Dealing with the great expectations

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Spursinho said:
When a company 'invests', it means it buys an asset. In our case this would be players, training facilities, stadiums etc. So net spend on transfers is actually pretty irrelevant when it comes to investment, per se.
I think Juicy Sushi Juicy Sushi confuses things when he goes on to talk about asset appreciation though, as this is also irrelevant to investment
Click to expand...
I might be, but given the main asset of the club is the squad, player development matters, both on pitch for results, and off-pitch when selling them later, doesn't it?

Football clubs aren't quite conventional businesses.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
I might be, but given the main asset of the club is the squad, player development matters, both on pitch for results, and off-pitch when selling them later, doesn't it?

Football clubs aren't quite conventional businesses.
Click to expand...
It matters for sure, in terms of the clubs net assets. But you could invest a million pounds in a worthless bean. You would have zero net assets but still have invested a million pounds. But I agree with your essential point that Levy felt that selling an asset - Bale, and reinvesting the capital in 7 less valuable assets would eventuality increase our balance sheet. Although I am not convinced he was right.
 
FightingIllini said:
In the vacuum of that window, absolutely. When you zoom out and realize their ascension to the Premier League involved consecutive seasons of 30+ million pound net spends, it looks quite different.

You make a very good point in focusing on wage bills, as those are the larger part of the overall squad budget for most teams in most seasons and do correlate much more strongly with success, but in general you can't appreciate one without the other.

If I could go back in time and spend the money that has been bled out of the club in the transfer market, I probably wouldn't invest it in incoming players at all. I'd make wage offers to Gareth Bale and Luka Modric that exceeded what Real Madrid were willing to pay. That would likely be worth more points than whatever that money could have brought in the transfer market.

But one way or another, every marginal extra pound you spend on your squad is a positive, and every marginal pound you don't spend is one that could have helped you.

If all of Tottenham's profits are being plunged into stadium financing, training facilities, and youth development, I think that's brilliant. I think those are exactly the type of competitive moves a club that isn't yet as rich as the clubs it wants to move ahead of should be making. But the proof is going to be in the pudding with those things. If we have a squad cost like Woolwich when our stadium starts producing matchday income like Woolwich, as well as the financial firepower to attract stars like Woolwich, then Levy will look like a genius.

I refuse to be called a melty cunt, however, for pointing out the myriad reasons for us to doubt that that's where we're actually headed.
Click to expand...
While I can appreciate your sentiment about wages, Bale and Modric didn't leave because we weren't willing to pay them, they left because we weren't big enough to win enough.

The point about Southampton still stands though. They've spent less than they've made, but if they're buying better players for cheaper prices than they're selling old players for, is that a lack of investment, or is it Liverpool and Man Utd being complete idiots for spending way more than they should?
 
Spursinho said:
It matters for sure, in terms of the clubs net assets. But you could invest a million pounds in a worthless bean. You would have zero net assets but still have invested a million pounds. But I agree with your essential point that Levy felt that selling an asset - Bale, and reinvesting the capital in 7 less valuable assets would eventuality increase our balance sheet. Although I am not convinced he was right.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about the balance sheet. I think they felt that since they couldn't keep Bale, re-investing the money in more players would give a deeper, more competitive squad. As it stands, they bought (mostly) the wrong players.

That's a separate argument. But I think the net spend argument is incorrect, as it looks just at money, rather than what's actually going on, which is trading of talent to try and get a more competitive team.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
I don't think it's about the balance sheet. I think they felt that since they couldn't keep Bale, re-investing the money in more players would give a deeper, more competitive squad. As it stands, they bought (mostly) the wrong players.

That's a separate argument. But I think the net spend argument is incorrect, as it looks just at money, rather than what's actually going on, which is trading of talent to try and get a more competitive team.
Click to expand...
I agree that he thinks he can sell high and buy low, and that through this wheeling and dealing we will actually come out better off. And I have to say he has largely been very successful at it. However, there are certain players, such as Bale and Modric, that are really once in a generation players and no matter how much wheeling and dealing you do you wont replace them. However, that's a moot point really as we couldn't have kept hold of them even if we really, really wanted to.
 
FightingIllini said:
That may be true. But it's hard to know when we know that we didn't offer them Real-sized wages.
Click to expand...
Well, for Bale that's apparently £15 million. Or £288,000 a week. So were we supposed to pay him £20 million? That would have been 20% of the squad's total wages, on one guy.

That's not impossible, but that is like 4 Harry Kanes. At some point, are you really using the money wisely?
 
FightingIllini said:
No they haven't. In their four seasons since joining the Premier League, their net spend is over 30 million pounds.

Over the same period, Tottenham has sold off a net of 31 million pounds.
Click to expand...
Why are you only measuring it since their return to the Premier League? But, going back to my point, why does it matter? You claim that the negative spend represents a lack of investment. Is buying Mane as a replacement for Lallana a lack of investment? Is he a worse player? Is Lallana really worth double what Mane cost?

That's why the net spend argument makes no sense. It's not about the dollar value, it's about what talent you bring in to replace talent who leaves. If someone's an idiot who gives you double the money you need to pay to get a better replacement you're not failing to invest in your squad. You're benefitting from other people's ignorance of what value is.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
Well, for Bale that's apparently £15 million. Or £288,000 a week. So were we supposed to pay him £20 million? That would have been 20% of the squad's total wages, on one guy.

