Because that way they can pretend that the transfer fee is counted twice.
I'm counting when the price is agreed, the commitment is made, and the player is transferred permanently to the new club.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I'm counting when the price is agreed, the commitment is made, and the player is transferred permanently to the new club.
One side is saying that the transfer fees were counted twice, therefore we haven't invested as much into the team this season.
They discount the £90 odd million fee for Kulu and Porro from the net spend for this season.
Even though nobody, anywhere has counted that £90m in last year's spend.
The other side is intelligent.
TLDR:
Bald man bad.
Can't see any of this happening
Would require spending. You’re right.
Yeah we don't spend money at all, correct.
.
Most definitely! Many an example of short-termism gone awry in football and other professional sports. Not to mention the example of ManU still adrift and staring at another short-term solution once ETH is sacked. Some insightful folks even warned against exactly this happening for exactly these reasons...whereas some were happy to do it as long as their wall posters remained relevant.
Deuterz
No, in reality, I want to count the transfer related to the coach/project they were signed for.
That's why it doesn't make sense to count it like the accounting quirk a loan to buy is.
You actually WANT to count Pedro Porro as an Ange signing?
Steve is determined to have the last word on an argument. That's about it really. But he's wrong so I don't mind letting him have it.
stevee
you say that nobody counted the 90m for Kulu and Porro. I'd rather count them against Conte and remove as many excuses as possible for his bullshit. I'd also prefer that we count it in a way that at least entitles Ange to similar spending levels.
Most definitely! Many an example of short-termism gone awry in football and other professional sports. Not to mention the example of ManU still adrift and staring at another short-term solution once ETH is sacked. Some insightful folks even warned against exactly this happening for exactly these reasons...whereas some were happy to do it as long as their wall posters remained relevant.
I’m assuming this is a reference to Kane, the greatest striker that has ever been or ever will be.
Steve is determined to have the last word on an argument. That's about it really. But he's wrong so I don't mind letting him have it.
I'd also prefer that we count it in a way that at least entitles Ange to similar spending levels.
I get it now.
But why does it matter what manager you've counted the money for?
Well, he was the reason we had to 'win now', right? Unless you think we had to go for it before Dier and Dele lost their 'usefulness'...
Whether we like it or not, that's one of the ways a manager is judged.
Works both ways, we love to dig out Arteta for having 4 years AND half a billion to spend. Rightfully so.
At this early stage of Ange's tenure, attributing 90ish Million of Deki and Porro spending to him isn't an honest way of analyzing how well or badly he's done with transfers so far.
In terms of Levy and the club it makes very little difference because you average it out across managers, they are roughly the 5 biggest club in the prem, with probably the 6th biggest spending power and usually spend somewhere around the 7th highest net spend.
Having him & Son probably, yeah.
Don't try and throw Sonny into this...he's still here producing instead of organizing produce. Not to mention he was on a new contract at that time...AND is about to sign the rest of his career to us instead of big timing us.
And as per this thread, we don't need to worry about replacing Sonny. HK on the other hand...there's a whole plot of land between the margin of the center circle and the D lying fallow where it use to be occupied by an Oak.
No, I want to count the transfer fee from when the transfer was completed and not before.
Transfer was completed when the player joined, not when the books started showing the asset.
Porro was a loan with OBLIGATION to buy. the price was agreed, the commitment was made and the player joined. The way the accounts department counts it is totally irrelevant to anyone but the accounting dept. As far as fans are concerned, Porro joined the club in January.
Permanent transfer was completed when the players signed a permanent contract with us.
Not when a player joins on loan
It's not my fault that FA, UEFA, and FIFA rules do not go along with your opinion .
Blame them, not me.
What I want to know is do transfers in January count as Christmas presents?