• 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

New Striker or New Stadium?

It's a false question but if it has to be one its the stadium.

All the top sides have large consistent revenue streams from a mixture of gate, TV, commercial and owner. The first is the only one we can change dramatically and consistently. We can improve the TV money through CL qualification but we are currently at a major disadvantage when compare with United and Arsenal on gate and Chelsea and City on owner. As it is we can compete for a CL place but even in good years we just fall short most of the time (2005-06, 2010-11, 2011-12 vs 2009-10). The reason is that we are at a significant disadvantage compared to these teams. The gap in revenue is huge. In the years we qualify for the CL we can narrow the gap but we are still fighting an uphill battle.

With a new stadium we join United and Arsenal in the gate revenue category. This means we are competing for a top four spot on more equal terms. Without CL we would still be behind, but our chances of CL qualification would be significantly higher. Qualifying for the CL more often closes the gap further, helping us become a regular CL with the revenue stream and appeal to bring in better players. If we can become a CL regular and the FFP rules restrain the sugar-daddies, we could within a decade become realistic title challengers on a regular basis.

In contrast buy a striker only helps us get top four now. If he is good enough he will move on to one of the clubs we are trying to catch. And note, those arguing for getting a striker now are only talking about challenging for the Wenger Trophy, not the PL title. Unfortunately, this would only partly close the revenue gap and not in a reliable way like the stadium. Even if successful it does nothing to help the next step. True it might help us keep Bale a bit longer, but he is just one player. It's extremely hard to find players like that with our current status and the best we can do get one or two occasionally for a few years. Arsenal and United can handle the loss of key players because they can get adequate replacements. We can't buy a Bale or Modric (2012 versions) and have to gamble on younger versions.

We need both the stadium and CL to change our status. The stadium helps us do that down the road. The striker only helps with the CL now.
 
Would you not agree a 'large' inverstment now (top player) could yield even 'larger' returns (continuous CL particiaption) in the long run?


Not at large as a stadium no.


A stadium is far more consistent. Plus it's still not either or.



Ok. We go out and buy this wonder player you want, he comes in and breaks his leg in the second week, tears his ACL, doesn't adapt well to he Premier League, Flops? Buying a player is far more risk worthy than building a stadium.
 
Short term gain is anything that we won't definitely receive on a consistent basis.

Therefore the money from champions league football is short term gain.

And if we finish in the CL spots and Bale still wants to leave? Then what?

drop his expectations? We finished fourth last year and have not significantly weakened the team, last year the expectation was what? Fourth? Some even thought we should finish third. So why would that be any different now?

Not unless you provide the right tools in order to make that a continous participation, season after season. Do you think Levy is not planning to have us as a regular participant? Reminds of that old argument in OMTs

- rest players in CL games so we have them fit for the fight for 4th in order to qualify for the CL and rest players in CL games so we have them fit for the fight for 4th in order to qualify for the CL

As for your last paragraph - my only response is - perhaps you have quoted the wrong post? Because I have never suggested any of those questions you seem to be asking - in fact, the contrary
 
Last edited:
Not at large as a stadium no.

A stadium is far more consistent. Plus it's still not either or.

Ok. We go out and buy this wonder player you want, he comes in and breaks his leg in the second week, tears his ACL, doesn't adapt well to he Premier League, Flops? Buying a player is far more risk worthy than building a stadium.

?

A decent player would cost a fraction of a new stadium - how this is even part of the same argument is beyond me? In fact - I'd suggest the thread title makes us look ridiculously small time and comes across as a massive knee-jerk (no offence to the OP)

As for the last paragraph - according to your logic no team should ever bother buying players because brick can go wrong. :|
 
Would you not agree a 'large' inverstment now (top player) could yield even 'larger' returns (continuous CL particiaption) in the long run?

Firstly, there are no guarantees that signing a big name player will pay off. What if we spend £25m on a player and break our wage ceiling and they fail to settle?

Secondly, in order for ENIC to maximize their return, we can only spend what we generate. The club would be worth a lot less if wages were not under control when ENIC come to sell.
 
