fredbob

ive heard similar things, people seem to think this guy is the bee's knees but a lotof people dont praise Moutihno in the same manner. Apprently Man U have first option. I dont see arsenal putting £20m down on the table for a DM, and Chelsea definitely dont need him - very surpirsed Liverpool arent courting his interest.

My number 1 transfer target. He's the signing that i think could make most difference to the side.

The main reason? Martin Jol's sister in law.

Is that gospel? Becasue i could think of 2 big players which would collapse that particular house of cards.

I wouldnt bother - apparently you'd be kidding yourself into thinking that this transfer was anything else but clear cut.... You see, there you go getting it wrong again. I honestly dont know how the deal was conducted but one thing im near enough certain about, is that Modric does not have a minimum release clause in his contract. Hardly any club in the premiership operates in that way, and our stingy owners wont have that one bit. See, usually when people use the phrase "wrong again" it implies that i made a mistake in the first place - care to point out where you proved me wrong? See, what makes me laugh about this post is that you start by making with a definite statement - "getting it wrong again" then go on to say "I honestly dont know how the deal was conducted". You're mistaking me for someone who thinks there definitevely is a minumim fee clause in the deal, i was just saying that what James said was perfectly viable and pointed to the fact that this deal wasnt as clear cut as many people would like us to believe. Modric wasnt part of the negotiations in fact he openely said he didnt choose where to go...now add that to the fact that we've supposedly offered more to the mamic brothers and modric and you start to wonder what it was about the spurs deal that the mamic brothers liked so much. Dont kid yourself into thinking that the Mamic brothers were willing to take a smaller offer for the benefit of there clients career. Think about it.

Put a player in front of us and Pompey tomorrow and id happily bet a lot fo money they'd go to them - because of the league positions, becasue of the calibre of squad becasue of Europe and most importantly becasue they've just won the oldest and possilby the most famous cup competition in the whole world. Our only hope is finance and Mort andAshley seem to be playing that card (Modric) so you are kidding yourself if you still think our big stadium is a bigger draw than what ive just mentioned.

Martins record for who? He's got 20 in 64 for us, which I personally think is pretty poor for a player who's there to score goals. You think 1 in 3 for a striker is poor? Also not gonna take into account the shit he's had to play with?

load of steaming bollocks imho. Berbs wanted to add this clause when he was negiotiating a new contract and Levy straight away rejected it, so i fail to see why we'd agree one for Modric. because you want to defend Spurs on a Newcastle board? It's hardly like you are an impartial observer here on issues like this one. Not about defending spurs. It's logic.... Where's the logic? It's a completely unsubtantiated claim. Its clear Modric has been told where to go - I'm basing that on the fact that he wasnt here when we were negotiaing with the Mamic brothers then swiftly signed for Spurs. Add to the fact we offered more money to the Mamic brothers and more money to Modric and you still wouldn't be able to see that there were obviously something in the Spurs deal which made them turn a blind eye to immediate extra cash from us....i see the logic in what James said, seems perfectly viable to me. Ok here's the logic bit.... two months or so, before the Modric deal, Berbs' piece of turd agent tries to include a minimum release clause in his contract, to which Levy calls of negotiations (this was widely reported in various papers and sites). The club then sing a totally different tune, and Poyet and co seem like they dont give a toss if Berbs leaves in interviews ect, after pleading with him to stay a while back. So now you're saying, Levy would just totally do a u-turn and give another player a minimum fee release clause, even though he didnt want to give one to our prized asset? rightttttttttttt. Ramos also tried to sign Modric at Sevilla and Modric has said how much he rates him, plus London, plus Uefa cup.... Do you know how much that minumum fee release clause was for Berbatov? Is it legitimate to compare Berbatovs situation with Modric? ie new unproven player against highly sought after proven player? Not as logical as you care to think. There never was a minimum fee release clause. Dantchev said he was prepared to negotiate a new contract for Berbatov provided that it incorporated a minimum fee release clause. Negotiations for a new contract went no further. Levy has said at a Spurs AGM that he will not authorise the signing of a new player if the player/agent wishes to include restrictive clauses. I would guess that Levy would interpret a minimum fee release clause as a restrictive clause. Not quite the same thing and not quite the point i was trying to make. Negotiations being the key words here. This is all supposition, im not kidding myself into believing anything is fact but all im saying is that all isnt as sweet as it would appear and something that was mentioned earlier by James was perfectly viable.

So we've changed tack now? Good one. Someones clutching... Milan havent even qualified for the CL - hardly the dynasty they were before. Juventus were a pretty big rival to be relagated - in fact i think it was there main rival at the time....as i say ill choose to take there 'achievements' with a pinch of salt. It's upto you if you dont.

