Bruno Guimarães

[Shearergol]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If we sold Bruno for £70m (not sure who’s saying we should accept £60-70m mind) then it would give the headroom to sign a £100m player if that’s what we chose to do. 

 

It's only 4 or 5 pages back.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, JEToon said:

Spurs never really broke into the top 6, they were always kind, a top 6ish club it was as much to do with getting better managers in

 

They were 5th back in 2005 long before Bale and Modric, it was a bit of a nonsense for a club of their size, playing in London to ever be finishing 10th and 11th really

 

It isn’t like it has been a trading miracle from some small town club

No-one said it was a ‘trading miracle’.  And you’re also mixing up league placing with financial status.  Ipswich finished 5th in 2001 but they weren’t the fifth richest club.

Spurs didnt finish 5th in 2005 btw.  They hadn’t finished in the top six for 15 years by that point and were consistent bottom half finishers during that period.  
 

The rules mean that if we don’t sell, we don’t buy.  If watching the club go stale is your preference, then I won’t be able to persuade you. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

 

It's only 4 or 5 pages back.

Ok - yeah I wouldn’t be selling him for that tbf  

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, Zero said:

You got it wrong. It is not about “who can we get after selling Bruno now”, it is “what options we have if we don’t sell now”

 

you gotta realize there is a scenario that Bruno past his best a few years later AND we still don’t have PSR headroom to buy our next Bruno, because our revenue alone is not enough to cover all the costs and resulted accounting profit 

 

I've only got it wrong in your opinion like  I'm talking about selling Bruno is likely (in the short term) to make our team worse. People are openly discussing selling him to Man City in January.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No-one said it was a ‘trading miracle’.  And you’re also mixing up league placing with financial status.  Ipswich finished 5th in 2001 but they weren’t the fifth richest club.

Spurs didnt finish 5th in 2005 btw.  They hadn’t finished in the top six for 15 years by that point and were consistent bottom half finishers during that period.  
 

The rules mean that if we don’t sell, we don’t buy.  If watching the club go stale is your preference, then I won’t be able to persuade you. 

 

05/06 they did. They were a top 5 team back in the 80's too.

[Lish007]

Why are we suddenly selling Bruno? 

 

He's the heartbeat of the team and when he leaves, we will miss him! 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

I've only got it wrong in your opinion like  I'm talking about selling Bruno is likely (in the short term) to make our team worse. People are openly discussing selling him to Man City in January.

I think selling in January would be shite timing especially with a LC SF waiting - unless Man City put an insane (£90m+) bid on the table, in which case we’d be daft not to.  Seems unlikely to me.  If we’re selling it should be in the summer (unless of course there is a couple of top players earmarked for Jan with the money). 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

 

05/06 they did. They were a top 5 team back in the 80's too.

They were - 15 years is a long time.  And again, Spurs were in the ‘big five’ of the PL breakaway, but by the mid-00s they absolutely were not financial heavyweights.  It took Ashley for them to get past us in that regard - even when they had started finishing above us.  That their revenue is now more than double ours is incredible, really. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Lish007 said:

Why are we suddenly selling Bruno? 

 

He's the heartbeat of the team and when he leaves, we will miss him! 

Given the choice, no-one would be selling any of our best players, and we’d be talking about adding a GK, RCB, RW and kicking on.

 

PSR is causing the discussion, nothing else. 

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No-one said it was a ‘trading miracle’.  And you’re also mixing up league placing with financial status.  Ipswich finished 5th in 2001 but they weren’t the fifth richest club.

Spurs didnt finish 5th in 2005 btw.  They hadn’t finished in the top six for 15 years by that point and were consistent bottom half finishers during that period.  
 

The rules mean that if we don’t sell, we don’t buy.  If watching the club go stale is your preference, then I won’t be able to persuade you. 