Not unless you provide the right tools in order to make that a continous participation, season after season. Do you think Levy is not planning to have us as a regular particiapant? Reminds of that old argument in OMTs

- rest players in CL games so we have them fit for the fight for 4th in order to qualify for the CL and rest players in CL games so we have them fit for the fight for 4th in order to qualify for the CL

As for your last paragraph - my only response is - perhaps you have quoted the wrong post? Because I have never suggested any of those questions you seem to be asking - in fact, the contrary


There is absolutely no way to guarantee continuous champions league participation.


There are ways to put the odds in your favour though, and spending lots of money that will put you in debt if you fail to qualify is not one of them. In fact it would lead to backwards steps more often then forward steps.


However spending lots of money you can afford makes far more sense. Thus the stadium makes more sense.


Rest players? How does resting someone with a broken leg or an ACL rupture help? Madess!
 
Need I remind everyone that prior to large bailouts by rich benefactors the majority of clubs who have made the Champion's League almost bankrupted themselves trying to stay in it. We are doing the correct thing being prudent, no matter how much it frustrates us fans.
 
?

A decent player would cost a fraction of a new stadium - how this is even part of the same argument is beyond me? In fact - I'd suggest the thread title makes us look ridiculously small time and comes across as a massive knee-jerk (no offence to the OP)

As for the last paragraph - according to your logic no team should ever bother buying players because brick can go wrong. :|


A decent player would not come from the Sponsorship deals.


I'm not sure why you still think they are linked?


No. I think we shouldn't lay out massive gambles on players that we can't currently afford to put us in debt because that could go wrong.

Perfectly happy when we spend the money we do have though.
 
Stadium i can understand but if these "world class training facilities" is what's stopping us from spending cash on players we need then i'd rather we didn't have it.
 
There is absolutely no way to guarantee continuous champions league participation.


There are ways to put the odds in your favour though, and spending lots of money that will put you in debt if you fail to qualify is not one of them. In fact it would lead to backwards steps more often then forward steps.

We don't have to spend 'lots of money' - I would argue we are 2 players away from a very good side - that's equivalent of buying 4 average players, not plunging into debt and bankrupcy

Rest players? How does resting someone with a broken leg or an ACL rupture help? Madess!

I think you've misunderstoof the joke

- people argued we should rest players in the CL in order to keep our league form in tact and guarantee CL qualification

- only to qualify and rest players in the CL in order to keep our league form in tact and guarantee CL qualification
 
A decent player would not come from the Sponsorship deals.

I'm not sure why you still think they are linked?

No. I think we shouldn't lay out massive gambles on players that we can't currently afford to put us in debt because that could go wrong.

Perfectly happy when we spend the money we do have though.

How do you know we can't afford it? Apparently we could 'afford' Moutinho few months ago.

Any player could go wrong, with respect, that is a very bizarre logic and one, I strongly doubt Levy subsribes to.

Are you perfectly happy spending 10m on 3 average players and their 50k/wages compared to a single 25m player on 80k/week who can make all the difference with a clinical touch?
 
Ah fair enough.

We may be two players away, but one of them will be a striker, which would be very expensive, and i'm not even sure what the other one is any more.

Spending money we do not have is never a good move. You call it 'plunging into debt and bankruptcy' to make light of it, however what it means is that we would be forced to sell players down the road if we fail to qualify. It would be one step forwards, two steps backwards.


It doesn't fit in with what we have seen thus far either. Safe sustainable growth. We have sold big players before yes, but only when:

1. They wanted to leave us.
2. We got the big pay off and had an opportunity to reinvest into the squad.

Spending on two players now, and you're talking about spending £30m or so, would not be safe sustainable growth.


It's always far easier to declare that we should gamble when it's somebody else's money.
 
We don't have to spend 'lots of money' - I would argue we are 2 players away from a very good side - that's equivalent of buying 4 average players, not plunging into debt and bankrupcy



I think you've misunderstoof the joke

- people argued we should rest players in the CL in order to keep our league form in tact and guarantee CL qualification

- only to qualify and rest players in the CL in order to keep our league form in tact and guarantee CL qualification

And being regular CL participants will help us get better players/a squad capable of challenging on more than one front. Apart from qualifying for the knockout stages, there is little reason to prioritize it. The likelihood of winning it is minimal, but our chances of qualifying for it via the league are not.
 
