Wow - spuds spent £60m last season. 3rd only behind Chelsea and Utd and easily outspent City, Liverpool and Arsenal. To end up 5th after spending such a huge amount has to be considered a total failure.
But doesn't include Sales, unfortunately http://hereisthecity.com/2013/02/11/updated-premier-league-net-spend-table-201213/ We bought Dempsey, Dembele, Siggurdsen, Holtby, Vertonghen, Lloris, Fryers, Adebayor - probably about £60m We sold Modric, Van Der Vaart, Krancjar, Corluka, Pienaar, Dos Santos - probably about £60m
Chelsea had a net spend of £72m, Arsenal had a net spend of £8.6m and Spurs made a net profit of £1.3m. Only a moron would see that as massive spending by Spurs.
I don't really know why the spuds trot out their player sales in defence of their spending. They sold Modric and VDV probably two of the best midfielders in the premier league and bought Siggurdsen and Holtby - and ended up a place lower and missed out on a massive revenue from the Champions League. Kind of puts that £1.3m net profit into perspective. If you're going to spend £60m, then you need to spend it on quality that will improve your team, otherwise it doesn't make any difference what sort of net gain you've made.
Moans about team spending too much. Corrected. Moans that team didn't spend enough. Holtby joined in January and Sigurdsson was a squad player. Neither were brought in to replace Modric or van der Vaart.
Don't know the power of money. If it wasn't for Russian mob money, you probably wouldn't be supporting the chavs. (The above comment is based upon the widely held belief that 75% of all chavs are plastic glory hunters who only declared their love of chelski once RA bought them some success)
Spurs should be commended for spending within their means. They're a well-run club. However much they spent, gross or nett, they spend what they can afford to
Hear Hear!! I am in no way their biggest fan but Spurs do it the right way. You can't accuse Chelsea of success only because they spent a fortune and put themselves into "debt" and then Hammer Tottenham about money spent when they do it the right way. That being said they did buy some dross when compared to what they lost and how in hell did they not buy a stirker? Even we got Giroud.
Can't argue with any of that (especially the last point about the striker!!!!). The "dross" will come good!
The dross helped us get the highest points total in our premier league history ... coupled with the fact we got a **** manager managing the dross we did all right really And who the **** needs a striker...they are sooooooo last year....
Price is insignificant. It's about value. We lost a player that you can't really put a price on, such was his value and importance to the side. 10 years ago we went on a massive spending splurge needing to replace an ageing squad and get it up to scratch with our competitors, that continued for 4/5 consecutive windows and then stopped. In terms of net spend, we were largely in the red from the Summer of 2006 right up until the winter of 2011. Current squad is at the end of its cycle so it needs/needed massive investment again. You don't really get the full picture unless you do it over a lengthier period of time and even then their are other things not taken into consideration such as wages, revenue etc.
I can recall a game in the late 70s where United's starting XI cost 10 times more than that of Chelsea's. Spurs spent fortunes on players in the 70s & 80s and all we could muster was shrapnel for Mike Fillery. Not that I care as imbalance is inevitable in a sport owners by businessmen. All Sky and the media have done is allow history to be rewritten. Football has always been run by the wealthy. Pre-Sky it was local millionaires, now it's foreign billionaires. That's all that changed. Football has now become sanitised and scripted. All Sky and other media outlets have done is facilitate that arrangement: - Man U HAVE to be the top team - Liverpool MUST be top four - Spurs MUST be expected to sell their key players to Club X, Y and Z - Arsenal MUST be winning trophies. The order is the difference, it's an infantile attitude to have that certain teams must always be at the top but that's life. Financially it's far more lucrative for Sky to have a top 3 of Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal than Man City, Newcastle and West Ham. The only thing different to the 70s/80s is that the rich have become richer (Thanks Neo-liberalism and Thatcher) to the figures being thrown about in football make it seem like it was different to before.
Correction again (on your behalf) Spurs spending their £60m on transfers - the 3rd highest in the league, to finish 5th, does in no way equate with me moaning about how spurs have spent their money. Quite the opposite in fact
I have no idea why you seem to have such trouble understanding a net spend, as opposed to just spending. It's really not a tough concept. Spurs replaced the entire spine of the team in the summer and had to do so without losing any money. King retired, Kaboul and Parker got injured, Modric and van der Vaart were sold, Friedel started to show his age and Adebayor's loan ran out. That the club managed to get past all of that, replace the manager and pick up more points than in the previous season is pretty impressive. The only thing that prevented a top 4 finish was Chelsea's improvement, which came at a cost of £72m and a wage bill of around double Spurs'. Dembele and Bale.
Chelsea are the effect, not the cause. Clubs like Chelsea, Leeds, Villa, Pompey spent big to try and close the gap on United who were being continually funded by Sky and UEFA's money. If there were no PL, there would be no Abramovich but when you sell the thing to the entire world, you can't really expect foreign investors to not want a slice of the pie.
