James

My team: Cech Lahm Bosingwa Abidal Zambrotta Ribery Kranjcar Xavi Torres Gomez Pogrebnyak Sub: Sebastian Larsson

To be honest, it would be a bit of a hoot if that is the best deal Hicks will sanction.

Today people.

Our defence was OK when we took the pressure off them and allowed them a chance to settle. Don't think it will be if we go back to 442 to be honest. There are numerous ways probably to deal with this that don't involve Shearer or Bellamy, but it is an issue that will need sorting. how does 443 mean our defense plays really well and 442 means that they fall into a disorginised rubble exactly? beye, faye, taylor and enrique is a good defence. not brilliant but solid, and as long as we can keep the ball next season they should perform alright. a lot of teams play 442 in this league and i'm sure they are not blaming that on any defensive frailties that they face. i'm equally sure that there is nothing in beye, feye, taylor and enrique which makes them very good at defending in a 433 formation but shite in a 442 formation. Defending is not just about the back four but the protection in front of it. I don't think we have a combination of players in a 4 man midfield who can provide the protection needed.

I thought Shepherd became chairman in all but name after getting Shearer here due to SJH's ill health?

Do your history. You're blaming Shepherd when he wasn't the chairman. Sort of proves my point that someone (Dave?) has just questioned. Thanks. Fact is, he didn't want to leave us and play for his boyhood team. Think about it. Shepherd's chairmanship: 1996-1998, 1999-2007 Ferdinand was sold in 1997. Think about it.

Our defence was OK when we took the pressure off them and allowed them a chance to settle. Don't think it will be if we go back to 442 to be honest. There are numerous ways probably to deal with this that don't involve Shearer or Bellamy, but it is an issue that will need sorting.

For years though we've not had a solid base to rely on. I'm not disputing that attacking from the front is effective, but I feel we achieved under Robson despite the defence, not thanks to it. With Enrique, Faye, Taylor, Beye and Harper in the defence I think we have as solid a look as we have for a long time; it's a complete defence, with no outstanding weak links. Got to thank Allardyce for three of those too. This summer we need to make sure we are as formidable going forward, and that means targetting and bringing in players who can create and score goals. 100% agree. It was literally the defense that needed sorting - it was such a strange situation - i could and will never understand why not a sinslge manager chose to really bulk up the defence and add real quality - we easily had one of the best attacking units in the prem. Really frustrating in hindsight. I would have thought it had something to do with not agreeing reasonable fees for Miguel and Seitaridis because a certain individual had his eyes on a cheaper car in another lot.

I thought everyone except Freddy Shepherd didn't want Ferdinand to go to Spurs for £6m?

For years though we've not had a solid base to rely on. I'm not disputing that attacking from the front is effective, but I feel we achieved under Robson despite the defence, not thanks to it. With Enrique, Faye, Taylor, Beye and Harper in the defence I think we have as solid a look as we have for a long time; it's a complete defence, with no outstanding weak links. Got to thank Allardyce for three of those too. This summer we need to make sure we are as formidable going forward, and that means targetting and bringing in players who can create and score goals. We showed last season that better defenders doesn't equal a better defence. Yes, we need players who can attack and score and create, but we need these players to do a defensive shift as well, as that is the best way to stop our opponents performing when they have the ball. For example, Tevez has been integral to Ronaldo's form this season.

Perhaps, but they had better players behind them, whereas Shearer and Bellamy were carrying a gifted but flawed team.

Bugger. At least Gemmill looked more stupid.

Hey, you're right! Only we do need another forward

*Checks thread for embarrassing posts. *Breathes sigh of relief.

There is a sell on clause of 10%, but that is totally independent of the 20% financial rights which mean that Barca part own dos Santos for the next two years and therefore have some say over the dealings for that playerin a manner which is not likely to be made public. Same with Modric. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - 3rd party influence over transfers is not allowed under Premiership rules (as with the West Ham case), and I can't see even Spurs being stupid enough to sign a deal which breaks these rules after the West Ham affair. The bolded Barca statement reads to me as a 20% sell-on clause in his first 2 years, going down to a 10% clause after that. (Btw, that's also how the BBC sees it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7440216.stm) I think your opinions on these two deals are both based on the hope that one of our main current Premiership rivals haven't done two good deals rather than whatever the underlying truth might be. See, im convinced that there was something in the Spurs Modric deal which made it more appelaing to the mamic brothers- the transfer just doesnt make sense otherwise and as it seems that spurs ARE actualy willing to include sell on clauses etc (despite what our spurs ITK posters say) it would sugest to me that James isnt too far from the truth although im not sure where he's plucked the 'forced acceptance' bit from. Im so curious to know what the actual deal was here, even if the truth is as mundane and unrealisitic as the Mamic brothers choosing the best career choice for Modric at the expense of more money for them... He choose them because they have European football and are based in London, also maybe Eduardo being in London had an influence. I don't think there is anything else to the transfer. He had no choice. The Mamic brothers told him where to go and he went. They owned him. Modric played no part in the negotiations.

Well can you ever remember him being beaten at the near post in his ten years here?

Shearer was world class at defending set pieces on the near post as well. Who does that these days?