How do you know we can't afford it? Apparently we could 'afford' Moutinho few months ago.

Any player could go wrong, with respect, that is a very bizarre logic and one, I strongly doubt Levy subsribes to.

Are you perfectly happy spending 10m on 3 average players and their 50k/wages compared to a single 25m player on 80k/week who can make all the difference with a clinical touch?


Can you name these supposedly 'average' players that we bought for £10m?


It's not bizarre logic, when you are trying to be self sufficient it's a huge risk.



How do you know that we can afford it? The latest account show that we lost money last year without champions league football, and that was without many big signings.
 
Its a catch 22...

Its what comes first - success on the pitch or possessing a state of the art 60k capacity stadium? There are risks on both counts and its all about which one poses a lesser risk or one that we are prepared to accept.

I agree that with the stadium and larger capacity brings a recurring revenue stream but it wont bring in a significantly larger one if we are meddling around in mid table. In an ideal world fans will come in to support the team regardless but lets be honest this isnt an ideal world and without success we will have the same attendance as we do now which means the benefits of a larger capacity stadium is not being realised. a white elephant so to speak.

However if we are not successful on th epitch in the immediate future then you cant really build year on year as players we have we will not be able to hold on to the likes of Lloris, Bale etc. Do you think these players will wait for three to five years for us to build a stadium? I very much doubt it.

Besides I dont think its a matter of a new striker or new stadium thats like saying you want a new car or new home - its always going to be the home that is the priority BUT you can always buy a medium priced car which gets you from A to B and there are some bargains out there.
 
And being regular CL participants will help us get better players/a squad capable of challenging on more than one front. Apart from qualifying for the knockout stages, there is little reason to prioritize it. The likelihood of winning it is minimal, but our chances of qualifying for it via the league are not.

While you might find this kind of attitude perfectly acceptable to yourself as well as ENIC's balance sheet - that is not how I personally like to see our club approach Europe's elite club competition - or any other competitive tournament for that matter
 
How do you know we can't afford it? Apparently we could 'afford' Moutinho few months ago.

Any player could go wrong, with respect, that is a very bizarre logic and one, I strongly doubt Levy subsribes to.

Are you perfectly happy spending 10m on 3 average players and their 50k/wages compared to a single 25m player on 80k/week who can make all the difference with a clinical touch?

a 25 mill player will demand much more than 80k a week. A figure around 120k is more likely

I get your point though and i think we are now in a position where we should be able to go for 1 top player than 3 average ones. I really dont see Moutinho being that player now that Holtby has signed up for the summer. Holtby has the potential to be a Moutinho type and it seems AVB has accepted that. The big signing will be a striker imo, Damaio being the favourite
 
Can you name these supposedly 'average' players that we bought for £10m?


How do you know that we can afford it? The latest account show that we lost money last year without champions league football, and that was without many big signings.

Dempsey and Sigurdsson (plus the noises of Hopper!) - Sig clearly with the possibility of a great re-sale - vintage DL move. Take the first 2 away, add 3-4m and bring in Willian for argument's sake - a player who would add exponentially more than either of them and possible be the difference int he run in when the real quality makes the difference in most top teams.

As fo the finances - if are supposedly unable to afford much - tell me, how come Moutinho was virtually as good as done just months ago?
 
Dempsey and Sigurdsson (plus the noises of Hopper!) - Sig clearly with the possibility of a great re-sale - vintage DL move. Take the first 2 away, add 3-4m and bring in Willian for argument's sake - a player who would add exponentially more than either of them and possible be the difference int he run in when the real quality makes the difference in most top teams.

As fo the finances - if are supposedly unable to afford much - tell me, how come Moutinho was virtually as good as done just months ago?

All transfer deals are paid over a number of years through installments. Signing a player now for a huge amount will impact future spending. We'd be borrowing from future "transfer kitties". Just like we did in Harry's first window.
 
But we made a loss - meaning we had nothing or very little at the time (according to Spursalot) - i.e. must have secured a loan deal (presumably) and were prepared to service it

So what is / can be different now? In fact - we are in a stronger position now, being 4th - I'm sure most thought we'd be around 6th this time around
 
Back