It's comparable when they were doing that. It ain't obviously comparable now, but you'd have known that if you actually read what I wrote. I bolded the most important part of my argument so you can actually pay attention to it now. Edit: Or the numerous seasons where Arsenal won the league but were s*** in Europe. Are their achievements taken 'seriously' by you? You're making it sound like i'm saying i cant take their achievements seriously because they did so poorly in Europe, which is rubbish and something ive reiterated numerous times. Im saying the fact that there main rivals were severly disadvantaged as being a key factor to why i cant take there achievement too seriously and that fact that they are doing so poor in Europe as something else which takes away the gloss, if they had done something in Europe which would back up there claim as being the best team in Italy and show that they were winning the League on merit alone then maybe id acknowledge it more...but as it stands i see a team that has scraped the 3rd title with its main rivals being nowhere near the stregnth they were before all the contreversy. Something in my opinion isnt something to shout home about. You keep mentioneing Man U and there records in Europe but i keep telling you that man u are nowhere near being comparable to Inter, compare it to a team like Liverpool then you'll finally see what i mean. Here's my main point in the very first post bolded for you incase you missed it the first time round.

well, yes actually. anyway 5/30 is f****** atrocious, and i'm not saying for a low fee we should not think about it, but there's no way i'd be happy with a striker scoring 5 goals in 30 starts here. But we don't know the circumstances of those games. He may have been playing out wide or deep for all we know. Aye exactly. Some people don't think like that though. It's all straight lines and closed boxes. pretty damn arrogant thing of you to say tbh. Maybe so, but it's right.

I wouldnt bother - apparently you'd be kidding yourself into thinking that this transfer was anything else but clear cut....

Wtf? So when Man Utd were winning the league in England but dropping out of the CL at the quarter-final stages, winning the Premiership wasn't an achievement that you could 'take seriously'? Ridiculous. What?? Lets clarify what im saying - Inter have done very little of substance in Europe unlike Man U for a start. If Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea were relagted and say Spurs were docked points and Liverpool were a) awarded 1 title then coasted to another with the others at their disadvatage then scraped the 3rd title would you take there achievements seriously? I would be a bit wary. Not so ridiculous. When Man Utd won the league, they did f*** all in Europe. Inter won the league this season fair and square. So unless you're going to argue that the Italian league as a whole has declined in quality then it's pretty much ridiculous to suggest that you shouldn't take their achievements seriously. What are you talking about? How is Man U's situation even close to being comparable to Inter Milan? Are you on the wind up? Like i say, a more comparable situation would be Liverpool going through the exact same process as Inter, if the same thing was to happen in england would you take Liverpools "achievments" seriously? The only difference would be (as Alex has pointed out) that Liverpool have actually been good in Europe, now supposiing Liverpool hadnt been good in Europe, wouldnt that undermine there acheivements even more. Feel free to disagree, im sure you will...

Ronaldo man They had some quality players back in the day, always underachieved. I love the underdog.

Wtf? So when Man Utd were winning the league in England but dropping out of the CL at the quarter-final stages, winning the Premiership wasn't an achievement that you could 'take seriously'? Ridiculous. What?? Lets clarify what im saying - Inter have done very little of substance in Europe unlike Man U for a start. If Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea were relagted and say Spurs were docked points and Liverpool were a) awarded 1 title then coasted to another with the others at their disadvatage then scraped the 3rd title would you take there achievements seriously? I would be a bit wary. Not so ridiculous.

Gomez will go to Madrid to replace Van Horseface. That is my prediction. Half Spanish, and the Madrid coach is German, nailed on. Makes perfek sense.

if you type in the URL into the google search box the website should come up on the search with a [translate this page] next to it.

I think they are spending on the basis they'll be champions league side next year. Could go horribly wrong......... or right if you hate them like I do. I think Spurs are perfectly safe to be honest - they spend what they make, dbt free so they can balance out tranfsers against revenue pretty effectively, no interest on debts etc...they're also being backed by Joe Lewis of ENIC so they've got a benefactory owner as well. You sure about that? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Tottenham-Hotspur_340013.html Looks to be around £30m to me. This Spurs fan's site has them with £10m in the bank in 2006: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/debt2.htm Slippery slope IYAM. Im not sure i understand either site to be honest- Forbes has us down as having a 43% debt to value ratio. I thought we were debt free, also it says Spurs are £10m in the black on the other site, no suggestin of debt there? Am i being really stupid here.... 2006: +£10m 2007: -£30m = Spurs running at a loss of £40m / year. Cant see the stats for 2007 so ill take your word!

Spurs and Villa are the only 2 teams in the prem who are fully equipped for a sustained assault on the CL if you ask me, we wont be ready for another 2-3 years if you ask me, think UEFA cup is imperative next year if we are gonna start progresssing fully.