That's not impossible, but that is like 4 Harry Kanes. At some point, are you really using the money wisely?
Click to expand...

We spent 26 million plus on just the transfer fee to replace Bale with Lamela.

If you have a sure-thing superstar that already fits in at your club, that's worth a ton of money, IMO.

But hey, if you decide you have to sell, you go out and do the best you can. 85 million or whatever it was is pretty tough to turn down. It's a lot easier to turn down if you're not going to turn around and reinvest it.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
That's why the net spend argument makes no sense. It's not about the dollar value, it's about what talent you bring in to replace talent who leaves. If someone's an idiot who gives you double the money you need to pay to get a better replacement you're not failing to invest in your squad. You're benefitting from other people's ignorance of what value is.
Click to expand...

You're benefiting from the ignorance either way. If you turn around and spend all of that money (plus whatever you have budgeted for player acquisitions) on going and getting the best possible replacements, that's investment.

If you turn around and spend half on a replacement and save the remainder for the next season to shore up another position (in addition to your existing player acquisition budget), that's investment.

If you turn around and spend half on the next fucking Maradona through sheer scouting brilliance and pocket the rest, that's not investment. It doesn't matter how much better the club gets. You took money out of the club that could be used on making it better than whatever the established baseline you have set is.

This isn't that complicated. You're totally conflating sensible transfer business on a micro level and squad investment on a macro level.

Sensible transfer business is largely the responsibility of the football-side technical staff, at least it should be. Squad investment is totally on ownership.
 
Our net spend was quite high culminating in the CL run, then it drops off to nothing. make of that what you will.

image.png
 
FightingIllini said:
You're benefiting from the ignorance either way. If you turn around and spend all of that money (plus whatever you have budgeted for player acquisitions) on going and getting the best possible replacements, that's investment.

If you turn around and spend half on a replacement and save the remainder for the next season to shore up another position (in addition to your existing player acquisition budget), that's investment.

If you turn around and spend half on the next fucking Maradona through sheer scouting brilliance and pocket the rest, that's not investment. It doesn't matter how much better the club gets. You took money out of the club that could be used on making it better than whatever the established baseline you have set is.

This isn't that complicated. You're totally conflating sensible transfer business on a micro level and squad investment on a macro level.

Sensible transfer business is largely the responsibility of the football-side technical staff, at least it should be. Squad investment is totally on ownership.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I completely disagree with this. The money can be spent in other ways, like higher wages to retain key players, or in developing the Academy. There are multiple ways to invest in a club, and transfer spending is not the only way to build a competitive team. And the measuring of investment by net transfer spend, when that has zero relationship to on pitch success, is completely inaccurate. It's a mono-focus on one aspect that's particularly unimportant.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
Sorry, I completely disagree with this. The money can be spent in other ways, like higher wages to retain key players, or in developing the Academy. There are multiple ways to invest in a club, and transfer spending is not the only way to build a competitive team. And the measuring of investment by net transfer spend, when that has zero relationship to on pitch success, is completely inaccurate. It's a mono-focus on one aspect that's particularly unimportant.
Click to expand...

We spent money to get into the CL - we had the best years of our lives, and you're reducing it to a "mono-focus" and all the other bullshit stuff you come out with.

The club showed ambition in the years up to the CL run, that ambition was (inconveniently for you) reflected in the team's performances on the pitch - culminating in getting to the last 8 in the CL. Since then, a lack of spending (ambition) has found many of our fans a bit disillusioned. Can't you just accept that, rather than witter on all night like you have been? Look at the table I posted - argue that away, rather than trying to win some bullshit college debate for your own ego. It's quite obvious - when we risked spending some money - we had some success. What happened in 2007-8? £63.5m spent. What happened 2 years later? Top 4. What happened after that? Blokes like you put yourselves before the argument - why not breathe easy once in a while? We're a football club in the middle of a football free for all. Don't blame people for getting shirty.

One thing I have seen on here in the last few days is: 'When the stadium is built, it will all be different. But it won't will it? We'll have to pay for it then, and that will be the excuse for the next 10 years. We need to compete now, before the stadium bites hard. Anyway Enic will be gone by then.
 
Last edited:
Joe Clash said:
One thing I have seen on here in the last few days is: 'When the stadium is built, it will all be different. But it won't will it? We'll have to pay for it then, and that will be the excuse for the next 10 years. We need to compete now, before the stadium bites hard. Anyway Enic will be gone by then.
Click to expand...

Brav-fucking-O
 
Juicy Sushi said:
Sorry, I completely disagree with this. The money can be spent in other ways, like higher wages to retain key players, or in developing the Academy. There are multiple ways to invest in a club, and transfer spending is not the only way to build a competitive team.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding me. I totally agree with this. In fact, I think you and I probably would agree that retaining your existing players by upping their wages, building world class facilities, and operating a world class youth setup are probably better values points-per-pound than the transfer market. But the money has to go SOMEWHERE.

You claim there's no extra money laying around at Spurs. Unless it's ticketed for transfers we're yet to make, or stadium construction that has yet to see shovel meet ground, you're simply incorrect. That's the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom