This journo I always assumed was a Man U fan, but this is an interesting take on Spurs post-Bale.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/jan/14/tottenham-gareth-bale-money-real-madrid-manchester-united-liverpool
Bit to pick out:
"the Bale splurge now looks like relatively sane business. And really this is just how Levy plays the game, a combination of hard bargaining, punts on promise, the odd jackpot, the odd dead end. The successes, such as Dele Alli and Eric Dier, are part of the same process, corollary to the failures. Plus for whatever reason – the constraints of the new stadium, the educative effects of that Bale splurge, the fruits of the academy – Spurs’ recruitment is on a hot streak. Indeed, right now they can field an entire first XI – Vorm; Trippier, Dier, Alderweireld, Davies; Bentaleb, Alli; Eriksen, Lamela, Chadli; Kane – either bought, blooded or brought back to the club in the post-Bale years. And all it turns out for the same price as one departing superstar.
At the end of which, by luck, judgment or both, that splurge has now been more or less unsplurged. The sense of a wider plan, of healthier structures lurking below, has emerged through the mist. Tottenham may or may not continue to thrive through the slog of winter into spring. But they will do so no longer in recovery, no longer post-Bale, with a clarity that began to stir, paradoxically, that same giddy summer, a beginning that felt at the time a lot more like an end."
Getting noticed, eh boys
Barney Ronay piece in the Guardian
posted on 16/1/16
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
why do Tottenham fans use just spend for us (and presumably other clubs) but net spend whenever they are talking about themselves, a bit of consistency wouldn't go a miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs over the last five years have on average made £8m a season from transfers.
United over the last five years have on average spent £57m a season from transfers.
Yet, United struggle to impose themselves not only as potential title winners but champions league competitors. That's £65m a year in differences between Spurs and United.
I'm pretty sure if Spurs had that sort of net budget every year we'd be making top four comfortably. That's two £30m+ players coming in every year for 5 years.
So obviously if your club continues to spend that sort of money and continues with its boring football and struggle for the top four then the WUMs are never ending...
posted on 16/1/16
You do realise in the past five season we have actually won a title?
That spending actually equalled success.
We've also qualified for the CL every year but once during that five year period.
What have Spurs achieved during that period?
Repeatedly missing out on top 4?
TBH I wouldn't be surprised if we could run at a profit and sit outside the top 4, hell Arsenal ran a profit for years whilst sitting in the top 4.
Fergie ran a profit for a few years whilst actually winning titles....
Although that is part of the reason we are spending so much now, because of a lack of spending in previous seasons. You can get away with a low net spend for a few years (as we did) but eventually it will come back to bite you.
Spurs used to spend a decent little bit of money, nothing major but not too far off the top sides before these 5 years, guess what they still failed miserably, the fact they are currently maintaining their position whilst not spending money is admirable....
It doesn't necessarily equate that they would spend money and then be successful, look what happened with the Bale money.
posted on 16/1/16
Bit hard to compare really, but Spurs on their budget are jut about the best run club in the premiership. Not just on transfers, there is a vast chasm in the wages bills of Spurs and United. Rooney's £250,0000 wages alone would be enough to pay at least half a dozen of the current Spurs first XI.
posted on 16/1/16
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/1/16
If you spend hundreds of millions every year on new players and have one of the highest wage bills in the league you'd expect a title challenge.
Fans of any club are well within their rights to criticise our recent spending. We used to do it to city, difference was they bought success.
Is the poor quality of United's general play down to the calibre of player recruited (wasted money) or the calibre of management? Either way it's not been a great investment so far.
posted on 16/1/16
Whilst spurs have done well at times this season they have won nothing of any real note since tony parks. Unless you win a title people will always ask have you ever seen tottenham win the league and if you have what about in colour? Nothing 'special' going on at the lane,just making the most of a poor couple of years of premier league including last year.
posted on 16/1/16
Fans of any club are well within their rights to criticise our recent spending. We used to do it to city, difference was they bought success.
............................................
I hope this isn't aimed at me.
If someone says we spent £250M in the last window I am going to correct them, that is wildly inaccurate.
Also there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Tottenham fans like to use net spend when discussing themselves but all of a sudden change to just spend when discussing United, that isn't a fair comparison.
Lastly City spent more than LVG in the space of a few years and finished 5th behind Spurs...
Success?!?
posted on 16/1/16
Also despite inflation (which gets a lot less of a mention these days) our spending still hasn't reached anywhere near the levels of City and Chelsea's spending which was criticised by United fans.
posted on 16/1/16
Why would it be aimed at you? I'm saying that if people criticise our spending they have a point. It's been lavish and the results are poor, so we've either got a great squad that the manager can't get the best out of or we're buying badly.
posted on 17/1/16
Because I was discussing spending but I did have valid reasons as stated.
There is a 3rd option...
A lot of our purchases are younger players.
They aren't usually known for being value for money right away. Well that and a lot of the squad needed replacing, there wasn't a great base to work with.