• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.
 
Bishop said:
Confirming those two signings just affirmed the status quo, it did not bring any new or additional into the club and that is typically the expectation when the talk of new signings is made. They aren't new, they aren't providing anything we didn't already have. I dont know why this is difficult to understand.

If we had indeed signed two alternatives to Danso and Tel then yes those players would be new ad adding something we didn't already have to the squad (hopefully). There's an argument I can hear where there is discussion that if you don't then sign the players you had on loan then you are in fact weaker than last season but that's the reality. Neither player is new to the team.
Click to expand...
There's a simpler argument. The transfer is only now permanent, and they are only now Spurs players. The transfer money is only now being paid and is coming out of the budget now.
 
DubSpur said:
There's a simpler argument. The transfer is only now permanent, and they are only now Spurs players. The transfer money is only now being paid and is coming out of the budget now.
Click to expand...
Why do we care about the transfer money? Aren't we fans of a football team? The only thing that matters is the squad and the player qualities in that squad. Thats the simplest argument.

Have we added additional quality this summer?

So far we have added Palhinha, Kudus, Takai and Vuscovic.

Everyone else was already here and is therefore not additional depth or quality.

edit: Whether they were owned by Spurs or not is irrelevant, they played for us last season and contributed positively or negatively.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

Its the most bizarre argument I have seen on here and I have argued with a bloke who counted birds (feathered) for a living and called himself a rat
 
Last edited:
It does not matter what are facts or not, the haters will find anything to dig at the club and especially LEVY and those who do not hate Levy will see the other side. JESUS i wish the season would start and we can all stop trying to prove a point which suits their agendas. SAD really.
 
Bishop said:
Confirming those two signings just affirmed the status quo, it did not bring any new or additional into the club and that is typically the expectation when the talk of new signings is made. They aren't new, they aren't providing anything we didn't already have. I dont know why this is difficult to understand.

If we had indeed signed two alternatives to Danso and Tel then yes those players would be new ad adding something we didn't already have to the squad (hopefully). There's an argument I can hear where there is discussion that if you don't then sign the players you had on loan then you are in fact weaker than last season but that's the reality. Neither player is new to the team.
Click to expand...

Of course, if that is where people sit sincerely you are spot on.

Yes the player are not adding depth this summer because they were here BUT their fees will come out of this years budget, so there is a variance to it depending on what you are talking about. We have to be real here and say that those loans going perm will impact this years budget, thats just a fact of the numbers. Does it matter, no, but seeing as the debate seems rife on here, may as well chime in hahaha

Regards

A Cult
 
Last edited:
Bishop said:
Why do we care about the transfer money? Aren't we fans of a football team? The only thing that matters is the squad and the player qualities in that squad. Thats the simplest argument.

Have we added additional quality this summer?

So far we have added Palhinha, Kudus, Takai and Vuscovic.

Everyone else was already here and is therefore not additional depth or quality.

edit: Whether they were owned by Spurs or not is irrelevant, they played for us last season and contributed positively or negatively.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with your overall point about actually adding new players to the squad but to your first sentence - yes, we need to be aware of the impact on transfer spend when we are hoping that the club signs x more players. That’s when the loans converted to permanent moves are relevant to the argument.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Lol. There's objective facts being argued with on here.

We've signed players.

We've got new additions to the squad

We've signed new players who were loans before

We've got players we've signed earlier who are now with the squad for the first time

And some where along the way this was about Levy rather than arguing semantics.
Click to expand...
The season can't start soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back