comment by *Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
Spurs openly didnt spend two summers ago because of the stadium.

Liverpool didnt spend last summer because of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two problems with this.

Firstly, I’m not disputing that the stadium affects spend. I’m saying that the difference between the clubs operating budgets is not a hole that is filled by investment in the stadium.

Secondly, you have to take what Levy says with a pinch of salt. A lot of it is with one eye on potential investment.

Im not saying there's a direct parallel, that would be pedantic, but they could have increased their wage bill just as Liverpool have and probably to the same degree. I'd be amazed if we had spent what we have had Stanley Park gone ahead.

Spurs stadium was hundreds of millions, millions more on Wembley, millions lost on players running down their contracts and to my knowledge they've not once come close to breaking FFP and they've lucked out twice with 30 goal a season players in Bale and Kane.

So yeah they may not be Super European World Premier Champions but they probably wouldn't be getting turned over away to Shef Utd.

Sorry but you quite clearly suggested that it was a choice between doing what Liverpool did or going with the stadium, and that just isn’t right at all.

Some also seem to suggest that the two clubs were at the same fork in the road and just chose different paths - again, not remotely accurate.

Building new stadiums will affect transfer budgets but in the short term it won’t affect the fundamental differences between clubs like Spurs and clubs like Liverpool.

It’s a common misconception amongst fans.

Sigh, okay. They couldn't have increased their wage bill and not bought a new stadium and training facilities like Liverpool did.

Not sure what you’re sighing for - am I not allowed to say I think you’re wrong?

Yes they could have increased their wage/transfer budget temporarily, but not to match Liverpool and not long term.

Most of the financing for the stadium is debt. Not money they had sitting around that could have been allocated elsewhere.

I was just talking about the model used by both clubs.

If you think the stadium, training facilities and holding onto assets in players and then losing them for nothing hasn't altered what they can spend on wages and fees that's fine.

comment by *Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 16 seconds ago
I was just talking about the model used by both clubs.

If you think the stadium, training facilities and holding onto assets in players and then losing them for nothing hasn't altered what they can spend on wages and fees that's fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not already said it’s altered their operating budget.

The point was that it hasn’t been the difference between basically following Liverpool’s path, as you originally suggested.

I’ve already*

comment by *Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I�... (U6374)
posted 22 minutes ago
Sigh, okay. They couldn't have increased their wage bill and not bought a new stadium and training facilities like Liverpool did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston has been on one for about a week now attacking everybody and their opinions. Waste of time trying to have a debate when he's in this mood.

Spurs could have done what Liverpool did and LFC could have built a new stadium instead of redeveloping Anfield.
======

That's what I actually wrote and it was referencing the model. Doubtless I'll be informed that I meant something else though

Here we go. Out comes the personal stuff just because people cannot stand being corrected and actually learning something they didn’t know.

Robbing, ive tried to politely explain the points you have missed in your comparison.

You didn’t seem to even know how the stadium is paid for.

Now, I’m not blaming you for that. But once someone points it out, it’s okay to take that on board as something you didn’t previously know.

If you read back the discussion is clear. TOOR suggests that Spurs could have done what Liverpool have done and he is wrong, and you’re both oversimplifying the financials.

Funny though that you suggest I’m telling you what you meant, given you wrote this:


“If you think the stadium, training facilities and holding onto assets in players and then losing them for nothing hasn't altered what they can spend on wages and fees that's fine.”

Given I wrote literally the opposite, three times.

What is TOOR on about? Attacking people?



He’s been in a funny mood considering Liverpool have just won the title. Going round the forum insulting people... very angry. Not like him at all.

"I would like somebody who is young, innovative and progressive with lots of energy. We're not going to pinch any Managers from the elite clubs of Europe so we have to be realistic."

*****************************

No one who fits that bill will be stupid enough to work for Levy.
Be realistic!

Sandy is a massive

Either knows fook all about football or is just being a WUM. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion but not all opinions hold the same value. Wish he’d just stop posting, tired of everything on the spurs board revolving around his sheety views on Spurs. As if things aren’t bad enough...

Saha and Nelsen as co-managers

Nuno Espirito Santo.

Alan Pardew

I know some may say it's out there but what about Gareth Southgate?

His young worked wonders as England manager.

José already getting his performance review s peach ready.

"The numbers don't let you lie, of course they deserved. I think what they did is what you have to do. When you trust a manager, you trust. And it doesn't matter how you do in your first season, it doesn't matter how you do in your second season, you keep working because you believe in him so you keep working together. So if the results in the first seasons are not good, you improve.

"If the results in the second season are not good you keep improving, and you go to the third season, you go the fourth and of course when the manager is good, and the structure behind is good, and when they manage to do a collective work like they did the results arrive.

"So I think it's a great example for people that think in football everything is done in one week, one month or one year. So I double my compliments to them exactly because of the profile and the way they accepted it was a project, well done

All suggestions aside, I am willing to give Mourinho next season but we need to start showing signs of improvement if new signings come in, although he'll have my sympathy if we sell Kane and bring in someone nowhere near his quality.

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
All suggestions aside, I am willing to give Mourinho next season but we need to start showing signs of improvement if new signings come in, although he'll have my sympathy if we sell Kane and bring in someone nowhere near his quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough Spurtle, should be interesting to see whom he brings in if he can.

Eddie, look at Ole at the start of the year. Many were saying he wasn't good enough for United due to failing results, and fast forward to now with new signing Fernandes and they're flying and probably will get top 4.

Even though I think Mourinho is past his best, I will accept that things can change.

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 23 minutes ago
Eddie, look at Ole at the start of the year. Many were saying he wasn't good enough for United due to failing results, and fast forward to now with new signing Fernandes and they're flying and probably will get top 4.

Even though I think Mourinho is past his best, I will accept that things can change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------