AyeDubbleYoo

for god's sake alan, BUY N'ZOGBIA AND SELL SMITH! He's also learned that Danny Guthrie isn't as good as Luca Modric. Insightful stuff.

Showing a distinct lack of ambition there Ian. Well actually I did think that as I posted it, I guess if the club really do think we will finish roundabout a Europa league spot then he is someone we should be upgrading. It just doesn't seem like we have that many options for the right.

Does that make sense?

I'm confused about our haste to get rid of him as well, he's not a regular starter for a top club but he's a decent option every so often for a midtable one.

Any source for that? Very sensible if true, would much rather loan him out than sell.

So is Cesc right in taking a bumper increase in wages last year and a payment bonus on top then want away again this summer? Contracts pretty much mean f*** all in today's game which is wrong but that's the way football is these days, just look at Andy Carroll as prime example, 5 year deal then he's off when Liverpool come calling. As i stated before i still believe Modric would walk into any team in the premiership and i think if him and Levy agreed the terms about a good offer coming in then he deserves to be playing at the top level and not having his career held back. I don't understand your point about Cesc. On contracts, I know they don't mean much, but that's only if both parties agree to an ending of the relationship that's allowed under the terms of the deal. If a player wants to stay at a club they can, and their employer can't make them leave. Similarly, if a player wants to leave then the club can force them to stay. A move requires consensus. If Modric didn't want his "career held back" he could have signed a shorter contract with Spurs or got a release clause put in. But he opted for the security of a long deal and a great opportunity from Spurs. And doubtless big wages into the bargain. He's playing for one of the top teams in one of the top leagues FFS, his career is amazing. Every player just seem to sign these 5 year contracts regardless, Ronaldo did it with Man Utd, Cesc signed an 8 year contract or something daft. It's wrong but that just seem the way it is. Spurs are for me probably around 6th in the league imo. I can't see them getting champions league football in the next couple of years. Modric career is obviously amazing, most premiership players are, but Modric at 25/26 is coming into his peak years and you can't blame him for wanting Champions League with his footballing ability. He's been with Spurs a few year now and he's hardly been a one season wonder, probably knocked up 100 appearences and now with the big clubs calling can understand why his head is being turned. Don't disagree with any of that, he's just contracted to Spurs and if they want to make him stay then they should.

Class, "Tottenham, Fulham and Birmingham are monitoring the situation also".

So is Cesc right in taking a bumper increase in wages last year and a payment bonus on top then want away again this summer? Contracts pretty much mean fuck all in today's game which is wrong but that's the way football is these days, just look at Andy Carroll as prime example, 5 year deal then he's off when Liverpool come calling. As i stated before i still believe Modric would walk into any team in the premiership and i think if him and Levy agreed the terms about a good offer coming in then he deserves to be playing at the top level and not having his career held back. I don't understand your point about Cesc. On contracts, I know they don't mean much, but that's only if both parties agree to an ending of the relationship that's allowed under the terms of the deal. If a player wants to stay at a club they can, and their employer can't make them leave. Similarly, if a player wants to leave then the club can force them to stay. A move requires consensus. If Modric didn't want his "career held back" he could have signed a shorter contract with Spurs or got a release clause put in. But he opted for the security of a long deal and a great opportunity from Spurs. And doubtless big wages into the bargain. He's playing for one of the top teams in one of the top leagues FFS, his career is amazing.

And now we take a allegedly shitload of care by scouting players for ages, making sure they would fit in etc and having them watched by an amazing chief scout in Graham Carr. So why would buying pricey players mean they would be another Luque, Owen etc? It wouldn't, the point I was making was that nobody is arguing that. The fact is there's no certainty about a players quality based on how much they cost. That's why I think it's futile for us to concentrate so hard on how much we're spending. Let's judge the players, not the money. I know it's possible to buy good players for big money, I've never denied that or said big spending is always bad.

But the majority of the players we appeared to spend big on and were flops were pretty unknown on the international scene or just didn't appear to anyone to be worth the big cash probably apart from one which was Michael Owen. I know, that's not the point I was making. I was saying that nobody is arguing that it's impossible top buy good players for good money. But at the same time paying big money doesn't guarantee a good player.

