Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We won't be successful ourselves if every time any of our players get good we let them go and need to start again. If that's what we're resigned to then I can't understand some complaining about negativity. True, but at the same time a lot of clubs used player sales to gradually progress. Spurs have to a certain extent. I just hope we keep Enrique basically, that's the safest bet. As much as I hate the cunts, Spurs is a prime example. Their netspend was pretty minimal until recently (selling the likes of Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Defoe) for big fees and building the squad with that cash. It's only really been the last year or so that the net spend has increased a lot and are spending big without needing to sell their star players...and even then I reckon if a mega club offers over the odds for the likes of Bale or Modric they'd struggle to keep hold of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We won't be successful ourselves if every time any of our players get good we let them go and need to start again. If that's what we're resigned to then I can't understand some complaining about negativity. True, but at the same time a lot of clubs used player sales to gradually progress. Spurs have to a certain extent. I just hope we keep Enrique basically, that's the safest bet. As much as I hate the c***s, Spurs is a prime example. Their netspend was pretty minimal until recently (selling the likes of Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Defoe) for big fees and building the squad with that cash. It's only really been the last year or so that the net spend has increased a lot and are spending big without needing to sell their star players...and even then I reckon if a mega club offers over the odds for the likes of Bale or Modric they'd struggle to keep hold of them. The way Spurs and Arse have build their squads are good examples yes. Right now we're not able to hold onto our best players if they want to go. But through building brick by brick, we can develop enough depth to establish ourselves at around the European spots. Selling Carrick allowed Spurs to buy the likes of Bale. And us selling Enrique, could make it possible for us to go out and buy good talents with loads of potential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 That's true, but Spurs got £18mil for Carrick. The fees being banded around for Enrique are about £6mil, which isn't far off what we (supposedly) paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'd be gutted if we sold Enrique for any less than 12 mil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matta Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'd be gutted if we sold Enrique for any less than 12 mil. And if he is to be sold, please to spain/italy/whatever that isn't the premierleague. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It's a catch 22 situation really isn't it? If he's definitely got his heart set on leaving then there's two scenarios. a) This summer, we get £6m (I can't see us accepting that low like) for Enrique and replace him with Taiwo on a free. b) His contract runs down, and we risk him leaving for nowt or we're gambling on a good replacement being available which might cost more than £6m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Which players that he wanted to keep has Redknapp sold? Why is what a past manager did there relevant in any way? They sold their best players and all ended up sacked. Great. I can really see why we're aspiring to that model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Which players that he wanted to keep has Redknapp sold? Why is what a past manager did there relevant in any way? They sold their best players and all ended up sacked. Great. I can really see why we're aspiring to that model. Don't see your point because Redknapp's in his position because of what happened the 3-4 years before him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 My point is that Redknapp won't be selling any of his best players and nor should our manager be so saying it's a Spurs policy is a total lie. Yes in the past they've sold good players, that's why they were shite and that's why the managers who made those decisions were sacked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 9th, 5th, 5th & 11th in the 4 seasons before Harry came in which included a cup win in the year they came 11th. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 My point is that Redknapp won't be selling any of his best players and nor should our manager be so saying it's a Spurs policy is a total lie. Yes in the past they've sold good players, that's why they were shite and that's why the managers who made those decisions were sacked. Spurs players signed under 'arry: £16m Defoe £12m Palacios £3m Chimbonda £12m Keane () £9m Crouch £2m Kranckjar £9m Bassong £8m Sandro £8m Van der Vaart £9m Naughton £5m Kaboul £3.5m Walker £2.5m Pienaar £1.5m Khumalo (who?) Free Gallas Free Cudicini Loan Pletikosa Loan Gudjonnson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 My point is that Redknapp won't be selling any of his best players and nor should our manager be so saying it's a Spurs policy is a total lie. Yes in the past they've sold