Daniel Levy - Chairman

[LutonSpurs]

Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.

 

[DubSpur]

Confirming those two signings just affirmed the status quo, it did not bring any new or additional into the club and that is typically the expectation when the talk of new signings is made. They aren't new, they aren't providing anything we didn't already have. I dont know why this is difficult to understand.

If we had indeed signed two alternatives to Danso and Tel then yes those players would be new ad adding something we didn't already have to the squad (hopefully). There's an argument I can hear where there is discussion that if you don't then sign the players you had on loan then you are in fact weaker than last season but that's the reality. Neither player is new to the team.

There's a simpler argument. The transfer is only now permanent, and they are only now Spurs players. The transfer money is only now being paid and is coming out of the budget now.

 

[Bishop]

There's a simpler argument. The transfer is only now permanent, and they are only now Spurs players. The transfer money is only now being paid and is coming out of the budget now.

Why do we care about the transfer money? Aren't we fans of a football team? The only thing that matters is the squad and the player qualities in that squad. Thats the simplest argument.

Have we added additional quality this summer?

So far we have added Palhinha, Kudus, Takai and Vuscovic.

Everyone else was already here and is therefore not additional depth or quality.

edit: Whether they were owned by Spurs or not is irrelevant, they played for us last season and contributed positively or negatively.

 

[Grays_1890]

Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.

Its the most bizarre argument I have seen on here and I have argued with a bloke who counted birds (feathered) for a living and called himself a rat

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think @SissokoWasGood (BoL) post has summed up things fairly on this whole topic of our summer window: http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/threads/daniel-levy-chairman.532/post-1940076

If people want to carry on with the discussion on it related to the loans we've made permanent, how many new players have been added etc, maybe that post would be a good reference point from here onwards

 

[parklane1]

It does not matter what are facts or not, the haters will find anything to dig at the club and especially LEVY and those who do not hate Levy will see the other side. JESUS i wish the season would start and we can all stop trying to prove a point which suits their agendas. SAD really.

 

[Grays_1890]

Confirming those two signings just affirmed the status quo, it did not bring any new or additional into the club and that is typically the expectation when the talk of new signings is made. They aren't new, they aren't providing anything we didn't already have. I dont know why this is difficult to understand.

If we had indeed signed two alternatives to Danso and Tel then yes those players would be new ad adding something we didn't already have to the squad (hopefully). There's an argument I can hear where there is discussion that if you don't then sign the players you had on loan then you are in fact weaker than last season but that's the reality. Neither player is new to the team.

Of course, if that is where people sit sincerely you are spot on.

Yes the player are not adding depth this summer because they were here BUT their fees will come out of this years budget, so there is a variance to it depending on what you are talking about. We have to be real here and say that those loans going perm will impact this years budget, thats just a fact of the numbers. Does it matter, no, but seeing as the debate seems rife on here, may as well chime in hahaha

Regards

A Cult

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Why do we care about the transfer money? Aren't we fans of a football team? The only thing that matters is the squad and the player qualities in that squad. Thats the simplest argument.

Have we added additional quality this summer?

So far we have added Palhinha, Kudus, Takai and Vuscovic.

Everyone else was already here and is therefore not additional depth or quality.

edit: Whether they were owned by Spurs or not is irrelevant, they played for us last season and contributed positively or negatively.

I don’t disagree with your overall point about actually adding new players to the squad but to your first sentence - yes, we need to be aware of the impact on transfer spend when we are hoping that the club signs x more players. That’s when the loans converted to permanent moves are relevant to the argument.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.

The season can't start soon enough.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

There's a simpler argument. The transfer is only now permanent, and they are only now Spurs players. The transfer money is only now being paid and is coming out of the budget now.

Why don't we just agree to use the yearly INS and OUTS list on transfermarket as the gold standard?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Its the most bizarre argument I have seen on here and I have argued with a bloke who counted birds (feathered) for a living and called himself a rat

I literally don't think this type of conversation used to exist.

Twitter has a lot to answer for.

 

[DubSpur]

Why do we care about the transfer money? Aren't we fans of a football team? The only thing that matters is the squad and the player qualities in that squad. Thats the simplest argument.

Have we added additional quality this summer?

So far we have added Palhinha, Kudus, Takai and Vuscovic.

Everyone else was already here and is therefore not additional depth or quality.

edit: Whether they were owned by Spurs or not is irrelevant, they played for us last season and contributed positively or negatively.

It matters if you're a realistic or unrealistic fan. There's a limited budget and we've already spent about 105m. There'll probably be one more incomming which will bring the spend to 150m+.

Don't get me wrong, we need more, I just don't see how we afford it. The disappointing part for me is that there haven't been more outgoings to give us a bit more budget. That may be down to Frank wanting to judge the players first.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

It matters if you're a realistic or unrealistic fan. There's a limited budget and we've already spent about 105m. There'll probably be one more incomming which will bring the spend to 150m+.

Don't get me wrong, we need more, I just don't see how we afford it. The disappointing part for me is that there haven't been more outgoings to give us a bit more budget. That may be down to Frank wanting to judge the players first.

