Or they could shine in a shit academy and be signed by Chelsea or Ctiy for shit loads of money and do fuck all for a couple of years but make a fortune?
-
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
you don't want the ones who do that
wrong mentality at a young age as the money will come either way with the right application
Disagree with this completely. What great youth players have come through our team exactly?
Rose, Carroll, Mason, Bentaleb, Townsend, Kane...am I missing anyone?
Out of those Mason is good (But only good) and Kane is a great prospect, the rest are either too young to tell (Bentaleb) or will never cut it (Rose, Townsend). I don't think we're any where near close to "depending" on the academy for 1st team players if this is anything to go by. Maybe in 5-10 years.
It's great to see youngsters coming through, but people seem to forget how many of them are complete rubbish and write offs. For every Kane there's a handful of Livermores (Okay, but not great) and a huge number of Bostock's.
However we have pumped a shit load of money into our youth facilities and training ground so if the staffing is right you would hope the level of youth player coming through would improve.
Depends on recruiting the right raw youth to begin with. Doesn't matter how good the facilities are if the player is average to begin with.
Which is where Mitchell comes in. His job is to recruit foreign youth into the academy. We could get some blinders and create a reputation for the academy, but not any time soon.
His problem is going to be that many youth prospects love 1) Money 2) Training for a huge club name. A lot of kids go to Chelsea and have their careers ruined and footballers are too thick to learn usually.
Even if it doesn't create top class footballers it still creates a steady amount or revenue which pays for itself. The new training complex reportedly cost us £30m. Livermore alone was £7m.
Caulker was £8m also. Half of it paid for right there.
Yes, signings for the academy. So I'm going to class them as youth..
This is simply great news if it's true
you miss the point completely
who have we bought lately that's better than the academy lads that have come through all the ones you listed, Caulker too
our academy is producing plenty of epl calibre talents here and else where, that's become evident over the past year or so
hence the point is we should only be going into the market for world class calibre players or special young talents like Eriksen
we'd have more money to spend on better players if we trusted more in our academy and youth squads to fill out the squad rather than blowing shit loads on players no better than the academy lads coming through
it all hinges on levy giving people the time to do their jobs though and our fans not turning WHL into a toxic waste dump that destroys confidence
We've bought complete shit for the past 2 years though, so that's pretty easy to say isn't it?
Davies is better than Rose.
Lamela is better than Townsend.
We've not bought a player in Mason/Carrolls/Bentalebs position lately for me to compare them to.
The only one I'll happily accept is Kane is better than Soldado. Most of our "EPL calibre talents" were moved on as we didn't think they were good enough; and they're not. Caulker got relegated and looks to be relegated again this year.
As for wasting money on average players, I agree. We've got a bloated squad as a result, but you seem to forget how many of these players we bought thinking they'd be amazing (Soldado, Paulinho etc). Also have to consider if a top player would ever even come here. Would Sanchez? Benzema? Doesn't matter how big our budget is, these players simply aren't going to join us.
Probably a language issue or he said we were better to begin with? The only interview I saw was where he said the biggest difference between the two teams was being clinical.
I tend to agree with that if kanes header had gone in could have been a diffrent game, Then you had lennons chance
Always wondered why that is, considering how good Eriksen is at taking free kicks...
But then I remember that it's rather difficult to take a 'direct' corner.
Visiting teams who first take the lead at Stamford Bridge often get savaged by Chelsea later on.
The flaw of Chelsea is that it gets complacent in easy games, they go on auto pilot mode. Scoring early game against them is like waking up an angry bear.
The return of the gillet!