Transfer thread for 2016-17 season

I totally agree, but I think that we might be suffering from selection bias with Lloris.
Other equally good keepers probably have similar flaws which we don't notice, as we've seen him play a lot more games.
They're definitely aspects of his game that should be worked on, though.

True, but I don't think that it needs someone wearing the armband to do that.
We don't have many experienced players and very few calm heads, unfortunately.
It's an issue with our transfer system and Pochettino's style and I'm not sure how to get around it.

 

As far as I'm aware paying transfer fees in installments is standard practice. So them saying that is fine.

 

Except we're not paying £6m a year, we're paying £6m for every year of his contract. Those are very different terms.

 

http://www.joe.co.uk/sport/people-h...about-tottenhams-spate-of-new-contracts/86963

 

The reason to pay and reward reserve players who are both young and Academy products is that they're happier than anyone else of comparable skills would be to be reserve players. They feel things are looking up in a big way and are being given every chance and incentive to continue that trend while being relied on to raise the ante on hard work and spirit in the squad.

 

“I think you look at what the other teams have done in the top six or seven of the Premier League,” said Sinclair. “As in, in the transfer window and then subsequently how they've performed since then. I feel Spurs didn't do as much business as, for instance, Manchester City, who finished below them, and a few other clubs.”

“I just feel they've lost a bit of ground, whereas they could have got a bit of momentum; they finished third last season, could have been second and could have even finished as champions, so I feel it was an important time for them. They've got the stadium, so maybe they're concentrating on getting that finished and putting their finances into that, so the fans will just have to be patient, because what happened last year, I don't think that's going to happen again for a couple of years,” he added.

Wow! Trevor, that's pretty insightful. Spurs didn't spend as much money as Citeh, United or Chelsea. He acknowledges the building of the stadium and that MAYBE we're putting money into that? That's right, Trevor, without the stadium we would have outspent the money clubs. Citeh spent £150m+ and United £140m+. Arsenal and Chelsea spent £80m+. Just where are we going to get that kind of money from? What on earth points to us spending that kind of money given the spending of the Bale money? Spending that kind of money on one or two players would destroy our wages policy and rip apart what we have currently. Spending it on 10 players is lunacy and something we've already seen fail.

We spent a very healthy £70m on 4 players and brought in a loan goalkeeper. We tried to bring in Isco from Real Madrid but it didn't happen. Is it possible for the BBC to find someone who actually understands the game they are employed (with our money) to comment upon?

 

Trevor Sinclair is struggling to understand that while spending power per summer is a
good indicator of how PL clubs will generally do, that is not the same as a GUARANTEE.

And that if the problem is the MANAGER or SQUAD attitude, no amount of spending
is going to attain your season aims unless you have signed Messi.

 

Haha, what a twat he is.

Didn't do as much business? What did he expect us to do? We've got one of the best keepers in world football, the best defence in the Prem, two of the best CM's in Europe, three young and superb attacking midfielders backed up by a rejuvenated Son (who's like a new signing!) and the best English centre forward in the country who's still only 23...
With that in mind, we've brought in a new young keeper that Poch knows from Espanyol who could perhaps become first choice in years to come, two Prem-proven international calibre midfielders that have slotted in seamlessly, one of France's best young prospects to challenge for AM roles and the top scorer of the Eredivisie from last season. If that isn't good as well as smart business, then I don't know what is.

As for being left behind, then why do we sit in the exact position we finished last season in, having yet to concede a goal in open play and have barely gotten out of second gear?

He may have been a half decent footballer (being kind) in his day but as a pundit, he's just like most - ****ing clueless.

 

Didn't those clubs vastly outspend us last season, too? And every season.

 

This is it. He might as well slate Southampton or Swansea for lacking ambition for not signing Pogba. There's no way Spurs can compete with the money clubs on transfer fees and wages. If we tried to do so, we'd end up massively over-paying for talent - see Chelsea and West Ham this window, Liverpool generally, etc.

I'll give my club clog if I think that they're under-selling the fans but this is just third-rate nonsense...and we're paying him to spout it!

 

The BBC sure like hiring pundits who know the square root of **** all, don't they? Danny Murphy, Trevor Sinclair, Laura Kuenssberg...