I think it’s fair to argue that there is somewhere in between realistic and unrealistic that increases spending on wages. Unless the argument is ‘because Levy does it, it is infallibly correct’, in which case we may as well all pack up and go home.

I understand that there might be trade offs to spending a bit more, or maybe things we don’t know about (eg bank covenants), but I still think it’s fair to argue that we might be able to spend a bit more on wages without it being an ‘unrealistic’ ask.

 

[DubSpur]

I think it’s fair to argue that there is somewhere in between realistic and unrealistic that increases spending on wages. Unless the argument is ‘because Levy does it, it is infallibly correct’, in which case we may as well all pack up and go home.

I understand that there might be trade offs to spending a bit more, or maybe things we don’t know about (eg bank covenants), but I still think it’s fair to argue that we might be able to spend a bit more on wages without it being an ‘unrealistic’ ask.

It's fair to argue it but we never mentioned wages.

I think it will increase naturally in the next few years. It has been reduced with the likes of Kane, Lloris, and Son going and younger players coming in on lower wages. The likes of Bergvall will get increases as they progress. It doesn't meant we shouldn't be looking to push the boat out a little on wages if we can get a player that is a difference maker and deserving those wages. If getting Eze means giving him for example 150k then it would be worth it.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Its the most bizarre argument I have seen on here and I have argued with a bloke who counted birds (feathered) for a living and called himself a rat

It’s more frustrating to see people defending the club and the hierarchy for the sake of defending the club. People were defending ENIC when we signed no one for 3 windows, arguing that transfers could upset the harmony in the team.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

It's fair to argue it but we never mentioned wages.

I think it will increase naturally in the next few years. It has been reduced with the likes of Kane, Lloris, and Son going and younger players coming in on lower wages. The likes of Bergvall will get increases as they progress. It doesn't meant we shouldn't be looking to push the boat out a little on wages if we can get a player that is a difference maker and deserving those wages. If getting Eze means giving him for example 150k then it would be worth it.

Sorry, I thought wages were mentioned previously in the context of increasing wages would lessen transfer budget etc.

 

[Grays_1890]

It’s more frustrating to see people defending the club and the hierarchy for the sake of defending the club. People were defending ENIC when we signed no one for 3 windows, arguing that transfers could upset the harmony in the team.

Na its just a bizarre argument mate. Pages on people arguing against the facts because of the perception of taking a step back. Bordering laughable the last couple of pages

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Na its just a bizarre argument mate. Pages on people arguing against the facts because of the perception of taking a step back. Bordering laughable the last couple of pages

I think it’s a perfectly fair argument to debate whether the existing strategy we deploy is the right one to help us take the next step in our progression.

Personally I feel under Levy’s stewardship, if things are going to stay the same, the strategy we are pursuing is the right one. The wrong one is going the Jose / Conte route, and getting a manager that demands more experience when we will never be able to get the best most experienced players.

But that point of ‘if things are going to stay the same’ is what I contend. I get that the strategy right now is to sign great young players, and hopefully in the next 3-5 years if we can keep them together they’ll mature together and allow us to make a run at the league. I think though it’s fair to argue or ponder around the idea that we might be able to deploy our resources differently, in order to make that step up sooner, or at least have us not waiting for that point in the upswing of the cycle where we can finally benefit. I don’t think that’s a bizarre argument. Anyone seriously suggesting Levy hasn’t spent this window or whatever wouldn’t be being fair or serious, but I don’t see anyone serious suggesting that.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I think it’s a perfectly fair argument to debate whether the existing strategy we deploy is the right one to help us take the next step in our progression.

Personally I feel under Levy’s stewardship, if things are going to stay the same, the strategy we are pursuing is the right one. The wrong one is going the Jose / Conte route, and getting a manager that demands more experience when we will never be able to get the best most experienced players.

But that point of ‘if things are going to stay the same’ is what I contend. I get that the strategy right now is to sign great young players, and hopefully in the next 3-5 years if we can keep them together they’ll mature together and allow us to make a run at the league. I think though it’s fair to argue or ponder around the idea that we might be able to deploy our resources differently, in order to make that step up sooner, or at least have us not waiting for that point in the upswing of the cycle where we can finally benefit. I don’t think that’s a bizarre argument. Anyone seriously suggesting Levy hasn’t spent this window or whatever wouldn’t be being fair or serious, but I don’t see anyone serious suggesting that.

Of course he can deploy the resources differently.

The main point is those resources, have and always will be, finite.

We can push wages to 55% but we will be taking that from the fees pot.

Which is fine if we are at that stage of the strategy. But there's are good chance people will then flip to say 'we don't pay the fees'

Also worth remembering that even if the wage ratio did stay static, the pa amount can go up. I think this season we'll top £600m revenue, so 42% ratio will give us £252m to spend on wages. So what that could mean for example, is we can sign two players give them 300k a week and still be on 42% ratio as we are now.

Much of the language used is based on spending more. There isn't more. We can all rightly argue how we think it should be spent BUT whatever way you choose there will be compromises compared to richer clubs, either genuine ones or the cheaters.