glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Really? Apart from perhaps greater chance of gametime compared to the other teams chasing, in what ways do hey show we are more attractive to players than we used to be?
-
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
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
Really? Apart from perhaps greater chance of gametime compared to the other teams chasing, in what ways do hey show we are more attractive to players than we used to be?
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
What profile of player is that? How is that profile any different to what who we would have targetted before, i.e. in the Ramos to Poch eras?
Haven't we always been a club that sends such a message to younger players? E.g. Modric, Bale, Eriksen, Son, Sessegnon etc? there was some variance in the peak Poch era (when it would have been very difficult to dislodge any of that starting 11-13 players), Jose and Conte comapred to now but that was because we were heavily chasing trophies/top 4 (or at least those appointments gave the impression we were). But i'm not sure there's been a massively new attraction for us to younger up-and-coming players..
If we are turning our model 'back' to targeting up-and-coming younger players, then it would seem we developed our stadium to become a souped-up, more blingy Brighton...imo, we should be more than that at this point
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
There have been times in the past where we have looked a very good place for young talented players to come. Other times not so much. We're now in a good time for that, not sure if it's better than the better periods in the past.
Where we perhaps seem a bit stronger now compared to the past is going for elite talents that are actively being pursued by the biggest clubs around. Bergvall reportedly chose us over Barcelona. Vuskovic was reportedly seen within football as a really special talent being looked at by all the biggest clubs, he chose coming to us.
Modric and Bale in particular turned into world class players and were of course highly rated when we signed them. But I'm not sure we attracted them with similar competition to what we now seem capable of. But, very difficult to compare and judge. Don't think there's a massive difference (to when we've been attractive in the past).
The difference now is that we can combine signing very talented young players (Sarr, Udogie, Gray, Bergvall etc) with signing quality first team players (Solanke, Maddison, VdV) who we sign for quite a lot of money with some regularity. And we're able to do that without being in the CL.
A souped up Brighton would be a really well run club that would be likely to take really good steps in a good direction imo.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
I think we overrate our 'advancement' in signing ability if we are using Solanke, Maddison and MVDV as examples. Firstly, i'm not sure we were beating the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd etc to those signings.
Secondly, this last summer we NEEDED to sign more than one immediate first-teamer and we didn't.
Thirdly, it's not as if we haven't signed such players before, i.e. signings from lower-level PL clubs for whom we are a step-up. It isn't anything novel, certainly no different to pre-stadium transfers.
So on the evidence of that, i'm not sure much has actually changed. If in the last transfer window (when there were clear needs if we wanted to step-up from last season) we had signed two or three immediate first-teamers of the kind of profile of Solanke, Eze, Neto etc (to use as examples, due to profile, how much they'd improve the first team and age/experience) alongside the likes of Bergvall etc then i'd look at things differently.
But on that basis, i see no difference as i say to pre-stadium transfers and so i wonder why people think we are 'more attractive' to players than we used to be...surely if we were, we would be taking full advantage
Who do you expect us to be 'at this point'? The Goons who were/are bigger when paying off their stadium debt were not big spenders again until eight years later in 2014 - But of course the far superior Spurs having to take on a hell of a lot more debt should be so much more by now....
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
The players that are not mentioned on that list that he moved on don't paint such a rosey picture.
We had a core of senior chances and malcontents that he had to move on.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Right, so the stadium re-build has effected the football side? I remember being told by Levy/ENIC etc that it wouldn't....
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
Yep
And he made 3 of those captains
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
First and third point... I didn't use those players as an example of us being more attractive. I used those as examples of us being able to spend more and sign both first teamers and younger talents. I used Bergvall and Vuskovic as examples of us maybe being somewhat more attractive to elite level young talents.
On the second point. We did that last summer, we know we can. Somewhere in the club a decision was made to go younger this season. I think that was a footballing decision, not a board or Levy decision.
As a slight aside the young player we did sign who seemed closest to being ready for the first team quickly was Odobert (little bit older, full season of PL football behind him) has more or less been injured all season so far.
I too wanted 2-3 first team ready players this summer. We ended up spending enough money on Odobert and Gray that we could instead have signed Eze or Neto (financially at least).
If that was a forced decision by Levy and the board to go that young I would be very much against that. If that was a decision made by the "transfer committee" and that included Ange I'm very much in favour of that. The time to evaluate if that was a good decision or not has not come for me. So far we've seen the expected downside of that, but we haven't seen the (hoped for) upside.
And had we spent that money on (for example) Eze and Neto we would have other issues to fix now. We would have been even shorter at full back (or had a cheap squad option type player). Had we signed Neto we would have that dribbly winger, but also an injury prone expensive player. Had we signed Eze we would have great competition for Maddison, but would he be an effective winger in this system? Similar for most players we could have signed.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
You'd better ask them but they turned down Bayern and Barca respectively for us...so that says something on its own.
I would love to see what the actual quotes are that you are referring to here
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy says stadium costs will not affect transfer spending
Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenhams new stadium will not impact on the clubs ability to operate in the transfer market.
Levy reiterates new Tottenham stadium will not affect transfers
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has assured supporters that the soaring cost of the new stadium will have no impact on the club’s summer transfer plans.
www.standard.co.uk
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy says stadium costs will not affect transfer spending
Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenhams new stadium will not impact on the clubs ability to operate in the transfer market.www.skysports.com
Levy reiterates new Tottenham stadium will not affect transfers
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has assured supporters that the soaring cost of the new stadium will have no impact on the club’s summer transfer plans.
Anything happen after that that may have affected gate receipts?
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy says stadium costs will not affect transfer spending
Daniel Levy says the increased cost of building Tottenhams new stadium will not impact on the clubs ability to operate in the transfer market.
Levy reiterates new Tottenham stadium will not affect transfers
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has assured supporters that the soaring cost of the new stadium will have no impact on the club’s summer transfer plans.
These quotes are from a few months before the summer window in which we bought Ndombele, GLC etc and had a 90m net spend (give or take) since then we've been one of the highest spenders in the league?
Did you mean to post those ones?
Tbf he was lying. Our net spend went up massively.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Nothing that has effected Tottenham and no-one else...
I did mean to post them. To show the intent that was laid out at the time and that right now we can't use stadium cost to explain when we don't "push the boat out" (compared to our competitors).
We may have spent more but that's more down to transfer fees. If we'd have really upped the wages i'm certain we'd have had bought more than one starting player in the summer...rember we have recently removed some very big earners from teh wage bill and we still have the wiggle room of FFP, revenue to wages ratio etc
Mikey10
Jimmy Neighbour
FIFY.
I don't really understand - the stadium has boosted our revenue and in turn the money available for transfers, that is unquestionable, but it still has a cost attached to it which means we aren't as 'rich' as the clubs overall revenue suggests we are or that we're suddenly going to throw money around like Chelsea or City.
As for this :
"We may have spent more but that's more down to transfer fees"
I don't even know where to start with that nugget
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
But we still have to actually pay for the player as well as their wages
We also have a huge transfer debt to pay not helped by not selling anyone in some time