I don't even think that the players that we've brought in have been bad, necessarily. We've just bought in areas that we didn't need to and neglected areas that needed strengthening. We don't have a creative central midfielder, lack backup for Kane and only have one right-winger. We've got tons of left-wingers, attacking midfielders and centre-halves. The last of those might make sense now that we've got a manager that likes 3 at the back, though. We need a Modric, Pirlo, Xavi, Carrick or the like to make the team tick. Such players seem to have virtually disappeared from the modern game though, for some reason. Anyone with the capacity seems to get shoved forward into an attacking midfield role. I can't think of any suitable players in that position that isn't quite old or at least in their prime. Maybe Bellingham at Dortmund, but we've clearly missed that boat. The other option is trying to bring White or Devine through, but that's a massive ask. Both seem pretty talented, yet I expect them to play less demanding roles first, possibly out on loan.
I’d say they’ve been bad for Tottenham, especially a few of them anyway but they’re not essentially bad players. Many of them excelled in other leagues or other clubs but haven’t brought those levels to us for one reason or another. I think Lo Celso and Ndombele were meant to be the creative midfield additions. Lo Celso was seemingly Eriksen’s replacement and Ndombele was Dembele’s but both have been nowhere near their predecessors. That there though is arguably an issue as maybe the club shouldn’t look at replacing players with likely poor imitations and instead target the best possible players in a position and then utilise a tactic that suits them. Dembele was never a like for like Modric replacement but he made the midfield position his own with his own style, and that’s maybe what Spurs need to do, instead of trying to replace Dembele, sign a great midfielder and utilise their ability in a tweaked system that fits them, rather than hoping they become Dembele part 2. Agree on the dying breed of those deeper lying playmakers, I guess it’s a little understandable as those listed are unbelievable players so they don’t come along often but it seems like they’ve all just vanished. I reckon Italy is possibly the best place to look at the moment though, feels like Serie A / Italy is getting a bit of a rebirth and it’s produced an abundance of very good midfielders with the likes of Veratti, Barella, Jorginho, Locatelli, Pessina, Cristante and Tonali all seemingly the types of players we and others would love, not forgetting the likes of Milinkovic-Savic, Kessie and Brozovic who’ve been developed in Italy too. It’s probably a good thing right now to have both Conte and Paratici as hopefully they can tap into that market with their knowledge and experience. I wouldn’t be against either of those two getting chances, Devine especially seems a massive talent and it’s a shame he doesn’t yet qualify as HG as he’d possibly have made the squad for some ECL games already.
Except the ones bringing up the figure of £400m or how we can spend half of that figure A figure which doesn't exist, due to being an estimate
Except we weren't being outspent, you introduced net into the conversation after it was pointed out that, no, twelve Premier League clubs did not spend more than us in the summer of 2017 Brighton did not spend more than us Watford did not spend more than us Huddersfield...you get the point
You joke, but 12-15 years ago Ligue 1 floated an idea of teams getting a bonus point if they won by more than three goals, as this was somehow the best solution they could come up with in response to Ligue 1 being particularly 1-0ish for a few years before that point as opposed to maybe considering that it might help the league if clubs didn't regularly have their most promising starlets poached by Premier League and La Liga clubs when they were still at the clubs' academies I'm trying to work out why that idea died a death more: was it because UEFA shot it down as soon as they caught wind of it, or was it because pitching it as "Like they do in rugby" is guaranteed to draw a particularly disdainful Gallic look from several dozen club owners at once?
Also the 2016/17 season wouldn't have been nearly as painful as Leicester would have had the title wrapped up by February. Actually come to think of it under my new system West Ham will probably win the title this year, so I think we'll shelve the plans for now
In words with any basis in reality 1.) An article estimating the club can spend £400m and still comply with FFP is not an article saying we have £400m in cash 2.) In the past two years we have spent at least £150m on players, most obviously Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sessegnon, Bergwijn, Emerson and Gil, so saying that "all of the cash" has been spent on anything but players is patently absurd 3.) Which is the one asset the club has right now which is generating revenue from multiple sources, for example the NFL deal and so forth? Oh right, that would be THE ****ING STADIUM. And what's the one thing we had 0 revenue from for over a year and, until recently, had a statistic bout there being more matches played in front of empty stands than in front of crowds entirely due to our cretinous government placing landlords' interests above maybe considering taking any measures at all to head off a global pandemic spreading our way? Why, it would be that same stadium, almost as if the one thing that was designed and built to generate higher revenues was hamstrung by the fact that you can't generate a penny of revenue if the entire country's in lockdown 4.) The rules mean that, if the club has £400m, they can spend every last penny of it and comply with FFP. What is the operative word in that sentence? HAS, because if the club doesn't actually have £400m to hand - which, and I'm going to hazard a guess here, just like 99% of clubs in world football it doesn't - then it can't spend £400m without racking up several hundred million quid of debt, what that estimated figure says is that if we had the liquidity from Champions League football, regular income from the stadium and money from TV deals then it can be spent, but you remove one of those pillars and those revenue streams get a lot smaller, and guess what? Two of those pillars were removed in the last couple of years
Of course it is down to netspend. It always is as that is the barometer of how much the club is putting into replacing its players and investing into the football side of things. You could spend 200m tomorrow and "OUTSPEND" everyone in the league but if you did that on the back of selling Son and Kane then you might as well forget that the club has outspent everyone as you have weakened your team (hypothetically speaking)
Let's cut the **** ... enough of the poncey word crap Interpretive dance or mimes videos to decide this or everyone stfu.
You realise that FFP is a function of the clubs annual revenue against the football expenditure. If you have the highest FFP number, it means your club is GENERATING more revenue but spending LESS than everyone else. that income generated has gone somewhere else and not on the club side.
No, it isn't. For example, say Burley bought three players for £10m each and sold nobody, while Liverpool bought three players for £25m each but sold somebody for £100m, that would mean Burnley "outspent" Liverpool by £5m when, in actual fact, Liverpool clearly spent more than three times what Burnley spent And that is what happened in the summer of 2017: Palace spunked £50m up the wall on effectively three players (Sakho, Riedewald, Sorloth) while only receiving one substantial transfer fee for Mandanda while releasing a bunch of players. That does not mean they outspent more than half of the Premier League, that meant they spent marginally more on three players than we spent on Sanchez, and that's why claiming net blatantly obscures the actual numbers involved Same goes for Leicester: they spent £80m+ and the only substantial fee they got was the £35m for Drinkwater, so does that mean they spent less than Palace? No, it doesn't, because they paid considerably more that season than Palace did
By the way we have not bought a golf course. We have leased land that used to be a golf course to build new facilities for the women's team. The cost seems to be 75k per year from year 6 with a premium of 500k up front. It's a good project and the cost is negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Sorry, Daniel. You are correct and I did know that but I was concentrating on using one syllable and omitted to say leased. I will make sure not to do it again.
No, it doesn't. It means that we're generating more and not spending as much of that revenue. I'll make it a hypothetical. We generate £400m and spend £100m and Palace generate £160m and spend £80m. We've spent more than them, but they've eaten into far more of their FFP limit.
...on football related matters. You'll get in trouble if you don't say that the money's all been spent.
i'm not sure that's helping the argument mate, so you're saying that they are keeping money back in the coffers eh? For things like a golf course and making spurs more profitable rather than helping the team?
I'm saying that increasing our revenue also increases our FFP limit. That's why... certain clubs are sponsored by connected interests, let's say...
We've literally spent nothing on a golf course. By the way the extra revenue created since leaving White Hart Lane is already around £200m despite Covid. So half of the ffp headroom wouldn't even exist if we had not invested in the stadium.
