The Tottenham Thread (Merged)

[stony]

I don't care, I know you City fans are very sensitive about this and I really didn't join this forum to discuss what an Arab Prince decides to do with his familys money. If you really think the "investment" made in Man City is value for money then that's fine but no football clubs really don't make money, the only time this country has seen massive profite by a football club of the kind to offset the "investment" and medium term liabilities that Man City have is when Arsenal sold off the properties in Islington that resulted from their redevelopment of Highbury.

Hey, I wasn't the one commenting on it, all I've done is handed you a soapbox to stand on and off you've gone. I'm sure you "don't care", similarly to my rag mates who can't stop talking about us. I'm not particularly interested in convincing you of anything.

Amazing how they get so precious about our "artificial investment" when they haven't said a fucking word about clubs like Wigan who are kept in the Prem via Dave Whelans wallet.

It's nothing but jealousy.

 

[Speaker]

I just cannot believe that Spurs are wheeling out the spending argument again. I just can't believe it.

No Spurs fan "rolled out the spending argument" in that exchange. Someone intimated that Spurs had underachieved in relation to their financial outlay over the past 20 years. All a Spurs fan did was point to the fact that our financial outlay over the last twenty years is actually about 6-7th highest in the league over that time, so consistent Champions League place finishes are not guaranteed.

Of course that is all completely farcical, and the we should have won the premier league at least 22 times in that period.

Edit: Money that an owner puts into a business is not known as an investment, it is known as 'Owners Equity', and is split in to two categories: 'risk capital', and 'liable capital'. Assuming that he won't make a return on his investment in to Man City is an outlandish claim, is it not something like only four clubs in the entire country run at a profit? (although those figures may be outdated). I highly doubt that the intangible asset of spreading knowledge about his country will ever see him fully recoup the one billion+ that he has spent.

As someone else rightly pointed out, I could not care less about Man Citys' or Chelseas' money. We were never in the position to buy the players that you bought with the money anyway. Even if you had no money it wasn't like we would have bought Torres, Mata, Toure, Silva, and Kompany.

 

[Manc in London]

No Spurs fan "rolled out the spending argument" in that exchange. Someone intimated that Spurs had underachieved in relation to their financial outlay over the past 20 years. All a Spurs fan did was point to the fact that our financial outlay over the last twenty years is actually about 6-7th highest in the league over that time, so consistent Champions League place finishes are not guaranteed.

Of course that is all completely farcical, and the we should have won the premier league at least 22 times in that period. .

Don't be silly. For the amount of Spurs have spent in each season, compared to other clubs, over the last 20 years, Spurs have been a relative failure. I sincerely doubt you have been 6th/7th biggest spenders in each of those seasons. Recently the club has tightened it's belt but you have splashed out plenty over the years.

There's nothing wrong with being a failure. We have been relative failures for many years. However, we accept that and have laughed, celebrated, whinged and cried about it. Spurs fans on internet forums give the impression the club they support has done marvellously, all things considering, during the last 20 years. The stats suggest otherwise.

Since Spurs last played in a FA Cup Final we have had the following make it to a final:
Arsenal
City/Us
Sheff Weds
Chelsea
Everton
Liverpool
Boro
Southampton
Millwall
Cardiff
Portsmouth
United

Still think it is harsh to say you have underachieved?

Even if you had no money it wasn't like we would have bought Torres, Mata, Toure, Silva, and Kompany.

Not sure what the point is that you are making but I thought I would mention that Kompany cost c£6m.

 

[AJ101]

No Spurs fan "rolled out the spending argument" in that exchange. Someone intimated that Spurs had underachieved in relation to their financial outlay over the past 20 years. All a Spurs fan did was point to the fact that our financial outlay over the last twenty years is actually about 6-7th highest in the league over that time, so consistent Champions League place finishes are not guaranteed.

Of course that is all completely farcical, and the we should have won the premier league at least 22 times in that period. .

Don't be silly. For the amount of Spurs have spent in each season, compared to other clubs, over the last 20 years, Spurs have been a relative failure. I sincerely doubt you have been 6th/7th biggest spenders in each of those seasons. Recently the club has tightened it's belt but you have splashed out plenty over the years.

There's nothing wrong with being a failure. We have been relative failures for many years. However, we accept that and have laughed, celebrated, whinged and cried about it. Spurs fans on internet forums give the impression the club they support has done marvellously, all things considering, during the last 20 years. The stats suggest otherwise.

Since Spurs last played in a FA Cup Final we have had the following make it to a final:
Arsenal
City/Us
Sheff Weds
Chelsea
Everton
Liverpool
Boro
Southampton
Millwall
Cardiff
Portsmouth
United

Still think it is harsh to say you have underachieved?

