The Defensive Midfielder

[Bishop]

Isnt that why Ange said we signed Gray?

Remains to be seen of course. How Gray develops will be interesting. He's shown some nice passing range from deep, something I think we are desperate for. I'd like to see him in midfield to see how far off is in terms of being a serious contender for the role.

 

[Muttley]

Attractiveness aka money. If you are willing to pay the player what it takes you can pretty much sign anyone. Not that I think that's something we should do, but it's what works.

Nah, you also have to be in vogue. Players still want to win trophies and play in the CL. We're only going to match other financial offers at best anyway. I know you and I bleed Spurs but imagine if we were offered exactly the same terms to play for Galatasaray and Real Madrid. I know where I'm going and it ain't Istanbul.

What we need to get better at is convincing Bayern's latest sensation Olise to join us way before he even thinks of them. That's where we have the financial might to overpay and land our man. We also now have a reputation where players like Gray do get on the pitch under Ange. That was never the case with Jose or Conte, and even Poch in the latter days. We should never beat ourselves up over a Jack Clarke because we lost money on one or two. Keep using the model. That's also why City were crawling all over Mikey Moore before he signed the contract. They'll still be telling him to run down his 2 years and walk.

 

[Raziel]

Attractiveness aka money. If you are willing to pay the player what it takes you can pretty much sign anyone. Not that I think that's something we should do, but it's what works.

True (within some caveats of who else is in for the player) but you have to understand what trade off you make for that one player (i.e. who else you don't buy)

Ndombele, Porro, Richi, Solanke, Maddison, Johnson, Gray show we can spend for that 1 player up to that ~60M range.

It would be interesting to see if someone could test the number above, e.g. for the perfect player, how high would we go?

 

[Bishop]

Nah, you also have to be in vogue. Players still want to win trophies and play in the CL. We're only going to match other financial offers at best anyway. I know you and I bleed Spurs but imagine if we were offered exactly the same terms to play for Galatasaray and Real Madrid. I know where I'm going and it ain't Istanbul.

What we need to get better at is convincing Bayern's latest sensation Olise to join us way before he even thinks of them. That's where we have the financial might to overpay and land our man. We also now have a reputation where players like Gray do get on the pitch under Ange. That was never the case with Jose or Conte, and even Poch in the latter days. We should never beat ourselves up over a Jack Clarke because we lost money on one or two. Keep using the model. That's also why City were crawling all over Mikey Moore before he signed the contract. They'll still be telling him to run down his 2 years and walk.

I bleed Spurs but if I were a top pro I wouldn't join Spurs either if I'm honest. There's no point, the club doesn't have the funds to back any ambition it claims to have nor a bold and innovative scouting model.

I do think of you offer enough money it convinced players that, that team is going to be in vogue, that they are serious and do want to win. It's how Blackburn, Chelsea and even City did it. It's how Saudi Sportswashing Machine attracted Isak (despite that plan being restricted in what they can do).

 

[Bishop]

True (within some caveats of who else is in for the player) but you have to understand what trade off you make for that one player (i.e. who else you don't buy)

Ndombele, Porro, Richi, Solanke, Maddison, Johnson, Gray show we can spend for that 1 player up to that ~60M range.

It would be interesting to see if someone could test the number above, e.g. for the perfect player, how high would we go?

Going forward we may be in a position where we don't need to bring in so many players this the money available for fees might be able to concentrated on fewer players. We might then see a transfer higher than the noted 60m ceiling we've seen so far.

@Muttley just an addendum to my last post that I forgot. I also like you would pretty much sell any player if the money was right and a suitable replacement can be had. The player doesn't even need to be a household name, I'm happy enough with just appropriate attributes. I was one of those that was arguing for the sale of Eriksen back in 2017 and Son a season back due to his contract situation I was also happy enough Kane going the first time around to City.

For me no player is irreplaceable if your scouting and recruitment model is sound. You might not get a like for like but I've watched too much football over the years to not know you can sometimes replace one player with two and actually improve.

 

[Raziel]

I bleed Spurs but if I were a top pro I wouldn't join Spurs either if I'm honest. There's no point, the club doesn't have the funds to back any ambition it claims to have nor a bold and innovative scouting model.

I do think of you offer enough money it convinced players that, that team is going to be in vogue, that they are serious and do want to win. It's how Blackburn, Chelsea and even City did it. It's how Saudi Sportswashing Machine attracted Isak (despite that plan being restricted in what they can do).

Really depends on where you are with your career trajectory

- Modric is the poster child of what Spurs can do for your career, same for Kane (he could have moved earlier), Walker, Bale, Berbatov, Carrick
- Vic, Udogie, Porro, Solanke, Bergvall, etc also show how quickly Spurs can put you in frame for your national teams

Are we Madrid, Barca, Pool, City? no, but clearly a full level above anyone outside top 6, and a lot of European teams. May not be the place to win things, but certainly gives visibility/credit

Going forward we may be in a position where we don't need to bring in so many players this the money available for fees might be able to concentrated on fewer players. We might then see a transfer higher than the noted 60m ceiling we've seen so far.