good players, that's why they were s**** and that's why the managers who made those decisions were sacked. Oooooor, you could argue that the sale of their players has allowed them to build on with the money generated so that they now don't have to sell their best players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We won't be successful ourselves if every time any of our players get good we let them go and need to start again. If that's what we're resigned to then I can't understand some complaining about negativity. True, but at the same time a lot of clubs used player sales to gradually progress. Spurs have to a certain extent. I just hope we keep Enrique basically, that's the safest bet. As much as I hate the c***s, Spurs is a prime example. Their netspend was pretty minimal until recently (selling the likes of Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Defoe) for big fees and building the squad with that cash. It's only really been the last year or so that the net spend has increased a lot and are spending big without needing to sell their star players...and even then I reckon if a mega club offers over the odds for the likes of Bale or Modric they'd struggle to keep hold of them. The way Spurs and Arse have build their squads are good examples yes. Right now we're not able to hold onto our best players if they want to go. But through building brick by brick, we can develop enough depth to establish ourselves at around the European spots. Selling Carrick allowed Spurs to buy the likes of Bale. And us selling Enrique, could make it possible for us to go out and buy good talents with loads of potential. Can we please stop with this annoying myth that Spurs progressed by selling their best players. They were undoubtedly set back in their progress by the sale of Carrick despite spending ALL of the money they received PLUS another 20-odd million. http://i.imgur.com/89DFY.png Maybe the figures aren't completely accurate, but according to that site over the last decade Spurs net spend has been: 01-02 £8m 02-03 £13m 03-04 £14.2 04-05 £5m 05-06 £17.8m 06-07 £23.8m 07-08 £34.0m 08-09 £19.5m 09-10 £0.5m 10-11 £17.5m Total: £153.3m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 01-02 £8m 02-03 £13m 03-04 £14.2 04-05 £5m 05-06 £17.8m 06-07 £23.8m 07-08 £34.0m 08-09 £19.5m 09-10 £0.5m 10-11 £17.5m Total: £153.3m If you look at the players in and out each year though, the years where they make their big money signings are when they sell their biggest earners and most expensive players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 01-02 £8m 02-03 £13m 03-04 £14.2 04-05 £5m 05-06 £17.8m 06-07 £23.8m 07-08 £34.0m 08-09 £19.5m 09-10 £0.5m 10-11 £17.5m Total: £153.3m If you look at the players in and out each year though, the years where they make their big money signings are when they sell their biggest earners and most expensive players. I don't get your point, they still have a positive net spend and are increasing their wage bill year on year. Their increased on-field success and attraction to supporters at home and abroad increases their turnover to cover this. In the last 5 years Spurs have spent on average £20m a season compared to us who have recouped £10m per season from transfers. Spurs are far more like the club we used to be than [email protected]. They must be getting nervous about being the next club to go out of existence like Leeds & Portsmouth. I hear it's pretty much inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 01-02 £8m 02-03 £13m 03-04 £14.2 04-05 £5m 05-06 £17.8m 06-07 £23.8m 07-08 £34.0m 08-09 £19.5m 09-10 £0.5m 10-11 £17.5m Total: £153.3m If you look at the players in and out each year though, the years where they make their big money signings are when they sell their biggest earners and most expensive players. I don't get your point, they still have a positive net spend and are increasing their wage bill year on year. Their increased on-field success and attraction to supporters at home and abroad increases their turnover to cover this. In the last 5 years Spurs have spent on average £20m a season compared to us who have recouped £10m per season from transfers. Spurs are far more like the club we used to be than [email protected]. They must be getting nervous about being the next club to go out of existence like Leeds & Portsmouth. I hear it's pretty much inevitable. If they hadn't made the correct managerial decision after Ramos, they might have done. Their owner got it right, Shepherd got it wrong time after time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Spurs make a profit (or a small loss), though. We were losing money year-in year-out while spending more and more. No one is arguing against the concept of investing in the squad, but it has to be balanced by the revenue side as well. It wasn't during Shepherd's reign. In fact, it was getting progressively worse. It's a shame that Ashley has focused on cost-cutting instead of revenue-raising but even so, we're undoubtedly on a much surer financial footing. If we can raise revenue now, it'll go straight to the bottom-line which will enable us to invest in the squad like we used to, only this time not having to worry about losing money every year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 01-02 £8m 02-03 £13m 03-04 £14.2 04-05 £5m 05-06 £17.8m 06-07 £23.8m 07-08 £34.0m 08-09 £19.5m 09-10 £0.5m 10-11 £17.5m Total: £153.3m If you look at the players in and out each year though, the years where they make their big money signings are when they sell their biggest earners and most expensive players. I don't get your point, they still have a positive net spend and are increasing their wage bill year on year. Their increased on-field success and attraction to supporters at home and abroad increases their turnover to cover this. In the last 5 years Spurs have spent on average £20m a season compared to us who have recouped £10m per season from transfers. Spurs are far more like the club we used to be than [email protected]. They must be getting nervous about being the next club to go out of existence like Leeds & Portsmouth. I hear it's pretty much inevitable. If they hadn't made the correct managerial decision after Ramos, they might have done. Their owner got it right, Shepherd got it wrong time after time. Levy's managers - Hoddle, Santini, Jol, Ramos, Redknapp. Hardly a list to be proud of, the only one with any success prior to Redknapp was Jol who was sacked shortly into the new season after a poor start having finishing 5th the season before and replaced with a manager who could only manage a bottom half finish and was sacked the following year. What exactly does that have to do with how the club is being run today, other than the fact Ashley has an even worse track record on managers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was just replying to your sarky last sentence to which I answered if they hadn't got Redknapp in, they could very easily have went the way of Leeds & Portsmouth that's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was just replying to your sarky last sentence to which I answered if they hadn't got Redknapp in, they could very easily have went the way of Leeds & Portsmouth that's all. No they wouldn't, if they'd got someone in who didn't work out for whatever reason they'd have sacked him and tried someone else. Just like Arsenal did until they got Wenger, just like Man U did until they got Ferguson, just like we did until we got Robson, just like every other club does. We certainly don't have a monopoly on poor managers, and it isn't the reason clubs go bankrupt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Before they got Redknapp they were in the shit bottom of the league weren't they? Wasn't until after the New Year even with Redknapp that they got out of it. If they'd got that appointment wrong then I doubt they'd have stayed up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was just replying to your sarky last sentence to which I answered if they hadn't got Redknapp in, they could very easily have went the way of Leeds & Portsmouth that's all. No they wouldn't, if they'd got someone in who didn't work out for whatever reason they'd have sacked him and tried someone else. Just like Arsenal did until they got Wenger, just like Man U did until they got Ferguson, just like we did until we got Robson, just like every other club does. We certainly don't have a monopoly on poor managers, and it isn't the reason clubs go bankrupt. Btw, what's your source re it being pretty much inevitable that we go the way of Leeds and Portsmouth? Genuine question, obviously I have a vested interest and it seems to me that we're doing OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was just replying to your sarky last sentence to which I answered if they hadn't got Redknapp in, they could very easily have went the way of Leeds & Portsmouth that's all. No they wouldn't, if they'd got someone in who didn't work out for whatever reason they'd have sacked him and tried someone else. Just like Arsenal did until they got Wenger, just like Man U did until they got Ferguson, just like we did until we got Robson, just like every other club does. We certainly don't have a monopoly on poor managers, and it isn't the reason clubs go bankrupt. Btw, what's your source re it being pretty much inevitable that we go the way of Leeds and Portsmouth? Genuine question, obviously I have a vested interest and it seems to me that we're doing OK. He's being sarcastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was just replying to your sarky last sentence to which I answered if they hadn't got Redknapp in, they could very easily have went the way of Leeds & Portsmouth that's all. No they wouldn't, if they'd got someone in who didn't work out for whatever reason they'd have sacked him and tried someone else. Just like Arsenal did until they got Wenger, just like Man U did until they got Ferguson, just like we did until we got Robson, just like every other club does. We certainly don't have a monopoly on poor managers, and it isn't the reason clubs go bankrupt. Btw, what's your source re it being pretty much inevitable that we go the way of Leeds and Portsmouth? Genuine question, obviously I have a vested interest and it seems to me that we're doing OK. He's being sarcastic. Aha, remembered the context and I re-read it. Not that I'm paranoid or anything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 How much are we going to get for him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now