 

If that rumour is accurate then we certainly have a weird arrangement. But to talk about and quantify transfer fees based on how much is paid by the club up front or in the first year or whatever would hugely alter every casual "net transfer spend" stat not just this particular one.

I'm not sure if it ever happens that a transfer fee of 10m, say, means that one club pays another club 10m in one go and that's that. Yet, for simplicitiy's sake we will happily speak as if that's the case.

 

But as he's explained, he's not doing that.

​

 

There must be more to it though as otherwise we could sell after a year for a massive profit. Newcastle must get a slice of the sell-on if we sell within that 5 year contract.

 

This is a genuine headline I read just now...

Best Tottenham Hotspur XI on FIFA 17 only features one summer signing as 73-rated Spaniard can’t even make subs’ bench

Given the constant narrative about how we "failed" during the summer window as we didn't sign Higuain or Cavani (a narrative which I have not seen being used for other teams who failed to sign Higuain or Cavani, which is every single team in world football except Juventus) and now we're being told that we "failed" in the summer because EA Sports think Sissoko is a better player than Dier so we should start with a Dembele/Sissoko pivot, I am genuinely starting to think we are the Jeremy Corbyn of English football: the media constantly brief against us to the point they ignore the facts to focus on the story they want to tell, because they would rather slag off the outside than criticise the Establishment - even though the Establishment is riddled with open goals that are demanding to be reported, ranging from a manager who throws his players under the bus after the three back-to-back losses they have suffered or a manager who is freezing out a player to punish that player's agent, yet do these get criticised for this? Like **** they do.

 

Then I think what he's trying to to the "whatever" part. Point is that he's saying that the casual calculation of Newcastle's net spend should only reflect their first 6m payment for Sissoko, right?

But if you start applying this logic *along with the knowledge that almost all fees are paid in installments and are even subject to change later on* then, well, good luck making any rough figure of what a club "spent" or "took in" over a window. The amount of guess-work and speculation will get crazy for a start. I'm pretty sure that HBIC is not suggesting that we should not regard Alli's fee as 5m or Dier's as 4 or any of the more believed, solid figures that are bandied about. Yet chances are that MK Dons still haven't received 5m for Alli yet.

 

At the start of FIFA 16 Adebayor was rated higher than Harry Kane. That says all you need to know about EA's knowledge of real football

 

Alli wasn't signed for £5m, he was signed for an initial £5m, so it is accurate to say he was signed for £5m - and you forget other clubs were sniffing around, not least Liverpool, so there was less wiggle room.

Most importantly, an initial £5m fee says there are add-ons, and we're paying those - for example we paid an extra £200k when he started in the England match against France last November.

 

There's reports saying that Poch blocked loan offers from Brighton, Barnsley and reading for Winks during the summer.

I get the feeling we can add Brighton to the lost of south coast fans who really don't like us. Best get our apologies to Bournemouth fans ready in advance...

 

OKay, okay - I knew as soon as I wrote that that someone would say "But it wasn't 5m...".

Okay. So. Take a figure you believe. A transfer fee. Maybe something like 18m for Janssen or 2m for Gazza or whathever. My point is this:

These are the figures, the ones bandied about in newspapers and repeated by fans - the ones that more or less refer to the total that will be paid to the selling club - that are used in these calculations of "net transfer spend". I am *positive* that these figures ( the ones on the websites, in the news articles) are ones that you yourself would, quite appropriately, use to calculate things like transfer spend.

And yet these numbers are clearly *not* the figure spent/received by the clubs at the time of the sale.

So to say that Newcastle "only" got 6m would commit you to then try to analyse what clubs actually paid/received at the time of sale to be consistent. So we didn't really receive 8m for Pritchard. We received the first installment of that payment. How much is that? Dunno. How many installments? Dunno. How much of the fee is add-ons? Dunno.

So that's why it's simplified and we talk about the total value of the transfer fee, not how much it costs the buying club there and then.

I mean I couldn't give a monkey's how you calculate it but it seems very, very odd to say that Newcastle only received 6m for Sissoko just in practical and consistency terms.