 

I am not mixing up either in terms of league place and finance hence I literally said in the post about the size of the club they were and are, they were patently a completely different conversation and in a different situation to…Ipswich, the mention of them only validates what I am saying, Spurs should have been finishing about Ipswich 

 

Spurs haven’t traded to become the club they are, they have been one of the top 10 clubs in the country for a long time, even when finishing out with the top 10 they were clearly going to be generating better revenue than sides finishing above them. They are  a massive side playing in London, it is clearly a favorable situation to be in and aye, grand it was season 05/6 but it was before Bale and Modric, they didn't break in as a consequence of the sales of either 

 

In terms of your last point, I haven’t said don’t sell players….why would I, it would be idiotic to say it

[JEToon]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They were - 15 years is a long time.  And again, Spurs were in the ‘big five’ of the PL breakaway, but by the mid-00s they absolutely were not financial heavyweights.  It took Ashley for them to get past us in that regard - even when they had started finishing above us.  That their revenue is now more than double ours is incredible, really. 

 

How is it "incredible" they play in London for christ sake and have always been one of the bigger clubs in the city 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by JEToon

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, JEToon said:

 

How is it "incredible" they play in London for christ sake and have always been one of the bigger clubs in the city 

 

 

 

Their income is £200m more than Arsenal’s - who last I checked:

 

- play in London

- are probably the biggest club in the city

- have won fucktons more than Spurs 

- also have a relatively new stadium

 

That’s why. 

[JEToon]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Their income is £200m more than Arsenal’s - who last I checked:

 

- play in London

- are probably the biggest club in the city

- have won fucktons more than Spurs 

- also have a relatively new stadium

 

That’s why. 

 

So now you are comparing Spurs and Arsenal and not us, sound, where are you moving the goalposts to next?

[Conjo]

16 minutes ago, JEToon said:

Spurs never really broke into the top 6, they were always kind, a top 6ish club it was as much to do with getting better managers in

 

They were 5th back in 2005 long before Bale and Modric, it was a bit of a nonsense for a club of their size, playing in London to ever be finishing 10th and 11th really

 

It isn’t like it has been a trading miracle from some small town club

 

They followed their model of buying young to sell for profit already back then too. Robbie Keane, Jermaine Defoe, Helder Postiga, Bobby Zamora, Paul Konchesky(?), Michael Carrick, something something Davenport, that blonde center back from Nottingham Forest, Berbatov etc etc. Some turn good, some don't.

 

They are still doing this, albeit with the ability to buy young talents with less risk for more money than previously, and now also have the financial means to keep a player that comes good too if they want to.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, JEToon said:

 

So now you are comparing Spurs and Arsenal and not us, sound, where are you moving the goalposts to next?

I’m not moving the goalposts.  You said that Spurs are in that financial position because they’re a big club in London.  I pointed out that a bigger, more successful club in London which has similar crowds has a turnover closer to ours than Spurs.  I was pointing out that ‘Spurs are in London and are big so that is the answer’ is flawed. 

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, Conjo said:

 

They followed their model of buying young to sell for profit already back then too. Robbie Keane, Jermaine Defoe, Helder Postiga, Bobby Zamora, Paul Konchesky(?), Michael Carrick, something something Davenport, that blonde center back from Nottingham Forest, Berbatov etc etc. Some turn good, some don't.

 

They are still doing this, albeit with the ability to buy young talents with less risk for more money than previously, and now also have the financial means to keep a player that comes good too if they want to.

 

That’s just football transfer business like, you buy players in the hope they will succeed and improve, it would have been a bit wild for them just to bring in a raft of pensioners

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m not moving the goalposts.  You said that Spurs are in that financial position because they’re a big club in London.  I pointed out that a bigger, more successful club in London which has similar crowds has a turnover closer to ours than Spurs.  I was pointing out that ‘Spurs are in London and are big so that is the answer’ is flawed. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/566666/premier-league-clubs-by-revenue/

 

Sure that is right? 

 

Looks like this only shows big clubs in London generate a fuck load more revenue than us like, to the surprise of, not many 

 

[mondonewc]

28 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

So how much are people expecting us to spend on Bruno's replacement? Given people are suggesting we accept 60-70m for him?

