Walter Sobchak


Of course it's relevant, much more so when put alongside wage bill. There are other factors, but you'd have to be in denial to pretend these two don't have a major impact.

sandy

Everybody knows this and has done since football started. Did you just figure it out

The £179m figure you quoted Sandy is from TSMPlug isn't it?

For starters... Torres is still on that wage bill.

TCW


The £179m figure you quoted Sandy is from TSMPlug isn't it?

For starters... Torres is still on that wage bill.


That`s as may be, but it was last year`s figures, so even without Torres, the figure will be about the same for this season, and still rising. Taking away one players wages is hardly going to put a dent in £179 million is it.

yeah yeah

what do you keep banging on about net spend for - you've chucked loads of Money at it season after season





er thicko, didn`t you read the previous posts that put Spurs at the bottom of the net spending league for the past five years, so no Spurs have not been chucking loads of money at trying to get into the top four, unlike Chelsea who borrowed money they could not afford to repay in the 1990s, and had to get bailed out for a £1.

What exactly is the point of this article? That top clubs spend the most? Standard and has been for decades.

It's all very well spurs talking about the past five years net spend but what about the five or six years before that where they spend over £200m gross and £100m net and still underachieved. They've now sold those players, some for a profit, and managed to balance the books but which ever way you slice it Spurs' spend per trophy gross net or otherwise is appalling.

Biggest underachievers in Prem history.

Robbing_Hoody - Sometimes I choose my words carefully during a debate to suit my argument

top clubs spend the most? Standard and has been for decades.





Not true, for the majority of the twentieth century football was pretty much a level playing field, now their are a few clubs with obscene amounts of money that can buy and pay for all the best players. Of course some clubs were always a bit richer in days gone by, but the dispartity between the haves and have nots has never ever been greater. How many clubs can afford £200 thousand a week wages now? I would say just three in the prem, gives them a massive advantage in attracting players.

You don't think Liverpool spent lots of money whilst at the top Sandy? I can assure you we did. If you look at the amount of winners of the Prem from the past 10 or so years compared to the previous ten or so it's a similar amount - 4. The ten years before that was three different winners. The ten before that 5 different winners. The ten before that 5 different winners (may have the odd number wrong but can't be bothered to check properly as on my lunch).

Tottenham and Liverpool (among others - Sunderland have an insane net spend in prem years as do Stoke I think) have spent plenty and did so pre City as well.

Still no excuse for Spurs having an appalling spend per trophy and Liverpool not winning a title in decades. FFP will help both teams though but given that Spurs had a team of Modric, Bale and VdV there is not really much excuse for having to play Bentaleb and Mason.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people can't/refuse to understand that Spurs didn't spend any money on transfers in summer 2013!

"but given that Spurs had a team of Modric, Bale and VdV there is not really much excuse for having to play Bentaleb and Mason."

Because the former are no longer at the club and the latter are ??

Gotta be the easiest QED of the millenium that one.

PawlBawron


It never ceases to amaze me how many people can't/refuse to understand that Spurs didn't spend any money on transfers in summer 2013!



I am trying to get my head around that one too. It amuses me when you get this constant, but Spurs spent £110 million, completely ignoring that it was other clubs money they spent from outgoing transfers, and in fact rather than spending any money, Spurs actually made a profit.

Sandy

I think accepting it blows a lot of their arguments out of the water. A bad case of selective use of the facts.

It just sounds better to laugh at Spurs by saying we spent money spent. Nothing we can do about it.


truth is people can say we invested badly but to say we Spend loads without taking into account what we recoup when we sell our players is very short-sighted by WUMs.

Yes Sandy as you are so fair when it comes to Liverpool's net spend are you not? Don't be daft.

NET spend is a mitigating circumstance but over £100m was spent by you and by us and that is a fact!

Rodgers has only spent £100m in 3 seasons. Top manager to deliver a title challenge on that.

Net spend is not a mitigating circumstance its a fact!!

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

So Rodgers is getting far too much stick then?

Spurs spent £100m last summer on players and then you have to add signing on fees and agent costs plus taxes. That is also a fact.

"So Rodgers is getting far too much stick then?"

No. Because of his 'we are not doing a Spurs' s-h-i-t-e.

Which ever way you slice it the out column says millions upon millions for both clubs. It is a fact that that amount was spent regardless of a P&L overview. You can argue semantics all you like but Spurs spent £100m last summer. They just did.

You have to be a complete numb-skull not to take net-spend into account. These fools that think Spurs should be climbing up the league because we’ve spent x amount since said date, are completely ignorant. If Tottenham’s net-spend was through the roof, you would maybe expect them to climb the league. Likewise, if the net-spend was negative, you’d expect them to fall down the league.

If you sell £100m worth of assets and replace them with £100m worth of other assets, this should not be used as a weapon to slate Spurs for not climbing the table. It’s just blatantly obvious, but so many fools just can’t get their heads around it.

I rest my case.

The out column still says millions. As said it's a mitigating circumstance I agree but the outgoings have enabled plenty of leverage in the transfer market and that has been poorly used.

If I set out to buy something for £100m, paid that, and it turns out to be worth £50m that's bad. Just because I managed to sell other assets that does not negate from the fact I spent £100m on £50m worth of goods.

If I see any of you on this thread talk about how Brendan and Kenny spent so much and that Carroll cost £35m I'm having ya for it!!!!

"Look at Tottenham, you spent £100million you should be challenging for the league"

B.Rodgers

Robbing_Hoody - Sometimes I choose my words carefully during a debate to suit my argument


Rodgers has only spent £100m in 3 seasons.




And that is £100 million more than Spurs. Good finally got there.