Even if you had no money it wasn't like we would have bought Torres, Mata, Toure, Silva, and Kompany.

Not sure what the point is that you are making but I thought I would mention that Kompany cost c£6m.

It's funny so many City fans see our strict wage as a massive barrier to competing at the top level but seem to think we've "splashed out plenty over the years". Transfer fees are a small part of most clubs spending, like I said in the thread earlier for the last 10 years we've always had a wage budget lower than Villa and for quite a few years lower than Newcastle and the odd year lower than other teams. When you take in to transfer spending in to consideration there probably is the odd year we'd have been the 5th highest spending team in the league and others we'd have been in the bottom 8 due to transfer profits. If Newcastle hadn't have been relegated then the spending of Newcastle, Villa and Spurs would have been pretty similar in the past 20 years.

You can say we've underachieved but not massively so, as you mention the FA Cup not one team has won it in the last 10 years(and probably only Everton since we've won it) without having a higher wage bill than us (the only one who was even close was Pompey).

Kompany was a good buy just before you were taken over, it goes to show you don't need massive money to get hold of world class players.

 

[Crouchinho]

Not sure why everyone brings up transfer fees. It's the oldest trick in the book amongst fans on the internet.

Football is not just about transfer fees. You have to include the wages in there too

United fans will boast they have a lower net spend than City, but they have been paying double and triple the amount of wages for twenty years. They must have spent close to 1 billion more pounds on wages.

Same with Arsenal and Spurs, their wages are almost double that of Spurs and has been since Wenger took over. While they have a low net spend they have spent almost half a billion pounds more in wages than Spurs, which is overlooked.

Our spending has always been within it's means. Sugar got us out of bankruptcy and got us to be 14th richest in the world in a few seasons (fans still hated him though) . We were never spending to win a title, just to keep us in the premier league.

While we'd make decent purchases like Ginola 2m, Neilsen 1.5m etc. We'd blow shit on 12m Rebrov, Thatcher 5m, Fox 4.5m etc. This happened all through the years with no title ambitions at all.

Now ambitions are high the spending has dramatically stopped, partly due to the stadium commitments and faliure to offload some of the deadwood at the club.

It just irks me that people complain about Spurs and City's spending when in reality the scouting and wages through the years has probably been very low in comparison to the likes of United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

[The Future's Blue]

Funny how we didn't have this conversation with Spurs fans a few seasons back, even funnier that they wouldn't have give a shit anyway and wouldn't have bothered with us.

You know why? Because they were above us, not only in the league.

Please don't talk about spending, you've out-done us for years but when we spend relatively successfully you seem to intimate that you've spent well, knowing you should've done better?

Don't get it.

 

[more lazy than useless]

On the subject of wages, and going back to something earlier (in connection with Eden Hazard) about players going to Spain on £85k/wk -so therefore Spurs could afford them- as far as I understand it things are slightly more complicated than that.

If a player wants £85k/wk as take home, then he needs to get net (ie the amount the club pays) that amount plus whatever he's going to pay in tax. That can be quite a substantial amount in the UK (is it about 50% now?) whereas in Spain (maybe not for much longer!) it's a much, much smaller percentage.

That makes it harder to attract top players to the PL. Was it Arshavin who got into a wrangle because he hadn't allowed for the tax rates?

 

[Pam]

I have long since stopped listening to deluded Spurs fans and their endless twaticisms.

 

[spurspinter1]

I have long since stopped listening to deluded Spurs fans and their endless twaticisms.

Then why do you post in Spurs related threads complaining about what us deluded Spurs fans have said?!

You're that bloke in Starbucks, bitching about how shit you think Starbucks is. If it bothers you that much stop going!

I swear we've had this conversation before...

 

[AJ101]

On the subject of wages, and going back to something earlier (in connection with Eden Hazard) about players going to Spain on £85k/wk -so therefore Spurs could afford them- as far as I understand it things are slightly more complicated than that.

If a player wants £85k/wk as take home, then he needs to get net (ie the amount the club pays) that amount plus whatever he's going to pay in tax. That can be quite a substantial amount in the UK (is it about 50% now?) whereas in Spain (maybe not for much longer!) it's a much, much smaller percentage.

That makes it harder to attract top players to the PL. Was it Arshavin who got into a wrangle because he hadn't allowed for the tax rates?

Yes it was Arshavin (well he was quite vocal about it anyway). The "Beckham" law was rescinded before Ozil moved to Real Madrid so he'll be paying over 40% tax in Spain (I think it's 43% but not 100% sure)although since the UK added the 50% tax rate his take home would be slightly higher over there for the same gross salary but not the kind of difference as it would have been when the "Beckham" law was in effect.