The Tottenham Thread 13/14 part 2.

[THFC6061]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

 

[SWP's back]

Interesting comment, in view of the fact that last season Spurs only conceded three more goals than League Champions Manchester United.

Even with these new signings, Spurs are no where near United's attack though, RvP, Rooney (for all this out talk he got some assists), Little Gimp and Welbeck is far superior to Spurs'. Lamela seems a bit of a pipe dream, don't think it'll happen but we'll see, be one of him or Pjanic leaving Roma. Willian won't offer loads in the goals department but he's a great option to open up a defence with his dribbling. Tottenham don't really have the attack to compete full time as their defence is still a bit leaky.

Ah... so it's not our defence that's no good.

It's our attack.

Both. If a defence is as porous as yours, then your attack needs to be a lot better. Very straightforward and simple to understand.

 

[117 M34]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

yep

 

[Marvin]

If there are 3-4 strong contenders then they will take points off each other.

Seems like Lemala is being linked with every club active in the transfer mkt. I don't rate him.

 

[SWP's back]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

There is a stronger top 3 or 4. The rest are shite.

 

[SkyBlueUSA]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

There is a stronger top 3 or 4. The rest are shite.

This, and the Spuds will be lucky to get 80 as someone earlier said. More like 74-78 for them.

 

[Citizenhill]

Interesting comment, in view of the fact that last season Spurs only conceded three more goals than League Champions Manchester United.

Even with these new signings, Spurs are no where near United's attack though, RvP, Rooney (for all this out talk he got some assists), Little Gimp and Welbeck is far superior to Spurs'. Lamela seems a bit of a pipe dream, don't think it'll happen but we'll see, be one of him or Pjanic leaving Roma. Willian won't offer loads in the goals department but he's a great option to open up a defence with his dribbling. Tottenham don't really have the attack to compete full time as their defence is still a bit leaky.

Ah... so it's not our defence that's no good.

It's our attack.

I didn't make the previous comment, but in essence, your squad isn't close to City, United's or Chelsea's.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

There is a stronger top 3 or 4. The rest are shite.

This, with the emphasis on the 3.
It's a three horse race.
Spurs may challenge for 4th, especially if Whinger signs nobody, and the dippers lose Chewy.
I would actually argue that the Premiership elite are further ahead of the pack than ever.
And the bookies agree, and they are seldom far wrong.

 

[metalblue]

All the papers agree you're spending the Bale money.

Still confident he is staying?

If Gareth Bale needed any convincing that Spurs are serious about challenging for the League Title, I don't think the club could have done any more during this summer's transfer window.

Yes, I still think he will stay.

Isn't this the first of 3 years where owners can write off a maximum of £105m in losses for the PLFFP? You've spent about half of that already, add Willian in and you're about there give or take £20m. Bale is gone, but you've spent the money well.

 

[Matty]

You see, that's the problem right there.

Spurs have spent nowhere near half a billion pounds to win our two trophies.

Why do you insist on disregarding the revenues we generated from selling players on and only count the players bought from the cash the sales generated?

You have still spent that money in trying to find a half decent team (and failing on the whole as proven by your high turnover of players.)

My point is that you're more than happy to count the £16,505,000 Spurs paid Dinamo Zagreb for Luka Modric, but not the £33,300,000 we received from Real Madrid for him.

To say that Spurs have spent half a billion pounds during the Premier League Era is simply false.

Our actual spend to date has been £175,309,820.

Quite a difference, I'm sure you'll agree?

No, you SPENT £500m or so.

If I go to the shop and buy a Mars Bar for £1, I've spent £1. Yes, I might go home and be convinced to sell it to my brother for £1.20, but I still SPENT £1 in order to get it.

The above analogy also holds true because, I never actually got to eat the Mars Bar. Spurs spent £16.5m on Modric, sold him for £32m, and never actually got to win anything worth a damn.

The point in spending money on a football team is to create a team that wins things, certainly when you're at the level Spurs are. Yes, you made a profit on Modric, but so what? You didn't win anything with him. Whether you sell at a profit, or you recoup some of your loses and sell him for less than you bought, the situation is still the same, you bought a player, he didn't win you anything, you sold a player.

