• 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

Moussa Sissoko

Very surprised and pleased to see him have a spring in his step.
He looked interested!

Is he going to be yet another to add to my "I got another player wrong" list.

Ill read it out one day for a laugh at our Xmas party..........
 
With coaching, I don't see why he couldn't be a decent box-to-box midfielder.

He's quick, a relatively strong and direct runner and has decent feet. Of course, he lacks a certain tenacity and passing quality, but I don't see why he can't win the ball, run with it, release a bit of pressure and keep it simple. He could compete with Dembele for that role, eventually, or work in a three with Dembele and Dier/Wanyama.
 
Could it be that that poor performance vs Leverkusen was an anomaly and he is actually a very good player who just needs to settle???
I don't know, maybe I'm talking rubbish again - let's lynch our new players if they show even the smallest sign that they are not up to standard!
 
kanoute16 said:
Could it be that that poor performance vs Leverkusen was an anomaly and he is actually a very good player who just needs to settle???
I don't know, maybe I'm talking rubbish again - let's lynch our new players if they show even the smallest sign that they are not up to standard!
Click to expand...

Finally, someone gets it! ;)
 
I wonder how well informed this is:

http://tottenhamhotspur.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/spurs-wont-have-to-pay-30m-for-sissoko.html
We bid £16 million (€19.05m - AUS$27.01m - US$20.12m) for him (which is all he was worth in reality) and only agreed a deal if we don't have to pay more if he doesn't stay. Saudi Sportswashing Machine got their PR story, in theory getting £30 million for him to appease their fans and we back that up by telling the press we have agreed to the full fee. That was all correct, but clauses actually turned the deal into something different.

We paid an initial £17 million (€20.24m - AUS$28.70m - US$21.38m) and are paying £6 million (€7.14m - AUS$10.13m - US$7.54m) a season only if we keep him, if we don't then the fee isn't payable, unlike most transfer fees when an instalment is set in stone whether you sell the player or not.

The Evening Standard wrote about this at the time with Tom Collomosse the reporter writing:

Sissoko was valued at £30 million and Tottenham finally agreed to meet that price, although the structure of the payments means Saudi Sportswashing Machine would receive the full fee — in five installments of £6m — only if he stays for the duration of his five-year contract.
 
JerusalemMan said:
I wonder how well informed this is:

http://tottenhamhotspur.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/spurs-wont-have-to-pay-30m-for-sissoko.html
We bid £16 million (€19.05m - AUS$27.01m - US$20.12m) for him (which is all he was worth in reality) and only agreed a deal if we don't have to pay more if he doesn't stay. Saudi Sportswashing Machine got their PR story, in theory getting £30 million for him to appease their fans and we back that up by telling the press we have agreed to the full fee. That was all correct, but clauses actually turned the deal into something different.

We paid an initial £17 million (€20.24m - AUS$28.70m - US$21.38m) and are paying £6 million (€7.14m - AUS$10.13m - US$7.54m) a season only if we keep him, if we don't then the fee isn't payable, unlike most transfer fees when an instalment is set in stone whether you sell the player or not.

The Evening Standard wrote about this at the time with Tom Collomosse the reporter writing:

Sissoko was valued at £30 million and Tottenham finally agreed to meet that price, although the structure of the payments means Saudi Sportswashing Machine would receive the full fee — in five installments of £6m — only if he stays for the duration of his five-year contract.
Click to expand...
That must be a fairly unique arrangement if true. It certainly smells of Levy though.
 
The numbers aren't totally concrete. One paragraph says £16m and the next says £17m was the initial, guaranteed amount.

It's spoken of as a certainty but it isn't sourced in anyway except the reference to the old Evening Standard article
 
JerusalemMan said:
I wonder how well informed this is:

http://tottenhamhotspur.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/spurs-wont-have-to-pay-30m-for-sissoko.html
We bid £16 million (€19.05m - AUS$27.01m - US$20.12m) for him (which is all he was worth in reality) and only agreed a deal if we don't have to pay more if he doesn't stay. Saudi Sportswashing Machine got their PR story, in theory getting £30 million for him to appease their fans and we back that up by telling the press we have agreed to the full fee. That was all correct, but clauses actually turned the deal into something different.

We paid an initial £17 million (€20.24m - AUS$28.70m - US$21.38m) and are paying £6 million (€7.14m - AUS$10.13m - US$7.54m) a season only if we keep him, if we don't then the fee isn't payable, unlike most transfer fees when an instalment is set in stone whether you sell the player or not.

The Evening Standard wrote about this at the time with Tom Collomosse the reporter writing:

Sissoko was valued at £30 million and Tottenham finally agreed to meet that price, although the structure of the payments means Saudi Sportswashing Machine would receive the full fee — in five installments of £6m — only if he stays for the duration of his five-year contract.
Click to expand...

"We paid an initial £17 million (€20.24m - AUS$28.70m - US$21.38m) and are paying £6 million (€7.14m - AUS$10.13m - US$7.54m) a season only if we keep him"

How does that work? So we've paid £17m already and then £6m a season...doesnt that mean that by next summer we'll have paid £23m, then £29m by the summer after etc?
 
It's encouraging to see him go past the full back and in a relatively tight space. But he does need to work on doing something productive with the ball after that.
I always thought he was strange purchase, because he is far more suited to an open counter attacking style of play, but we really don't play like that.

We need players who are good in tight spaces. The Silva, Hazard, Messi (but obviously a cheaper version) type players who can play in between the lines when we are pressing. Who can dribble and go both outside and inside. Maybe GKN can do that, but he hasn't really had a chance. Lamela can to a degree. But I would have spent the Sissoko money on either that type of player, or a Modric type player.
 
ringo said:
It's encouraging to see him go past the full back and in a relatively tight space. But he does need to work on doing something productive with the ball after that.
I always thought he was strange purchase, because he is far more suited to an open counter attacking style of play, but we really don't play like that.

We need players who are good in tight spaces. The Silva, Hazard, Messi (but obviously a cheaper version) type players who can play in between the lines when we are pressing. Who can dribble and go both outside and inside. Maybe GKN can do that, but he hasn't really had a chance. Lamela can to a degree. But I would have spent the Sissoko money on either that type of player, or a Modric type player.
Click to expand...

Fair. But I think he showed more close control today than any of our attacking quartet prior to his introduction. Kane, Alli, Eriksen and Son got utterly shown up by a player fresh out of the Championship.
 
The criticism of him at Saudi Sportswashing Machine was he turns up when its a big game on TV. Couldn't be arsed the rest of the time.
 
StephenH said:
Still looked extremely useful today.
Don't give a stuff about what he diid at Saudi Sportswashing Machine
Click to expand...

Looked extremely useful, yet nothing close to end product. If this is him being good I'm still not convinced at that price and age.

Put it in the OMT, but the last time he got 10 or more goals and assists in total in a league season was in 09/10 - that was back when we had Crouch firing us into the CL.

He did a good job today in difficult circumstances for him and the team. But right now he wouldn't even be the first sub to come on if we had Lamela fit.
 
braineclipse said:
Looked extremely useful, yet nothing close to end product. If this is him being good I'm still not convinced at that price and age.

Put it in the OMT, but the last time he got 10 or more goals and assists in total in a league season was in 09/10 - that was back when we had Crouch firing us into the CL.

He did a good job today in difficult circumstances for him and the team. But right now he wouldn't even be the first sub to come on if we had Lamela fit.
Click to expand...

He changed our dynamic positively for me

Needed more impetus from the other players who just didn't change at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back