One of the successes of the Sir Bobby era was the Shearer and Bellamy partnership. We could dwell on their attacking ability, but there was another side of their game that was much less attractive but just as important to our relative success. In Bellamy, we had a player who would work his socks off chasing lost causes and not allowing the opposition to dwell on the ball. This would affect our opponents causing them problems in retaining possession, and pressure would therefore be taken off our defenders as a lot of their time would be spent mopping up loose balls, rather than have to defend raggedly against precision playing opposition. Meanwhile, in Shearer we had a cynical player. There is no doubt that the cynical side of his game affected the concentration of many defenders, and he knew perfectly well that when he loses the ball (which happens to all strikers a fair deal) a little push or nudge would force the ref to blow, allowing the team to regroup. Interestingly, we were difficult to play against for most teams, although a few of the better teams were able to brush us aside much like they still do now. The reason of course was more composed and focused defenders, and in reality we always had the same team weaknesses, only Shearer and Bellamy could do a job at covering up against the majority of opponents. We aren't going to get another Shearer, although perhaps we could find someone a little more cynical to play up top. There are a few Bellamys out there, but they've been mopped up by other clubs. If we got enough cutting edge in other areas, Dirk Kuyt would certainly interest me if he became available.

Only four people have joined the prediction league so far. Predictions need to be in before tomorrow peeps. http://en.predictor.euro2008.uefa.com/ Name: Newcastle-Online — Code to join this league: 34220-2304

Gerrard and Rooney are better at the defensive stuff compared to others in their position to be fair.

I'm less worried about chairmen doing the conga, and more worried about chairmen offering to carry star players to other clubs.

If the coach is going through Leeds, I think I will definitely try and use it a few times next season.

sorry to bring this up again but i can se this being something that put Spurs in a better position than us to sign modric. Aye, my understanding was that there was a sell on clause, and if a bid of so much was made within the first few seasons, Spurs have to accept it with Dinamo/Barcelona keeping a larger percentage of the profits. For example: Modric, Spurs sign for £16m. Club X bid £20m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £16m, Dinamo get £4m. Therefore Dinamo get £20m which is more than our £18m bid. dos Santos,Spurs sign for £6m. Club X bid £10m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £8m, Barcelona get £2m. Except you seem to have pulled the bit where Spurs have to accept a bid of a certain amount out of thin air. The sell-on clauses with the Barca deal are documented on their site, but there's no mention of a minimum clause in his Spurs contract. Spot on. James you said something about a minimum release clause before, NOT a sell on clause. I've said both before. Unless Modric and dos Santos choose to stay for X number of years, you don't own them and are pretty much a shop window club.

sorry to bring this up again but i can se this being something that put Spurs in a better position than us to sign modric. Aye, my understanding was that there was a sell on clause, and if a bid of so much was made within the first few seasons, Spurs have to accept it with Dinamo/Barcelona keeping a larger percentage of the profits. For example: Modric, Spurs sign for £16m. Club X bid £20m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £16m, Dinamo get £4m. Therefore Dinamo get £20m which is more than our £18m bid. dos Santos,Spurs sign for £6m. Club X bid £10m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £8m, Barcelona get £2m. Except you seem to have pulled the bit where Spurs have to accept a bid of a certain amount out of thin air. The sell-on clauses with the Barca deal are documented on their site, but there's no mention of a minimum clause in his Spurs contract. Exact clauses will be kept confidential, but fact is that the pargraph in bold points out that Spurs do not fully own dos Santos, and bears similarities to the Modric deal where there is very strong suggestion that Dinamo retained control of future transfer dealings. "Spurs do not fully own dos Santos" - yeah, it's called a sell-on clause, and it's not like Spurs are the first team in England (or the Premiership, or anywhere else for that matter) to have one of those in their players' contracts. I'd bet that a few of our squad have them from their previous clubs. And I bet some people we sell (Shola perhaps?) have sell-on clauses that will benefit NUFC. It's not uncommon, and it's not worth stating it in a melodramatic fashion that Spurs don't own his full transfer rights - that's correct, but it's just a common sell-on clause. The point I was making is that you suggested that Barca would put a minimum fee release clause into GdS's Spurs contract: now while contract clauses are often kept confidential and we don't know if there is or there isn't one, to say that it's your "understanding" that he does have a minimum fee release clause is just pulling it out of thin air... unlesss you are privy to some inside info, how the hell do you get to that conclusion? There is a sell on clause of 10%, but that is totally independent of the 20% financial rights which mean that Barca part own dos Santos for the next two years and therefore have some say over the dealings for that playerin a manner which is not likely to be made public. Same with Modric.

sorry to bring this up again but i can se this being something that put Spurs in a better position than us to sign modric. Aye, my understanding was that there was a sell on clause, and if a bid of so much was made within the first few seasons, Spurs have to accept it with Dinamo/Barcelona keeping a larger percentage of the profits. For example: Modric, Spurs sign for £16m. Club X bid £20m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £16m, Dinamo get £4m. Therefore Dinamo get £20m which is more than our £18m bid. dos Santos,Spurs sign for £6m. Club X bid £10m. Spurs have to accept. Spurs recoup £8m, Barcelona get £2m. Except you seem to have pulled the bit where Spurs have to accept a bid of a certain amount out of thin air. The sell-on clauses with the Barca deal are documented on their site, but there's no mention of a minimum clause in his Spurs contract. Exact clauses will be kept confidential, but fact is that the pargraph in bold points out that Spurs do not fully own dos Santos, and bears similarities to the Modric deal where there is very strong suggestion that Dinamo retained control of future transfer dealings.