The Tottenham Thread (Merged)

[JimB]

apologies to the spurs fans on here, i did not know how long you had some of your key players out for!! obviously i want city to win the league but i wish you all the best.

i think we should be true to ourselves here. i dont think both sides will have ever have an easier run at the title due to the fact united, chelsea and arsenal are going through transitional stages and esecially united who are ravaged with injuries. if these sides were at the quality we are used to seeing from them i think our title hopes for both city and spurs would be much harder..

i think spurs wil find it much harder to compete when united, chelsea and arsenal are back to normal than city as city can compete financially and better on the squad front. what happens when/if redknapp leaves for england??

this brilliant spurs run in my opinion is short term!

Could well be right, I'm afraid.

With City's funding, you ought to be able to stay at or near the top for the foreseeable future. Whatever happens this season, you'll have plenty more chances to win the Premier League.

Spurs will find it much more difficult. Will all depend on how long Harry stays and who eventually replaces him.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Am I being a moron here, why are we fourth in the 2nd one when Man United's net transfer spend is higher?

Most will know I'm not here to talk money/football but I don't think 5th highest net spenders is bad going, I think we've learnt a lot and will not go throwing 14m at the next David Bentley as we have been burnt in the past. The Likes of Livermore Caulker Naughton Walker Rose (I know they're not all academy products) will hopefully save us from having massive splurges in the future.

Because you've spent the majority of your money since 2003 like we have since 2008, but had it not been for most of Mark Hughes' buys we wouldn't be anywhere near the £600M net mark, this isn't Mancini's fault nor is it our owners they believed Mark Hughes had the ability to prove his worth to the club as a top class professional manager they didn't know he'd spend £200+M on utter shite!! He spent very little at Blackburn and was very successful but as soon as money was in the jar he just went fuckin' AWOL.

I just think it's highly disrespectful for someone like Redknapp to come out and stick his 2p in, it's 20 games into the season and everyone is bangaing on about it being a 3 horse title race?? just a game shy left of half a season left far to early to be saying this crap as a loss to Chelsea, United, City and Liverpool could easily see Tottenham drop out the top 4 then you're left with a demoralized team with egg on their face's..

This is why I love Mancini so much when talking about other clubs as he plays down our title chances and remains respectful of the opponents i.e against United when he said regardless of the result they are still the better club, none of this comparing money spent "oh well if you look at the figures" then start banging on about how we've had to spend so much compared to our opponents as price inflation has taken it's toll since the late 90's I'd think just fuckin shut up and praise our own team....

No denying Redknapp has done a bang up job at Spurs, but I'd love to see him do it at City under the pressure Mancini has had to endure whilst been at City he would of left as soon as he was given targets... And last thing Mancini needs, is twats like this tax dodging prick banging on about the way we and Mancini operate... Yes Redknapp has spent half of what Mancini has but Mancini has gotten us in the same position in half the amount of time with double the amount of pressure..

 

[Speaker]

Bit fed up with Harry tbh in todays papers harking on about how well spuds are doing having spent a fraction of what City have..

The money we spent allowed us to buy Adebayor and his 'loan' to spuds has helped them achieve the position they are in..

can anyone see the irony of Harrys statement ??

Funny how Redknapp goes on like Tottenham haven't spent anything.... They're in the over-all top 5 spenders in the league since the Prem started..

Net Spend 92 - 2011
1 Chelsea £729,240,000
2 Manchester City £655,180,000
3 Liverpool £552,105,000
4 Manchester United £483,150,000
5 Tottenham £407,050,000

Net Spend 03 - 2011
1 Chelsea £592,300,000
2 Manchester City £557,220,000
3 Liverpool £392,980,000
4 Tottenham £303,400,000
5 Manchester United £317,250,000

Doesn't that just kind of prove his point? That it will be difficult to get 1st place when you have spent the 5th most amount of money. And does what a team spent in 1992 have much bearing on their justifiable league position 20 years later?

 

[spurspinter1]

Whoa! As I said, not getting in to this debate. Look at the 2nd table you posted and it has us in 4th when utd's net spend is highers, therefore we should be in 5th, that's all I was pointing out. Am I right or am I being an idiot?

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Bit fed up with Harry tbh in todays papers harking on about how well spuds are doing having spent a fraction of what City have..