 

[mancboy]

You have still spent that money in trying to find a half decent team (and failing on the whole as proven by your high turnover of players.)

My point is that you're more than happy to count the £16,505,000 Spurs paid Dinamo Zagreb for Luka Modric, but not the £33,300,000 we received from Real Madrid for him.

To say that Spurs have spent half a billion pounds during the Premier League Era is simply false.

Our actual spend to date has been £175,309,820.

Quite a difference, I'm sure you'll agree?

No, you SPENT £500m or so.

If I go to the shop and buy a Mars Bar for £1, I've spent £1. Yes, I might go home and be convinced to sell it to my brother for £1.20, but I still SPENT £1 in order to get it.

The above analogy also holds true because, I never actually got to eat the Mars Bar. Spurs spent £16.5m on Modric, sold him for £32m, and never actually got to win anything worth a damn.

The point in spending money on a football team is to create a team that wins things, certainly when you're at the level Spurs are. Yes, you made a profit on Modric, but so what? You didn't win anything with him. Whether you sell at a profit, or you recoup some of your loses and sell him for less than you bought, the situation is still the same, you bought a player, he didn't win you anything, you sold a player.

I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as theyll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience should definitley apply when having a conversation with THFC. If he doesnt work in PR i will be astounded as ive seen roundabouts spin less than him.

 

[THFC6061]

You have still spent that money in trying to find a half decent team (and failing on the whole as proven by your high turnover of players.)

My point is that you're more than happy to count the £16,505,000 Spurs paid Dinamo Zagreb for Luka Modric, but not the £33,300,000 we received from Real Madrid for him.

To say that Spurs have spent half a billion pounds during the Premier League Era is simply false.

Our actual spend to date has been £175,309,820.

Quite a difference, I'm sure you'll agree?

No, you SPENT £500m or so.

If I go to the shop and buy a Mars Bar for £1, I've spent £1. Yes, I might go home and be convinced to sell it to my brother for £1.20, but I still SPENT £1 in order to get it.

The above analogy also holds true because, I never actually got to eat the Mars Bar. Spurs spent £16.5m on Modric, sold him for £32m, and never actually got to win anything worth a damn.

The point in spending money on a football team is to create a team that wins things, certainly when you're at the level Spurs are. Yes, you made a profit on Modric, but so what? You didn't win anything with him. Whether you sell at a profit, or you recoup some of your loses and sell him for less than you bought, the situation is still the same, you bought a player, he didn't win you anything, you sold a player.

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

 

[mancboy]

My point is that you're more than happy to count the £16,505,000 Spurs paid Dinamo Zagreb for Luka Modric, but not the £33,300,000 we received from Real Madrid for him.

To say that Spurs have spent half a billion pounds during the Premier League Era is simply false.

Our actual spend to date has been £175,309,820.

Quite a difference, I'm sure you'll agree?

No, you SPENT £500m or so.

If I go to the shop and buy a Mars Bar for £1, I've spent £1. Yes, I might go home and be convinced to sell it to my brother for £1.20, but I still SPENT £1 in order to get it.

The above analogy also holds true because, I never actually got to eat the Mars Bar. Spurs spent £16.5m on Modric, sold him for £32m, and never actually got to win anything worth a damn.

The point in spending money on a football team is to create a team that wins things, certainly when you're at the level Spurs are. Yes, you made a profit on Modric, but so what? You didn't win anything with him. Whether you sell at a profit, or you recoup some of your loses and sell him for less than you bought, the situation is still the same, you bought a player, he didn't win you anything, you sold a player.

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

 

[THFC6061]

No, you SPENT £500m or so.

If I go to the shop and buy a Mars Bar for £1, I've spent £1. Yes, I might go home and be convinced to sell it to my brother for £1.20, but I still SPENT £1 in order to get it.

The above analogy also holds true because, I never actually got to eat the Mars Bar. Spurs spent £16.5m on Modric, sold him for £32m, and never actually got to win anything worth a damn.

