• 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

Next seasons squad

Raziel said:
What justification would there be to spend less? (forget the Levy conversation as it taints everyone's perspective). Surely you (and the others) haven't suddenly decided our squad is good enough? Owners need to save money (is that ok now?)

Even if you take view of Robertson & Senesi being effectively free, we swap Romero for Savinho, so you start at net zero
- We need a top level GK, Deep lying CM, replacement for Palhihna/Bissouma, CF (maybe 2), #10 (can't rely only on Maddison), maybe RW

That's 6 incoming players that will average 60M+ a player (GK slightly less, CF's a lot more), even if you make some deals, say one experience player (cheaper but higher wages), maybe one covered by sales, there is no math where a real "reset" (CEO and owners verbiage, not mine) works out cheaper.

Now, would we need to do that every window? maybe not, but probably as our competition spends like that. But there cannot be a doubt that a team that finished 17th two seasons in a row, with glaring weaknesses up top, needs spend and spend now.
Click to expand...
The fact that we can’t afford to. We have the biggest debt in football and every year our cash position is reducing as our debt position is climbing.

If we increase our wage to revenue ratio (as I expect us to do) then we can probably sustain around £80-£100m of net transfer spending a season, more if we’re in the CL.

Unlike you I’d rather have a good football set up spending a bit less money but spending it well than a poor football set up spending more money badly.
 
Bishop said:
You thought the same about Solanke and look how that turned out. 🤣

I jest I jest. Hopefully if the coach actually wants him and would use him then fair enough.
Click to expand...
As in does RDZ rate Solanke! We will see I guess
Hard to know who he likes as he has had such a short period of time
But I dont think he will accept anything he doesn’t want
 
Finney Is Back said:
The fact that we can’t afford to. We have the biggest debt in football and every year our cash position is reducing as our debt position is climbing.

If we increase our wage to revenue ratio (as I expect us to do) then we can probably sustain around £80-£100m of net transfer spending a season, more if we’re in the CL.

Unlike you I’d rather have a good football set up spending a bit less money but spending it well than a poor football set up spending more money badly.
Click to expand...

We have always spent what we can afford.

I'm more than a little bemused that suddenly, that's ok, and we should give the owners a pass ..
 
Raziel said:
What justification would there be to spend less? (forget the Levy conversation as it taints everyone's perspective). Surely you (and the others) haven't suddenly decided our squad is good enough? Owners need to save money (is that ok now?)

Even if you take view of Robertson & Senesi being effectively free, we swap Romero for Savinho, so you start at net zero
- We need a top level GK, Deep lying CM, replacement for Palhihna/Bissouma, CF (maybe 2), #10 (can't rely only on Maddison), maybe RW

That's 6 incoming players that will average 60M+ a player (GK slightly less, CF's a lot more), even if you make some deals, say one experience player (cheaper but higher wages), maybe one covered by sales, there is no math where a real "reset" (CEO and owners verbiage, not mine) works out cheaper.

Now, would we need to do that every window? maybe not, but probably as our competition spends like that. But there cannot be a doubt that a team that finished 17th two seasons in a row, with glaring weaknesses up top, needs spend and spend now.
Click to expand...
We can't do all that in a season. I think our defensive capabilities are ok, just need like for like replacements.

It's the attacking part where we need to invest heavily in because we will continue to be well short for the first half of next season.

Also consider that some of the long term casualties will not hit peak form ever again.
 
Raziel said:
We have always spent what we can afford.

I'm more than a little bemused that suddenly, that's ok, and we should give the owners a pass ..
Click to expand...
Then IMO you completely misunderstand what the problem has been at Spurs these past 8 years or so.

I think you’re so infatuated by Daniel Levy that you want to create a narrative that the new exec team are worse if they don’t have as large a net spend as we did under Levy, even though we bought badly, sold badly and had poor investment and pathways for our academy players in that time.

Running a business (football club) well doesn’t mean spending money you don’t have, it means spending the money you do have in the best way possible.
 
Last edited:
metalgear said:
where are the funds for increased wages going to come from ? Lower transfer fees ?
Click to expand...

Trusting/gambling on some of the youth coming through and being more willing to get unwanted/peripheral players off the books for lower transfer fees rather than have them taking up squad spots because we paid too much for them or their value has fallen and we don't want to take the 'hit'.
 
Lost Mango said:
Trusting/gambling on some of the youth coming through and being more willing to get unwanted/peripheral players off the books for lower transfer fees rather than have them taking up squad spots because we paid too much for them or their value has fallen and we don't want to take the 'hit'.
Click to expand...
I would also say selling in a more clever way (I.e selling Romero this summer).
 
parj said:
I agree mostly with what you say, but Solanke has to go. We need a striker holding the ball up near the box, not the half way line. I also don't think he is the best at linking play, his touch, passing and vision isn't good enough. Richy literally beats him on scoring goals. Everything else, they could both do better
Click to expand...
Counterpoints: He can hold the ball up wherever he gets it, and scored more than one in three at Bournemouth.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Solanke did well for Ange didn’t he?
Click to expand...
9 goals for 60m, hmm I don't think I would consider that good. He pressed well, work hard etc but offered very little goal threat and rarely even had many chances. Some might blame that one the role he played for Ange, i'm unconvinced, he's never been a prolific striker.
Bedfordspurs said:
Ange loved Solanke
Click to expand...
It's not about whether he loved him, it's that a manager pick isn't always a good one.
 
Bishop said:
9 goals for 60m, hmm I don't think I would consider that good. He pressed well, work hard etc but offered very little goal threat and rarely even had many chances. Some might blame that one the role he played for Ange, i'm unconvinced, he's never been a prolific striker.

It's not about whether he loved him, it's that a manager pick isn't always a good one.
Click to expand...
But when he played we did score a lot of goals. So the player suited the manager and the system, no?
 
Finney Is Back said:
The fact that we can’t afford to. We have the biggest debt in football and every year our cash position is reducing as our debt position is climbing.

If we increase our wage to revenue ratio (as I expect us to do) then we can probably sustain around £80-£100m of net transfer spending a season, more if we’re in the CL.

Unlike you I’d rather have a good football set up spending a bit less money but spending it well than a poor football set up spending more money badly.
Click to expand...
What about a poor football set up spending less money? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back