The money we spent allowed us to buy Adebayor and his 'loan' to spuds has helped them achieve the position they are in..

can anyone see the irony of Harrys statement ??

Funny how Redknapp goes on like Tottenham haven't spent anything.... They're in the over-all top 5 spenders in the league since the Prem started..

Net Spend 92 - 2011
1 Chelsea £729,240,000
2 Manchester City £655,180,000
3 Liverpool £552,105,000
4 Manchester United £483,150,000
5 Tottenham £407,050,000

Net Spend 03 - 2011
1 Chelsea £592,300,000
2 Manchester City £557,220,000
3 Liverpool £392,980,000
4 Tottenham £303,400,000
5 Manchester United £317,250,000

Doesn't that just kind of prove his point? That it will be difficult to get 1st place when you have spent the 5th most amount of money. And does what a team spent in 1992 have much bearing on their justifiable league position 20 years later?

Redknapp - "We have not done it that way and it makes me proud." "You don't have to go out and spend fortunes to find good players." Well £250M less then us and I guess if you cut out most of the buys Mark Hughes made that were a waste that gap would close pretty damn quickly... Also these figures prove why bang on about how they're achieving so much having spent less then us and why not how they are ABOVE Chelsea having spent less then them?? It has nothing to do with the money we've spent or the money they haven't (apparently) but that Redknapp is trying to out smart Mancini and if all goes tits up will look like a bigger **** then he already is.

-- Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm --

Whoa! As I said, not getting in to this debate. Look at the 2nd table you posted and it has us in 4th when utd's net spend is highers, therefore we should be in 5th, that's all I was pointing out. Am I right or am I being an idiot?

Sorry to answer your question it's because United's selling gross was higher that year making their per season gross better then yours....

here is the link to explain it better <a class="postlink" href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transferleague.co.uk/</a>

 

[Speaker]

Funny how Redknapp goes on like Tottenham haven't spent anything.... They're in the over-all top 5 spenders in the league since the Prem started..

Net Spend 92 - 2011
1 Chelsea £729,240,000
2 Manchester City £655,180,000
3 Liverpool £552,105,000
4 Manchester United £483,150,000
5 Tottenham £407,050,000

Net Spend 03 - 2011
1 Chelsea £592,300,000
2 Manchester City £557,220,000
3 Liverpool £392,980,000
4 Tottenham £303,400,000
5 Manchester United £317,250,000

Doesn't that just kind of prove his point? That it will be difficult to get 1st place when you have spent the 5th most amount of money. And does what a team spent in 1992 have much bearing on their justifiable league position 20 years later?

Redknapp - "We have not done it that way and it makes me proud." "You don't have to go out and spend fortunes to find good players." Well £250M less then us and I guess if you cut out most of the buys Mark Hughes made that were a waste that gap would close pretty damn quickly... Also these figures prove why bang on about how they're achieving so much having spent less then us and why not how they are ABOVE Chelsea having spent less then them?? It has nothing to do with the money we've spent or the money they haven't (apparently) but that Redknapp is trying to out smart Mancini and if all goes tits up will look like a bigger **** then he already is.

Tbh i barely understood what you just said, but to the original question, do those figures not prove his point? And he is not trying to "outsmart" Mancini, he is doing it to cover his arse. IF we win the league then "wow good ole 'Arry did it on a shoe string budget", if we don't win it (which i don't think we will) then it's "oh wow 'Arry did so well, he just couldn't compete with the spending of the clubs around him, who can blame him!". Win/Win for 'Arry.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Doesn't that just kind of prove his point? That it will be difficult to get 1st place when you have spent the 5th most amount of money. And does what a team spent in 1992 have much bearing on their justifiable league position 20 years later?

Redknapp - "We have not done it that way and it makes me proud." "You don't have to go out and spend fortunes to find good players." Well £250M less then us and I guess if you cut out most of the buys Mark Hughes made that were a waste that gap would close pretty damn quickly... Also these figures prove why bang on about how they're achieving so much having spent less then us and why not how they are ABOVE Chelsea having spent less then them?? It has nothing to do with the money we've spent or the money they haven't (apparently) but that Redknapp is trying to out smart Mancini and if all goes tits up will look like a bigger **** then he already is.