Spot On. It's refreshing that a player moves for his career ambition and the chance of European football and a better coach, rather than moving to the club that offered him the better salary. Even if it is annoying that it's Spurs he is moving too. I don't agree. We have played in europe more than Spurs over the last decade and a half. And I don't accept that Newcastle can't be sold to a player as being bigger and better than Spurs. We ourselves have a bigger fanbase, a better stadium and also a well known high profile manager. The ONLY area where they score, is that they are in London, and not every player would see this as the be all and end all. I think it is in fact defeatist to accept that we lose out to such clubs like Spurs. This is why Keegan wasn't happy, see the article by bobyule on the main site which I read this morning. If this attitude is good enough for Keegan, it should be good enough for supporters of the club. They are just making excuses for failure to land a target. This defeatist mentality is something that is unacceptable, such an attitude smacks of the way we used to be. That won't go down well, but its the truth. incorrect no, it isn't. Its correct. That is why Keegan was unhappy about it all. Im pretty sure you're incorrect. Your first paragraph is atrocious to be honest. but its absolutely correct. Ok, ill clarify, your first paragraph is atrocious and incorrect. Think about it.

Spot On. It's refreshing that a player moves for his career ambition and the chance of European football and a better coach, rather than moving to the club that offered him the better salary. Even if it is annoying that it's Spurs he is moving too. I don't agree. We have played in europe more than Spurs over the last decade and a half. And I don't accept that Newcastle can't be sold to a player as being bigger and better than Spurs. We ourselves have a bigger fanbase, a better stadium and also a well known high profile manager. The ONLY area where they score, is that they are in London, and not every player would see this as the be all and end all. I think it is in fact defeatist to accept that we lose out to such clubs like Spurs. This is why Keegan wasn't happy, see the article by bobyule on the main site which I read this morning. If this attitude is good enough for Keegan, it should be good enough for supporters of the club. They are just making excuses for failure to land a target. This defeatist mentality is something that is unacceptable, such an attitude smacks of the way we used to be. That won't go down well, but its the truth. incorrect no, it isn't. Its correct. That is why Keegan was unhappy about it all. Im pretty sure you're incorrect. Your first paragraph is atrocious to be honest.

Spot On. It's refreshing that a player moves for his career ambition and the chance of European football and a better coach, rather than moving to the club that offered him the better salary. Even if it is annoying that it's Spurs he is moving too. I don't agree. We have played in europe more than Spurs over the last decade and a half. And I don't accept that Newcastle can't be sold to a player as being bigger and better than Spurs. We ourselves have a bigger fanbase, a better stadium and also a well known high profile manager. The ONLY area where they score, is that they are in London, and not every player would see this as the be all and end all. I think it is in fact defeatist to accept that we lose out to such clubs like Spurs. This is why Keegan wasn't happy, see the article by bobyule on the main site which I read this morning. If this attitude is good enough for Keegan, it should be good enough for supporters of the club. They are just making excuses for failure to land a target. This defeatist mentality is something that is unacceptable, such an attitude smacks of the way we used to be. That won't go down well, but its the truth. incorrect

I think they are spending on the basis they'll be champions league side next year. Could go horribly wrong......... or right if you hate them like I do. I think Spurs are perfectly safe to be honest - they spend what they make, dbt free so they can balance out tranfsers against revenue pretty effectively, no interest on debts etc...they're also being backed by Joe Lewis of ENIC so they've got a benefactory owner as well. You sure about that? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Tottenham-Hotspur_340013.html Looks to be around £30m to me. This Spurs fan's site has them with £10m in the bank in 2006: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/debt2.htm Slippery slope IYAM. Im not sure i understand either site to be honest- Forbes has us down as having a 43% debt to value ratio. I thought we were debt free, also it says Spurs are £10m in the black on the other site, no suggestin of debt there? Am i being really stupid here....

load of steaming bollocks imho. Berbs wanted to add this clause when he was negiotiating a new contract and Levy straight away rejected it, so i fail to see why we'd agree one for Modric. because you want to defend Spurs on a Newcastle board? It's hardly like you are an impartial observer here on issues like this one. Not about defending spurs. It's logic.... Where's the logic? It's a completely unsubtantiated claim. Its clear Modric has been told where to go - I'm basing that on the fact that he wasnt here when we were negotiaing with the Mamic brothers then swiftly signed for Spurs. Add to the fact we offered more money to the Mamic brothers and more money to Modric and you still wouldn't be able to see that there were obviously something in the Spurs deal which made them turn a blind eye to immediate extra cash from us....i see the logic in what James said, seems perfectly viable to me. Ok here's the logic bit.... two months or so, before the Modric deal, Berbs' piece of turd agent tries to include a minimum release clause in his contract, to which Levy calls of negotiations (this was widely reported in various papers and sites). The club then sing a totally different tune, and Poyet and co seem like they dont give a toss if Berbs leaves in interviews ect, after pleading with him to stay a while back. So now you're saying, Levy would just totally do a u-turn and give another player a minimum fee release clause, even though he didnt want to give one to our prized asset? rightttttttttttt. Ramos also tried to sign Modric at Sevilla and Modric has said how much he rates him, plus London, plus Uefa cup.... Do you know how much that minumum fee release clause was for Berbatov? Is it legitimate to compare Berbatovs situation with Modric? ie new unproven player against highly sought after proven player? Not as logical as you care to think.