Transfer thread

[Muttley]

If we want Wharton and we are head to head with Liverpool, we have to offer Palace £100M if Liverpool are prepared to bid £80M. If RB Leipzig want £100M for Diomande we have to take the plunge. And I understand the ramifications of the club over paying in tranfer fees and wages, but the only other alternative is to stick to their guns on the buying young players and developing model and hoping that in 2/3 years the bulk of them have come good.

This resonates with me. It's the quality over quantity argument.

What happens if Spurs buy 2 players in a summer window of the quality you talk about. Then in the January window they buy just one, again of this elite quality. Alongside, keep buying these younger players (e.g. Souza) and nurturing them whilst selling players for the types of money we got for Johnson.

I've lost count of the sheer number of players Spurs buy. They take their budgets and they spread them way too thin and it hurts us on the pitch. As City have just shown, I don't think you need to be spending £100m on every signing but there is that high end price you need to pay.

If we follow this model for 3-5 years then our club will find itself in a different place.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

This resonates with me. It's the quality over quantity argument.

What happens if Spurs buy 2 players in a summer window of the quality you talk about. Then in the January window they buy just one, again of this elite quality. Alongside, keep buying these younger players (e.g. Souza) and nurturing them whilst selling players for the types of money we got for Johnson.

I've lost count of the sheer number of players Spurs buy. They take their budgets and they spread them way too thin and it hurts us on the pitch. As City have just shown, I don't think you need to be spending £100m on every signing but there is that high end price you need to pay.

If we follow this model for 3-5 years then our club will find itself in a different place.

From what I understand, the wage structure is the reason why we don't follow that pattern. The reasoning behind that is that if you 'break the bank' for one player, then others will start asking for bigger wages and your expenditure will spiral out of control. I think Middlesboro and Leeds set up an example of a route a lot of chairmen didn't want to follow.

Unfortunately, we went a bit too far in the other direction. You can't have a team entirely made up of prospects. It's not the 90s anymore and what Ferguson did at ManUtd won't happen again. It's a different league now. You also need quality, experienced professionals with strong work ethics and winning habits in your squad and that's a balance we never managed to get right, unfortunately.

 

[braineclipse]

This resonates with me. It's the quality over quantity argument.

What happens if Spurs buy 2 players in a summer window of the quality you talk about. Then in the January window they buy just one, again of this elite quality. Alongside, keep buying these younger players (e.g. Souza) and nurturing them whilst selling players for the types of money we got for Johnson.

I've lost count of the sheer number of players Spurs buy. They take their budgets and they spread them way too thin and it hurts us on the pitch. As City have just shown, I don't think you need to be spending £100m on every signing but there is that high end price you need to pay.

If we follow this model for 3-5 years then our club will find itself in a different place.

So 3-5 years of signing 3 elite quality players per year, price range of 60-100m each? Say an average of 70m so that's 210m on those per season/year + increased wages and some spending on younger players and we'll be in a good place?

Sure that would probably work if we could make that happen financially.

I agree that at this point quality over quantity along with a focus on young proper talents. I just don't see it as likely that we can spend that much, and if we did we'd need to see results on the pitch quicker than a 3-5 year period.