Tbh i barely understood what you just said, but to the original question, do those figures not prove his point? And he is not trying to "outsmart" Mancini, he is doing it to cover his arse. IF we win the league then "wow good ole 'Arry did it on a shoe string budget", if we don't win it (which i don't think we will) then it's "oh wow 'Arry did so well, he just couldn't compete with the spending of the clubs around him, who can blame him!". Win/Win for 'Arry.

In a nut shell Tottenham are as guilty as anyone else for spending they've been building a decent team since 2004 and had some good run in's in the prem finishing top 6.... Where as us (City) have had to build 2 teams with 2 different managers since 2008 cappible of winning the title in 2012 (2 years for each manager) So in fairness Tottenham have been years ahead of City in the way of building a decent team which is far more valuable then any amount of money....

I don't understand what you mean by covering his (Redknapp) own arse?? What pressure is he under?? He's over achieving surely if he was under-achieving then coming out to cover his arse would make sense... He said he wants top 4 he's 3rd so I don't know what he's trying to cover?

 

[Speaker]

Redknapp - "We have not done it that way and it makes me proud." "You don't have to go out and spend fortunes to find good players." Well £250M less then us and I guess if you cut out most of the buys Mark Hughes made that were a waste that gap would close pretty damn quickly... Also these figures prove why bang on about how they're achieving so much having spent less then us and why not how they are ABOVE Chelsea having spent less then them?? It has nothing to do with the money we've spent or the money they haven't (apparently) but that Redknapp is trying to out smart Mancini and if all goes tits up will look like a bigger **** then he already is.

Tbh i barely understood what you just said, but to the original question, do those figures not prove his point? And he is not trying to "outsmart" Mancini, he is doing it to cover his arse. IF we win the league then "wow good ole 'Arry did it on a shoe string budget", if we don't win it (which i don't think we will) then it's "oh wow 'Arry did so well, he just couldn't compete with the spending of the clubs around him, who can blame him!". Win/Win for 'Arry.

In a nut shell Tottenham are as guilty as anyone else for spending they've been building a decent team since 2004 and had some good run in's in the prem finishing top 6.... Where as us (City) have had to build 2 teams with 2 different managers since 2008 cappible of winning the title in 2012 (2 years for each manager) So in fairness Tottenham have been years ahead of City in the way of building a decent team which is far more valuable then any amount of money....

I don't understand what you mean by covering his (Redknapp) own arse?? What pressure is he under?? He's over achieving surely if he was under-achieving then coming out to cover his arse would make sense... He said he wants top 4 he's 3rd so I don't know what he's trying to cover?

I imagine 'Arry has one eye on the England job and doesn't want anything to harm his chances. With his court case already making him unpopular in the F.A a drop in form could kill his chances. If he keeps mentioning the money situation then no one will blame him for any failures when he goes in for that interview.

You're still missing the point, 'Arry is pointing out that we have spent LESS money than the teams around us. We've spent more than the likes of Stoke etc and that is probably why we are higher in the league than they are. However, he is just pointing to the fact that to win the league we are still way off what most teams would think is the required level of investment.

Money is of course a game changer, and anyone who says differently is just plain wrong. Platt just spoke some utter drivel to the media; "I don't know whether the money comes into it, I think it's irrelevant.". If money was irrelevant then Sven would have said "no thanks sheikh, i don't need your money, i've already got Richard Dunne".

I personally don't care about how a team gets their success, the average foot ball fan (utd fans aside) have to go through their fair share of shit, so if they get some lucky break then i say good luck to them. I'll never be bitter or blame a club for spending vast sums, it would be great if Spurs had a rich benefactor who was willing to pump millions in to the club, and i would absolutely love it!

But back to 'Arry's statement, although it sounds like whinging, there is nothing that he has said there that is actually wrong.

Oh, and we've been through our fair share of managers too, 6 in the last 9 years, so we haven't exactly had a smooth building process.

 

[BLUE PEANUT]

Twitcher's court case

When is honest 'arry due in court for tax evasion ???
Sure it was some point in the new year, and would have thought this would have some negative impact on him and Spuds.

 

[danebanksheik]

re Twitcher: very soon, i remember them saying it was the week before our game at the time he had his heart trouble?
Probably why he is getting all his digs in this week.