robp135
Goran Bunjevcevic
The Vlahovic links were under Nuno and Conte.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Free transfers
- Thread starter Bedfordspurs
- Start date
The Vlahovic links were under Nuno and Conte.
Vlahovic has scored 50 goals in 123 appearances for Juve. When he's played 20 games or more he's scored 10 goals or more.
I would say he's probably not a massive upgrade in terms of goals from Richi, but its about what else he would bring. Richi is only really guaranteed to score twice a season (Anfield and the return match) and has a terrible injury record. If Vlahovic were designated as a signing to replace Richi, if he stays fit he's probably an upgrade, the only caveat being he's never played in our league.
To sign his as the new hope would be folly.
I would say he's probably not a massive upgrade in terms of goals from Richi, but its about what else he would bring. Richi is only really guaranteed to score twice a season (Anfield and the return match) and has a terrible injury record. If Vlahovic were designated as a signing to replace Richi, if he stays fit he's probably an upgrade, the only caveat being he's never played in our league.
To sign his as the new hope would be folly.
El Dante
Paul Walsh
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Vlahovic can't hold the ball up, can't link up play, is poor on the ball, makes poor decisions. He's Richy without the running
No, no, no ... we have "new" owners, the bad man who was stopping them spending their money is gone, we really should give them a chance and be understanding when they spend less than the bad man did ...
/s (if not obvious)
They have not once said Levy or anyone stopped them from spending money, and this sort of comment is just from people wanting them to fail. Their message has been that investment is needed and constantly mentioned change due to processes not to be of the standard they would like.
That doesn't equate to a necessity to spend more, the amount we have invested has been adequate in terms of fees - the wages has always been the issue and the message has been they are listening that structure so let's see.
Criticism has been more around the overall plan of transfers and the way we behave in the market. We will have to see if a better plan is formulated and way of doing things but that's not going to happen overnight - but the idea of judging them on whether they spend a shedload more than under Levy is nonsense, it's how we manage that money that is the real conundrum regardless of whether they spend the same, more, or less....
Bishop
Les Ferdinand
Raziel won't get your post, I've had this discussion with numerous times for I think a few years now. He's more aligned with the thinking that the only solution is to spend more, how that's is spent I don't think comes into his thinking.
Like you say our actual spending figures of the last 5 years isn't something to be complained about anymore (it used to be valid), but just spending more isn't any sort of guaranteed that you get better results. I see numerous clubs spending less that we do and probably rata doing a lot more with a smaller budget.
As always it's how you spend the money that matters as much how much you spend. Paying Bournemouth £50m for Senesi isn't going to make him a better player or a more appropriate signing but under Raziel's rationale that would make it a better window so far.
This is a direct quote from the Lewis family
We also take responsibility for rebuilding Spurs. Our ambition is to recapture the spirit of the Club and bring back the excitement, the fearlessness and the bold football we have always felt defined us. That means football comes first. The Board and Executive team have laid out their plans to meet this ambition.
This will require investment – in our teams, the academy, our backroom functions and more - and we are fully committed to this. We are not selling the Club. We are all in. We are investing in it. You will see more of this in the coming months.
How you, or others on this board translate that into "it's ok to spend less money than we have in the last 5 years" is beyond me. This isn't about wanting anyone to fail, when it comes to Spurs, may everyone prove me wrong and may we be the most successful club in the world, I'll eat all the humble pie I can get.
Reality is (so far)
- They fired Levy and made statements about investment very conveniently when the last window closed (so they couldn't be held accountable to those statements)
- In January when we were in a desperate position (not hyperbole to say the future of club was at risk), somehow it didn't make sense to buy players and the only business was effectively a swap (Johnson for Gallagher)
- Now, after the worst season in our history in the PL and probably in 50 years, the early business is "free transfers" and rumoured business looks like another swap/net zero scenario (Romero, Vic, Dragusin out, Savino, JVH in)
My issue is I have spent all of my career in much bigger companies than Spurs or ENIC, and I smell flimflam PR, someone on board takes the bullet, all nice statements made, nothing fudging changes. And as always, it's amazing how well PR works.
I understand we need to do better business (even though @Bishop doesn't think I grasp it), but we also need to spend more, both, not one or the other. City is going to spend 120M on single midfielder, United is rumoured to be in for another 300M, Liverpool is expected to buy heavily again after spending 400M last season, Arsenal as well on top of a PL winning and CL final side. Chelsea same.