It seems a bit redundant mate to quote a figure that 99% of people think is absurdly low, and I think you're mentioning it in reference to one individual comment, I assume most likely after a loss in mid rant mode (no offence to whoever that was lol)

 

 

[HawK]

25 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I can’t see any successful strategy that involves selling all your elite players, surely. What would be the point? Just so you can continue to buy lesser players and finish in the same position? 

 

I don't think this is what's being suggested. Selling elite players at their peak to buy 2 or 3 more potential elite players (which Bruno was when we signed him) is what is being suggested.

 

26 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Like I’ve said before, I can’t see the Brighton strategy working for us on its own. That can only work if you’re happy to finish in a mediocre league position. If you have ambitions to be higher than that you need to have elite quality in your team. 

 

It won't work for us on its own. I've said previously in another thread that we need to have a mix of top-tier talent and players developing into those top-tier players. We've got the pull that almost no other 'developing' club (of which everyone under the Sky 6 is) of relatively recent European pedigree - we're seen as a place to go for players like Tonali, Isak, Bruno and Trippier. Those players don't so easily sign for Brighton, Brentford, etc.

 

We don't have the finances of a Real Madrid-esque galaticos approach where every year we sign a top tier player like Bruno, Isak, Tonali, whilst also replacing squad players, without selling players to do that.

 

To get the money to do that, 15-20 years ago you could just get the owner to do it - Chelsea, City, PSG, Madrid etc. Now this isn't viable. To build a squad, not just a first XI, that can compete at the top, you have to spend to get there. Anomalies aside (Leicester), that's the only way it's been done since the inception of the Premier League. The teams with the most money rise to the top and win. From Blackburn to Man Utd, to Arsenal to Chelsea and City. I re-iterate, to spend that money now, you need to have that money. How do you generate that money under PSR? 

 

1. Make money on the transfer market - buy low and sell high

2. Increase your revenues - matchday, commercial etc.

3. Build out your youth and academy systems  - you make money by spending less on the coaching and player recruitment and turning a profit by other selling to other teams (City, Chelsea), or by bringing them into your squad as first team players so you don't need to spend money on that position externally

 

Points 2 and 3 are a slow burner and take a long time to generate the funds to do anything worthwhile. Point 1, to oversimplify for the sake of brevity, selling a player that you paid £40m for for £100m lets you buy 2 other players that might also be worth £100m in a year or two, and £20m spare for a squad player. Only one of those 3 players needs to come good to get your money back, but if more than one comes good, your squad is now worth more, and you should be higher up the table and more competitive with more players of a higher quality.

 

Then, one of those players that came good also goes for a lot more than what you purchased them for - it repeats. It's a cycle of investment and maximisation of self-generating funds. Not only can you afford to keep buying these players, you are able to afford players that will more certainly hit the ground running as you will have more money to spend. Players will see that joining us isn't a life sentence - players with aspirations of playing for Madrid etc., will know that if the right offer comes along, we'll say thank you for your service and move on.

 

Why isn't every developing club doing this? Because they don't have the pull of Newcastle United. We're seen well abroad, despite what we may think of ourselves.

 

45 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

This may be wishful thinking, I admit. But I feel there has to be something more than just selling good players to buy potential all the time. I don’t think any top club does that. 

 

Because they already bought their success when the rules allowed them to. They now have the revenue and income streams of at least two to three times what we have. They can buy top players all the time with what effectively is passive income. We are not a top club financially, we have to play catch up. And it's almost impossible to win that game with every rule stacked against anyone daring to try and close that gap. We have to generate money from nothing with only absolutely elite scouting, dispassionate player retention and a focus so intent on the long term that it almost harms your short term. 

 

--

 

Is there an exception to all the above? A way to break the system and create a consistently competitive team that generates its own additional funding without having to buy to sell all the time? Yes, of course, it's a gamble. 