@Muttley just an addendum to my last post that I forgot. I also like you would pretty much sell any player if the money was right and a suitable replacement can be had. The player doesn't even need to be a household name, I'm happy enough with just appropriate attributes. I was one of those that was arguing for the sale of Eriksen back in 2017 and Son a season back due to his contract situation I was also happy enough Kane going the first time around to City.

For me no player is irreplaceable if your scouting and recruitment model is sound. You might not get a like for like but I've watched too much football over the years to not know you can sometimes replace one player with two and actually improve.

To me, it where is the squad to support that change, e.g. for some time selling either Kane and/or Son would have put us in a really bad place.

I do agree though and I'd argue Maddison, Romero, Bissouma, Richi are probably all players we could consider selling/replacing in the short to medium term. We need to have a plan to transition from dependence on Son regardless of if we keep or not.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Going forward we may be in a position where we don't need to bring in so many players this the money available for fees might be able to concentrated on fewer players. We might then see a transfer higher than the noted 60m ceiling we've seen so far.

@Muttley just an addendum to my last post that I forgot. I also like you would pretty much sell any player if the money was right and a suitable replacement can be had. The player doesn't even need to be a household name, I'm happy enough with just appropriate attributes. I was one of those that was arguing for the sale of Eriksen back in 2017 and Son a season back due to his contract situation I was also happy enough Kane going the first time around to City.

For me no player is irreplaceable if your scouting and recruitment model is sound. You might not get a like for like but I've watched too much football over the years to not know you can sometimes replace one player with two and actually improve.

I’m convinced and have been for a long while that the summer just fine was about quantity of quality … young volume who can play Ange ball
And the next few windows are the star dust. The extra levels
Said it before but in those 2 years we would be doing a lot of shifting and changing
Doug forget by next summer we will Have 4 extra players on the said today in Yang, Philips, Veliz and Vuskovic
Plus great references for Keeley and Donley
That’s potentially 6 more squad players or maybe even 3/4 for next season with a couple going on loan
Add a senior player in jan
And 2/3 more in the summer and the issue becomes too many players

 

[Bishop]

Really depends on where you are with your career trajectory

- Modric is the poster child of what Spurs can do for your career, same for Kane (he could have moved earlier), Walker, Bale, Berbatov, Carrick
- Vic, Udogie, Porro, Solanke, Bergvall, etc also show how quickly Spurs can put you in frame for your national teams

Are we Madrid, Barca, Pool, City? no, but clearly a full level above anyone outside top 6, and a lot of European teams. May not be the place to win things, but certainly gives visibility/credit



To me, it where is the squad to support that change, e.g. for some time selling either Kane and/or Son would have put us in a really bad place.

I do agree though and I'd argue Maddison, Romero, Bissouma, Richi are probably all players we could consider selling/replacing in the short to medium term. We need to have a plan to transition from dependence on Son regardless of if we keep or not.

I did say a top pro, so I probably diverted the convo a bit my apologies. By the comment I meant it as someone whom wants to win right now, today. That's not a player that will sign for Spurs, let's be real. Unless you offer them enough money so that they believe with that gesture that you will now sign extra players of that same serious intent and quality.

Modric wasn't that at the time and I do think we can be a good place to show your abilities so I am perfectly happy signing players of similar profile to Modric, play them, develop them, use their talents to progress (hopefully win) and importantly sell them at the right time. That's exactly what I hoped we always do.

We just need to keep it fresh especially with a coach like Ange and the demands of hi play style, no hoarding. In and out, fresh players. Keep the new ears coming in and competition for places. Genuine competition where the coach is forced to choose between real quality

 

[Muttley]

I bleed Spurs but if I were a top pro I wouldn't join Spurs either if I'm honest. There's no point, the club doesn't have the funds to back any ambition it claims to have nor a bold and innovative scouting model.

I do think of you offer enough money it convinced players that, that team is going to be in vogue, that they are serious and do want to win. It's how Blackburn, Chelsea and even City did it. It's how Saudi Sportswashing Machine attracted Isak (despite that plan being restricted in what they can do).

I must confess I couldn't tell you so much about Isak before he joined Saudi Sportswashing Machine. I would have had to Google him.

He joined as a 22 year old and it feels like he is now that star attraction that he wasn't back then. Saudi Sportswashing Machine therefore got their man before all the massive clubs were crawling all over him like they would be now. This is what I've always advocated what we do, rather than wait until they're at their peak. Isak was a 1-in-3 or 1-in-4 striker when he moved to St James.

What Saudi Sportswashing Machine actually did was pay over the odds based on his valuation at the time. They then probably threw £150k a week at him and a huge signing on fee. They played the risk and reward model and now have a £100m player who is a 1-in-2 striker. Smart business.