from by Ryan Wrenn:
Discuss this:
As expected, Tottenham’s summer has thus far been characterized by shrewd but efficient business, the type that the club has become synonymous with in the last few windows.
The yield from such business is hard to criticize. Toby Alderweireld, Eric Dier, Kevin Wimmer and Dele Alli were all — by most reckoning — brought to north London in deals that seem all the cheaper after their subsequent stellar performances.
While Mauricio Pochettino and his recruiting team’s eye for talent is unquestionable, there’s also something to be said about spectacle. With the possible exception of Alderweireld, none of those aforementioned signings were hot tickets. They were mostly young, unknown, undervalued yet promising players, the types that bigger clubs overlook in favor of experience and notoriety.
Targeting such players is entirely by design. Lack of competition makes for quicker deals and cheaper transfer fees. For a club like Tottenham hoping at once to finance a new stadium as well as maintain their competitiveness, this was a sound strategy.
Under Pochettino’s guidance, that strategy has bore significant results. Tottenham qualified for the Champions League in a season seemingly destined to result in yet another Europa League appearance. Were it not for an unfortunate slump at the end of the term, Tottenham could have challenged Leicester City for the title.
Such improvement is, of course, welcome, particularly considering the sustainable means that led to it. Now, however, Tottenham face an image problem of sorts. Having seemingly broken through to the Premier League’s elite, is the club now obliged to make flashy signings?
Consider the Manchester clubs. Both United and City are making waves as they plunder some of the best talent in Europe, inflating the market by dropping excessive amounts of money on players like İlkay Gündoğan and Henrikh Mkhitaryan — and possibly also Leonardo Bonucci and Paul Pogba.
These are recognizable names from big clubs, the kinds of signings that fans of both clubs have come to expect. They would, in all likelihood, face a kind of backlash were they to suddenly to adopt a similar, Moneyball-ish approach to Tottenham.
Similarly, Tottenham runs the risk of backlash from its fanbase if their ambitions in the transfer market don’t meet up with their suddenly improved status.
None of which is meant to disparage Victor Wanyama and Vincent Janssen. The former has years of experience in the Premier League, and even if he was perhaps less regarded than Morgan Schneiderlin and other defensive midfielders in recent seasons. Janssen might only have one top flight season under his belt, but by the end of it he was the top scorer in the Eredivisie.
Still, if one or both players fail to work out as expected, there could be some fans who grumble about Tottenham’s failure to secure more expensive/prestigious players like Gundogan, Michy Batshuayi or Álvaro Morata. Such is the plight of being a “big" club.
Do Tottenham’s Signings Lack Prestige?
posted on 15/7/16
Well no, we would not feel the same becuase Lamela was 21 and had his whole career ahead of him.
Soldado is the better comparison
posted on 15/7/16
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
Mkhitaryan was £30m
.........................
When?
He wasn't when we signed him recently......... in a previous life maybe?
So surely he would feel a bit better, considering transfer inflation Miki is actually cheaper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/manchester-united/english-football-teams/manchester-united-transfers
£30m
posted on 15/7/16
I think Lamela is a very important player for us. He's our play maker .... a poor man's Lionel Messi, if you like. And improving. remains to be seen how he gets along with our new additions.
Oh yes, and BTW ..... Messi may be leaving Spain over his tax issues. He's peed at what the Spanish tax court did to him.
Any takers here?
posted on 15/7/16
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Well no, we would not feel the same becuase Lamela was 21 and had his whole career ahead of him.
Soldado is the better comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes he would because he was on about the money, he mentioned Stones in the same little part, being a young age didn't seem to change his feelings....
So I'd imagine he'd feel much the same, or even a bit better considering transfer fee inflation in the time since, although I guess you could argue the age difference cancels out the transfer fee inflation difference, bit generous to Spurs that but would work out fairly similar feelings wise.
posted on 15/7/16
No the age would not cancel out inflation.
In fact it would ensure we could sell Lamela at a profit at 27 probably, so he would essentially cost us nothing in terms of transfer fee for 6yrs service.
Whereas a 27yr old Mkytaran will be almost worthless after only 3yrs
posted on 15/7/16
No the age would not cancel out inflation.
..............................................
No I agree it probably wouldn't.
Probably cheaper to buy a 21 year old with the reputation of Miki then than it would be to buy 27 year old Miki now considering inflation, But I am willing to be generous and give the uncertainty in favour of Spurs and call them similar.
posted on 16/7/16
1. How much did you pay for the centre back, Bailly?
2. How old is he?
He has played barely a season, right? Would you say 1 and 2 have a direct correlation?
posted on 16/7/16
Mickey also had just one year left on his contract....he would be free in one year. But lets forget that for the minute.
Mkhytaran
26-30m fee
10m wages annually
In 3yrs by the age of 30 he will have cost United 56-60m.
At age 30 he will have minimum selling value, and will be at the tail end of his career.
Lamela
26m fee
40-60k
posted on 16/7/16
Lamela
26m fee
2m to 3m annual salary so far
Assuming he will get a raise, lets say 5m to 6m annual salary for his new contract
In 3yrs time he will have cost Spurs 47m to 53m. 8m to 9m a season. Less than half of Mkhytaran's annual cost.
However in 3yrs time he will still only be 27. He will still have a substantial resale value (or 3 more years playing for us at a good level)
If we sold him for a modest 12m it will have reduced his annual cost to us to just 6-7m. About a third of Mkhytaran.
So no, not even close to being comparable really.
posted on 16/7/16
Lovely summary there...
I will point out again though that the original poster whose comment I replied to (hence the origin of this discussion) mentioned none of that.
In fact here is the exact part I quoted, hence the exact part I was disagreeing with.
______________________________
Also I don't know how I'd feel if Spurs suddenly started spending money like the bigger clubs are doing. €63m for Stones, €60m or whatever the amount for Mkhitaryan and paying £220,000 a week wages. It just wouldn't feel like the Spurs I've supported over the years.
___________________________
The very relevant parts there being 'spending money like the bigger clubs are doing' '€60m or whatever the amount for Mkhitaryan'
As I have pointed out (many times now) Lamela cost the same (a decent bit more really considering transfer fee inflation) so probably pretty similarly.