 

Take this season for example, we have a core of truly elite players, that is probably, on paper, one of the strongests first 11s we've had in the PL era. We're underperforming in the league, but we're in the semi final of the league cup. The gamble that you take is you buy that right winger on the first of January for 60m. Maybe it gets us the League Cup, that gets us into Europe, and we're generating more revenue as a result. But that's our summer funds wiped out, so that right winger better be one of the most transformative players we've signed in a long while to cover the rest of our deficiencies in our squad, because we need to maintain that success the following season, to re-qualify for Europe to retain that revenue and increase sponsorship and commercial/branding revenue. If we don't re-qualify, we're back to where we were before, except the players are a bit older, not playing in Europe (you can't take player ambition for granted) and players X Y and Z are too poor to be backup squad players now and we have no funds to replace them.

 

--

 

I'm not writing this post to be popular or to get you to change your mind, you may disagree with the long-term approach and want us to pay and play for the moment, and I get that, there's a romanticism in just wanting your team to win, to turn up on matchday and switch off inbetween. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to say you don't understand people saying that we should sell high and buy low for the long term competitiveness of the club.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, JEToon said:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/566666/premier-league-clubs-by-revenue/

 

Sure that is right? 

 

Looks like this only shows big clubs in London generate a fuck load more revenue than us like, to the surprise of, not many 

 

Jesus, not sure how many ways I have to explain this. 
 

Yes, being in London gives an economic advantage to clubs there.  Yes, Spurs have always been a big club.  Yes, Spurs being a big club from London means they’re likely to have a high turnover.

 

But it does not explain how Spurs find themselves to be - by a comfortable margin - the richest club in London.  Arsenal are bigger and more successful.  Chelsea are the most successful English club of the 21st Century and have a much bigger worldwide fanbase.  You argued that my use of the adjective ‘incredible’ when talking about Spurs’ financial performance was nonsense because it could be easily explained by them being in London.  I point out that if this was the case then why are two more successful and arguably bigger clubs in London so far behind them financially.

[Ronson333]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Their income is £200m more than Arsenal’s - who last I checked:

 

- play in London

- are probably the biggest club in the city

- have won fucktons more than Spurs 

- also have a relatively new stadium

 

That’s why. 

Chelsea are probably bigger than Arsenal, just have a smaller stadium. Defo more successful than Arsenal too.

[JEToon]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Jesus, not sure how many ways I have to explain this. 
 

Yes, being in London gives an economic advantage to clubs there.  Yes, Spurs have always been a big club.  Yes, Spurs being a big club from London means they’re likely to have a high turnover.

 

But it does not explain how Spurs find themselves to be - by a comfortable margin - the richest club in London.  Arsenal are bigger and more successful.  Chelsea are the most successful English club of the 21st Century and have a much bigger worldwide fanbase.  You argued that my use of the adjective ‘incredible’ when talking about Spurs’ financial performance was nonsense because it could be easily explained by them being in London.  I point out that if this was the case then why are two more successful and arguably bigger clubs in London so far behind them financially.

 

Glad we cleared up that hyperbole from you.  

 

It was said relative to us, in the context of us v Spurs, its not that incredible. 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Ronson333 said:

Chelsea are probably bigger than Arsenal, just have a smaller stadium. Defo more successful than Arsenal too.

Historically, Arsenal are London’s biggest and most successful club - but I absolutely take your point.

 

It would be a hard argument to make that Spurs are bigger than either of them.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, JEToon said:

 

Glad we cleared up that hyperbole from you.  

 

It was said relative to us, in the context of us v Spurs, its not that incredible. 

No, it is still incredible.  It isn’t hyperbole.  Spurs are outperforming their own status in the capital, so of course it is incredible how far ahead they are of us.  Arsenal are about £180m ahead on revenue, Spurs are around £360m ahead.  About fifteen years ago we were roughly level pegging.   It is incredible performance whatever the comparator. 

[PauloGeordio]

🖤🤍 Exciting times. Loving watching these 2 develop their understanding. Especially loving Swazzdro’s ascent.