenkinson to West Ham as we're well stocked for RB's now. With Debuchy, Chambers and Bellerin who can all play there.

Also Song has had a very good season at West Ham and may well want to stay after this season too.

 

Both could also stay at their parent clubs or move elsewhere. It remains to be seen, but they don't have any deals for them in place, as far as I'm aware.
Best scenario is that they keep them and spend a significant chunk of their summer budget on them, I'd have thought.
Song's wages could be problematic, too. Reports claim a fee of £15m and £140k pw.
FFP might also be an issue, according to their chairman.