Eddie Howe

[Vinny Green Balls]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I’ll keep screaming it. Net spend is a poor figure to judge how a club should perform.  
 

wages is #1. 
squad cost is #2. 
 

we finished 4th while being 7th and 8th on this list. 
 

We finished 7th this season while being no higher then 7th on both of those criteria.  

I think you're screaming into the vaccum of space when it comes to one or two on here. But good point nonetheless.

[Ben]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

We’ll be the only club in that top 8 not in Europe. And that will give us an advantage in league form should we keep our Crown Jewels. 
 

If everyone is as good as we think they are. We should challenge for top 4 imo. 

Keep our main stars, let a few go, bring in the 5 we want and top 4 plus good cup runs are massively achievable. 

[ATB]

Focus on the strongest eleven we can get and let loss of all fluff. Then we can get top 4!

[George Bailey]

On 26/05/2024 at 11:47, Mills and Boon said:

 

The fuck? It's not a winning "knack" it's massive amounts of investment into the squad that other clubs can't compete with.

 

We're trying to catch up but FFP is a constant handbrake on us

 

 

 

Absolutely agree re investment, however we have invested historically as well. We spent a fair bit (and invested well) under Keegan for example. Spurs have invested but won little..

 

My point was success breeds success and that once you win one thing then often you see reciprocal results in later seasons.

[Gawalls]

41 minutes ago, George Bailey said:

Absolutely agree re investment, however we have invested historically as well. We spent a fair bit (and invested well) under Keegan for example. Spurs have invested but won little..

 

My point was success breeds success and that once you win one thing then often you see reciprocal results in later seasons.

Under Keegan we never invested as much as Man U did and they won everything at the time. 

[Cronky]

On 26/05/2024 at 11:34, Cronky said:

 

Winning silverware is very difficult now. Even the cups are being dominated by the big six. The two minor European trophies are probably the easiest, because the best teams aren't involved. 

 

I think Howe will continue to exceed all realistic expectations, but winning something will depend on good recruitment and that bit of luck. He shouldn't be measured on trophies alone.

 

Just to re-inforce the point, I've looked at the last 10 years.

 

Of the three domestic trophies, 28 of the last 30 winners have come from the big six. The exception was Leicester, with the Premiership and FA Cup. 

 

Of the three European trophies for the same period, only West Ham from outside the big six, with last year's conference, have won anything.

 

It's tough.

[Gawalls]

57 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

Just to re-inforce the point, I've looked at the last 10 years.

 

Of the three domestic trophies, 28 of the last 30 winners have come from the big six. The exception was Leicester, with the Premiership and FA Cup. 

 

Of the three European trophies for the same period, only West Ham from outside the big six, with last year's conference, have won anything.

 

It's tough.

It’s pathetic when you read it like that.

[Miercoles]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

 

Just to re-inforce the point, I've looked at the last 10 years.

 

Of the three domestic trophies, 28 of the last 30 winners have come from the big six. The exception was Leicester, with the Premiership and FA Cup. 

 

Of the three European trophies for the same period, only West Ham from outside the big six, with last year's conference, have won anything.

 

It's tough.

Might as well call it the big five, Tottenham haven't won anything, have they?

[FLUMPO235]

5 hours ago, Miercoles said:

Might as well call it the big five, Tottenham haven't won anything, have they?

Don’t forget the Audi cup

[Menace]

5 hours ago, Miercoles said:

Might as well call it the big five, Tottenham haven't won anything, have they?

 

Pulled off a blinder to even get mentioned in the super league. They're nothing

[Bintang]

4 hours ago, Menace said:

 

Pulled off a blinder to even get mentioned in the super league. They're nothing

 

They are in London and have a good stadium. That's it really. 