The point in spending money on a football team is to create a team that wins things, certainly when you're at the level Spurs are. Yes, you made a profit on Modric, but so what? You didn't win anything with him. Whether you sell at a profit, or you recoup some of your loses and sell him for less than you bought, the situation is still the same, you bought a player, he didn't win you anything, you sold a player.

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

OK, Let's move from the football field to the casino.

I walk-in and buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then walk-out of the casino.

Have I spent £300?

 

[squirtyflower]

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

OK, Let's move from the football field to the casino.

I walk-in and buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then walk-out of the casino.

Have I spent £300?

you've certainly won fuck all with it, so why bother going in the casino in the first place

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I think with quality around the Prem, probably looking at 90 points to win it this year

Wouldn't a stronger Premier League suggest fewer points to the Champions, not more?

yep

Not in my world

 

[Matty]

Interesting comment, in view of the fact that last season Spurs only conceded three more goals than League Champions Manchester United.

Even with these new signings, Spurs are no where near United's attack though, RvP, Rooney (for all this out talk he got some assists), Little Gimp and Welbeck is far superior to Spurs'. Lamela seems a bit of a pipe dream, don't think it'll happen but we'll see, be one of him or Pjanic leaving Roma. Willian won't offer loads in the goals department but he's a great option to open up a defence with his dribbling. Tottenham don't really have the attack to compete full time as their defence is still a bit leaky.

Ah... so it's not our defence that's no good.

It's our attack.

No, it's your defence.

Nice selective use of statistics there though. "only conceded three more goals than League Champions Manchester United". True. However, United also conceded more goals than Chelsea. And City. And Arsenal. And Everton And the same as Liverpool.

You see, it wasn't a top quality defence that won United the title, as they didn't have a top quality defence, they had a comparatively poor defence. It was the fact they that United scored 11 more goals than the next highest scorers, and 20 more goals than City. They got away with a poor defence by being extremely high scorers themselves. Spurs didn't. Spurs goals difference was +20, United's was +43, THAT'S the difference. City, Chelsea and Arsenal's goal difference was +32, +36 and +35 respectively, also substantially higher than Spurs.

 

[SWP's back]

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

OK, Let's move from the football field to the casino.

I walk-in and buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then walk-out of the casino.

Have I spent £300?

you've certainly won fuck all with it, so why bother going in the casino in the first place

exactly

 

[mancboy]

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

OK, Let's move from the football field to the casino.

I walk-in and buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then walk-out of the casino.

Have I spent £300?

That is quite possibly the worst analogy i have ever seen in my entire life. You cannot use that analogy in anyway shape or form for an argument because then your getting into cash flow in and out of the club. You're using an analogy where an asset value is completely fixed and known against a system where an asset value is continually fluctuating based on a number of things so your analogy just goes completely out of the window. Basically if you want to simplify the only thing you can do is say over a period of time, you have this much money and recouped this much money which is what i did and then you put a nonsense analogy to confuse the situation because you know your argument is failing it is a tactic women use on a daily basis, i will say something completely unrelated to the argument because it will confuse and people will just give in out of boredom so please mate give it a rest and try again with an analogy that actually makes a modicum of sense.

 

[the talisman]

So you're tying to say that Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and allowing him to leave on a free is exactly the same as Spurs paying £16,505,000 for Modric and later selling him for £33,300,000?

You might want to think that out a bit more.

No m8 what he is saying is spend is spend, you're talking net spend, he is talking total spend, its 2 different things you're coming at it from your angle he is coming at it from his and both have valid points, your net spend is 180m or their abouts is what you're saying and thats fine but spend is spend which ever way you slice it. If you have spent 500m and recouped 320m of that then some would see that as good business and balancing the books others would see it as 180m spent on winning nothing, it all depends on whether you take a pro spurs viewpoint such as yourself or an anti spurs or realistic viewpoint such as the majority of people. So you might want to rethink your attitude a little bit to.

OK, Let's move from the football field to the casino.

I walk-in and buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then buy £100 worth of chips.

I then cash-in the chips in for £100.

I then walk-out of the casino.

Have I spent £300?

No, but you've just annoyed the cashier almost as much as you're annoying everyone on here