We spend 120M - 180M net per season for last 5 years. Please, please explain to me why with the situation the club is in, with the flimflam "we are all in, we are investing" from the owner's mouth, the club should spend less than average of last 5 years?
West Ham (related as reminder), Wolves (relegated), Brighton, Villa, Saudi Sportswashing Machine all spend ~>100M-120M a season (some do better jobs at offsetting the spend via sales than others, Brighton obvious example), those are clubs we need to aim to be above, and right now, for two seasons we have been the worst club in the PL to survive, which to me means we need to spend to catch up, and then to improve beyond what other clubs will do.
I'm literally at a point where I probably going to just step away from these conversations because the dissonance is insane
- There is another thread right now on this board, where people are insistent that the club was cheap, didn't invest appropriately in the 2017-2019 era (when we had the small matter of a 1B+ stadium being constructed)
- And in other threads like this one, with the completed stadium, with Covid done, with proven revenues in (5 years of data), with a struggling team, now, now is the time to be fiscally smart? and not overspend
You're making strawman arguments - no one has said they are spending less or it's fine to spend less - simply the fact remains it's critical how you spend your money and there are clear examples of clubs spending less who recruit better than us.
Had we a different attitude and strategy towards transfers with better people working behind the scenes with the exact same spend and then we could have achieved more in terms of playing personnel than what we have to show right now. That's been the crux of our problems, and if you understand that then great.
But taking digs at the owners for not spending more than Levy when you have no idea what they are going to spend and they haven't had 5 minutes of a summer window yet, just comes across as bitter because they got rid of Levy.
But it's also difficult to spend a shedload of money on players when we aren't going to be attracting top players due to not being in Europe, and having two seasons of being 17th the reality is we aren't attractive to the top end of player no matter how much money you throw at wages - should we be overspending just for the sake of it? No thanks. Come and have a conversation at the end of the window when we see what the realities are....
I'm out mate .. as I've said the dissonance should be a study.
- there are multiple threads where people have said exactly that they are fine with spending less, one of those is two posts above mine ..
- I have literally said, I've seen this pattern of corporate behavior before, but happy to be proven wrong
- And again, as I have pointed out above, they purposely timed being out of last summer's window, they did the grand fudge all in January (when action was more desperately needed) and the current business is players mostly old news (Robertson, Savinho, MGW and free transfers), hardly anything revolutionary and inspiring. so pretending they haven't had 5 minutes is disingenuous
- And once again, there are years (if not decades) of threads/posts on this board saying spend more, total spend, net spend, then wages, yet now .. now, to quote you "overspending for the sake of it, no thanks"? that's exactly what United did last season, threw money at 3 players, paid too much, too much wages .. see how that works out?
I don't give a fudge that they got rid of Levy, he's not my mate/family/whatever the fudge (I had/have some respect for the club that he improved us to, that's it, nothing more). The fudging people with a Levy hangup is not me, it's people who are so desperate to prove he was a brick CEO that they can't broker the thought that the new/old ownership is no better (because literally anyone was supposed to be better)
I think the point was more you can be more successful at recruiting spending less with a well oiled machine in the recruitment department vs spending more without real cohesion and plan?
But anyway the point to begin with was let's see what this window and future ones bring, too early to judge the 'new regime' vs old to make any real conclusions....
And if that is the point, 100%, we haven't been good at transfers, especially because of the point of cohesion and plan. Most of the players we have bought are decent, do they fit? are they too alike? did we cover the gaps? why do they do ok in Europe but not PL (profile issue), all true.
Time will tell, hopefully as I've said, they prove me wrong and lots of people on the board get to remind me of it ..
No need to remind you of it at all, considering ENICs past behaviour it's fair enough to hold the opinion you do - just think it's fair to judge changes good or bad over a longer period of time. You are not wrong that they have made strong statements about what they want to do, and im expecting delivery of that over a period of time but not expecting dramatic changes from the starting point we are at now.
They will also be learning on the job, and will doubtlessly already discovered (like many on here would) that it's not as easy as it appears to run Spurs from a footballing perspective. But if they show the right intent which I'm hopeful of, and then they could make a success of it in the coming seasons. No idea which way it will go, but willing to give them some time to deliver....