[TheBrownBottle]

Spurs' finances are what make them a 'Big Six' club.  They've got the highest turnover of any London club.  Not to be sniffed at.  Their turnover is roughly double ours

[Geogaddi]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Spurs' finances are what make them a 'Big Six' club.  They've got the highest turnover of any London club.  Not to be sniffed at.  Their turnover is roughly double ours

I do find it hard to class Spurs on a par with the other 5 clubs mind , I get what you are saying about finances etc and I know they have the best stadium in the world but I see it more as a big 5, they are the ones that share all the trophies around and Spurs literally win nothing . It's more a big 5, then Spurs above everyone else but I just can't take them seriously as being on par with the other five clubs. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

19 hours ago, Gawalls said:

Under Keegan we never invested as much as Man U did and they won everything at the time. 

Is that true? Genuine question. I think that most of Man Utd’s title winning side 1995-96 were home grown. Whereas our team that season were mainly bought in. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Geogaddi said:

I do find it hard to class Spurs on a par with the other 5 clubs mind , I get what you are saying about finances etc and I know they have the best stadium in the world but I see it more as a big 5, they are the ones that share all the trophies around and Spurs literally win nothing . It's more a big 5, then Spurs above everyone else but I just can't take them seriously as being on par with the other five clubs. 

I agree - if we were looking at success, then Leicester has a better argument over the last decade!

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Is that true? Genuine question. I think that most of Man Utd’s title winning side 1995-96 were home grown. Whereas our team that season were mainly bought in. 

Man Utd's regular starting XI that season cost just over 16m.  Ours cost just over 22m (not allowing for Asprilla and Batty, who came in later on)

[TRon]

6 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Spurs' finances are what make them a 'Big Six' club.  They've got the highest turnover of any London club.  Not to be sniffed at.  Their turnover is roughly double ours

 

IIRC Levy came in for a lot of criticism investing all their money on the stadium instead of the squad, but to be fair it will put them in good stead going forward. Their penny pinching days should theoretically be behind them. But I think it's part of his make up, Levy isn't the type who will buy blue chip shares if he thinks he can score big buying penny shares instead.

[Bondedcrown]

I remember the old days when the content matched the thread title! No self control on here!

[Optimistic Nut]

8 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Spurs' finances are what make them a 'Big Six' club.  They've got the highest turnover of any London club.  Not to be sniffed at.  Their turnover is roughly double ours

 

They've also consistently finished top 4/5 in the league for about 15 years. 

[duo]

9 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Spurs' finances are what make them a 'Big Six' club.  They've got the highest turnover of any London club.  Not to be sniffed at.  Their turnover is roughly double ours

How is it so high though? I wouldn't say Spurs are following globally - Stadium must be bring in a far chunk

[timeEd32]

Tottenham had a glorious opportunity in the early Pep years. They'd be thought of very differently if they had won the title between 2015-18 or the Champions League in 2019. They fell short and are left with a bunch of what-ifs. Now they've had to transition through managers and aging stars. I'd be frustrated with their last five seasons if I supported them, especially all the early cup exists, but all of the ingredients are there. I think a few months ago I said I expect them to have a golden era of sorts in the next decade. If they don't it will mean they've continually missed badly on managers and/or transfers.

[Optimistic Nut]

37 minutes ago, duo said:

How is it so high though? I wouldn't say Spurs are following globally - Stadium must be bring in a far chunk

 

I know it's not the perfect measure, but they have 8.8m followers on X compared to our 2.7m, 17m on Instagram compared to our 2.8m and so on. 

[STM]

Basically when MA took over, he nose dived us commercially, where as Spurs, who were comparable at the time, had aspirations to grow.

 

There's only MA to blame.

 

Also worth noting that while Spurs are "big six" financially, they aren't "big six" in terms of success but then we start the "big club" debate, which is tedious at best.

 

The good news is that we have the best in the business, working behind the scenes to bridge the gap... and we will bridge that gap.

[PauloGeordio]

 

[BlazeT44]

Just now, PauloGeordio said:

 

 

He's absolutely class. Can't believe there are people questioning that he's anything but the right guy for us to build a long term project.

 

Imagine the ego of a Mourinho disrupting what we are building here.

 

I think a lot can be said for how he's handled the man management aspect of our transformation. Can't be easy managing a squad of players knowing that there's going to be steep and continuous investment. 

 

Players like Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Wilson who could have had their starting place under real threat have responded brilliantly to his style.