Dave, for someone who hates straw men you sure do love that one. Nobody is saying it's impossible to spend big money on good players, why would anyone argue that? We just have a history of quite a lot of expensive flops, and have taken risks on quite a lot of pricey players in the past.

Modric can 'want' or 'desire' whatever he wants, as Dresden says that's his prerogative as a player. But if he wanted a release for a Champs League club, he should have got it in his contract. Otherwise he hasn't got a leg to stand on and should play for Spurs as long as they want to keep him. Players can't have it both ways - the security of long contracts and massive wages as well as the ability to fuck off whenever they want a better offer. I'm sure a lot of clubs wish they could push players out the door when they don't want to honour their contracts any more.

Is the considerable debt not enough, and is it not increasing because we run at a loss?

What a sickening attitude. How's it sickening? Promise has been broken to him, he want's to be playing in the champions league and he's a classy footballer who deserves to be competing at that sort of level. Modric for me would walk into any side in the Premiership, he's that good! The attitude that any good player 'deserves' to play for a top club. Exactly what is wrong with modern-day football. Spurs were in the CL last season and one year they drop out so the player is desperate for a move to Chelsea. It's f***ing dull, what is wrong with a club like Spurs? or the likes of Villa and ourselves? Chelsea are an average sized club with significant investment, why the f*** is it a God given right that any half decent players should end up there instead of other great, historic clubs in the league? I just think if he signed the contract to stay but said if a club came in for him with a big offer and he wanted to move i think he should be allowed the chance. Spurs have improved massively over the past few years and have moved streets ahead of us and Villa but aren't in the standard of Man Utd or Chelsea. I don't have a problem with Enrique wanting Champions League football either, class act who deserves to be playing at the top level, as much as every Newcastle fan would love him to sign we all know where he is coming from. That's different though, Enrique is at the end of his contract and it's (arguably) in everyone's interests to sell him rather than see him leave for nothing. From what I understand Modric still has a few years left and Spurs don't want to sell.

That's not what's sickening, the attitude that he should just be allowed to walk away from Spurs because he "deserves" to play for a "top club" is.

Why? They were the ones that left the club in the position that Ashley found it. Not saying it means we should ignore all his mistakes since arriving, but surely it has to be taken into account. Especially when saying shite like Ashley is taking money out, something that the previous regime were masters at. We're on stable financial footing now. With all revenue + the Carroll momey, we should be spending at least £15 million (net) on new players this summer. You've just changed the argument again though. Your point was about the comparison of Ashley v Shepherd, I wasn't saying anything to do with specific amounts of spending.

Not sure what you're getting it, but my honest answer would be that I would be happy our finances were improving. But at the same time it would only be one season out of many. If we were doing it regularly I would then expect it all to be invested in the club. As the Arsenal CEO said in an interview a few months ago, their aim is to invest every penny they make. I would expect the same from any football club really, they don't exist to make money for the people at the top in the same way as a normal business. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for some money to go towards reducing the debt that Mike Ashley is owed, if some was available for that purpose.

Why? They were the ones that left the club in the position that Ashley found it. Not saying it means we should ignore all his mistakes since arriving, but surely it has to be taken into account. Especially when saying shite like Ashley is taking money out, something that the previous regime were masters at.

Modric was happy to sign the contract, he has to honour it unless Spurs want to sell him. No way he 'deserves' a move elsewhere.

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are. They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money. Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book. Are you joking? Please tell me you are... We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought". Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent. And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one. To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts. The previous income was paying for things this new, extra income is now paying for. Yes, and resulting in regular losses and increase in debt. I don't see how this is hard to grasp, if you're paying out more money than you earn and your earnings increase, you don't go spending all of the extra.

Fancy a trip to QPR on a Monday night, should be good. Obviously shit for people travelling down like.

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are. They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money. Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book. Are you joking? Please tell me you are... We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought". Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent. And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one. To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

Are Cesc and Nasri staying?

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a fucking water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.